A.T.Fomenko , G.V.

Nosovskiy
HOW IT WAS IN REALITY
CONTENTS
PREFACE.
1) THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED VERSION OF
WORLD HISTORY WAS CREATED ONLY IN THE XVII
CENTURY. IT WAS REFINED UP UNTIL THE XIX
CENTURY. THIS VERSION IS INCORRECT.
2) THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NOTES.
INTRODUCTION.
THE EPOCH BEFORE THE XI CENTURY
CHAPTER 1. EPOCH OF THE XI CENTURY.
1. THE FIRST ROMAN KINGDOM OF THE OLD ROME.
2. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY
CHAPTER 2. EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY.
1. THE SECOND ROME OR THE ROMAIC TSAR-GRAD
EMPIRE. YOROS = JERUSALEM = TROY.
2. BIRTH OF CHRIST IN 1152 AND HIS CRUCIFIXION IN
TSAR-GRAD IN 1185.
3. CAESAREAN SECTION
4. THE BIBLICAL STORY OF THE MAGI REFLECTS
THE ADORATION OF RUS' HORDE TO ANDRONICUS-

CHRIST IN THE XII CENTURY. THE INTRODUCTION

OF CHRISTIANITY TO RUSSIA.
5. THE CRUSADES AS REVENGE FOR CHRIST'S
DEATH.
6. SAVIOUR NOT-MADE-BY-HANDS, SUDARIUM AND
THE TURIN SHROUD.
7. MARK THE EVANGELIST
8. TWO BRANCHES OF THE ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY.
9. TWO WRITING TRADITIONS OF CHRISTIANITY
APOSTOLIC AND ANCESTRAL-ROYAL.
10. WHEN GOLD BECAME MONEY
11. CHRIST WAS BORN IN CRIMEA. IN THE SAME
PLACE MARY MOTHER OF GOD DIED
12. THE HOLY GRAIL IS THE GOLDEN CRADLE OF
CHRIST
13. TO CONCLUDE: CAPE FIOLENT IS THE
BIRTHPLACE OF CHRIST,MOUNTAIN BEYKOZ IS THE
PLACE OF HIS CRUCIFIXION, CHUFUT-KALE IS THE
PLACE OF DEATH AND FIRST BURIAL OF MARY
MOTHER OF GOD.
14. KING ARTHUR
15. HERACLES
16. CHRISTIAN CROSS AND CRESCENT MOON WITH
A STAR
17. THE OLYMPIC GAMES.
18. ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE REFLECTIONS OF
ANDRONICUS-CHRIST = ANDREI BOGOLYUBSKIY WE
HAVE DISCOVERED IN THE SCALIGERIAN HISTORY.
19. FIFTY NINE REFLECTIONS OF VIRGIN MARY =
MARY THE BIRTH GIVER OF GOD

20. THIRTY NINE REFLECTIONS OF JOHN THE

BAPTIST
21. SIXTY ONE REFLECTION OF JUDAS ISCARIOT.
22. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY
CHAPTER 3. THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY
1. THE MIGHTY TROJAN WAR AS A REVENGE FOR
CHRIST. RUSSIA-HORDE LAUNCHES CRUSADES TO
CZAR-GRAD, AND WITHIN A SHORT TIME THE
CENTRE OF THE EMPIRE IS TRANSFERRED TO
VLADIMIR-SUZDAL RUSSIA.
2. THE CRUSADES ADVANCED ON TO JERUSALEM =
CZAR-GRAD NOT FROM THE WEST, AS WE ARE
BEING TOLD TODAY, BUT FROM THE EAST.
3. HELEN OF TROY AND MARY MOTHER OF GOD.
4. THE TROJAN HORSE
5. SCHLIEMANN'S FALSE TROY
6. EXODUS OF TROJANS FROM TROY = CZAR-GRAD
7. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIA AS THE CENTRE
OF A NEW EMPIRE, SUCCESSOR OF THE PREVIOUS
ONE.
8. UNIFICATION OF SLAVIC AND TURK PEOPLES
UNDER THE HORDE RULE.
9. RUSSIA-HORDE BECOMES A POWERFUL EMPIRE.
10. VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF CHRIST = 'ANCIENT'
ROMULUS, DESCRIBED BY LIVY AS LARENTIA, A
WOMAN BY THE NAME OF 'SHE-WOLF'.
11. THE TREE OF JESSE (ESHAI, YISHAI OR YISAY) IN
THE RUSSIAN PRE-ROMANOVS CHURCHES

12. HERE WAS NO FOREIGN 'TATAR-MONGOLIAN'

CONQUEST OF RUSSIA.
13.WHEN THE 'ANCIENT' ECLIPSES TOOK PLACE AND
WHEN THE ASTRONOMICAL ZODIACS-HOROSCOPES
WERE CREATED.
14. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
CHAPTER 4. THE EPOCH OF THE XIV CENTURY
1. THE CREATION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE = RUSSIAHORDE UNDER THE MILITARY, NAMELY THE
HORDIAN RULE
2. THE INVASION OF THE 'MONGOLS' INTO WESTERN
AND SOUTHERN EUROPE, ASIA AND AFRICA. THE
RISE OF THE HORDIAN EMPIRE
3. THE EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE = THE
RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE XIV CENTURY
4. THE EXPANTION OF THE EMPIRE.
5. SCYTHIA WAS CALLED SCOTIA, I.E. SCOTLAND.
6. A WONDERFUL CONSISTENCY IN THE LOCATIONS
OF THE OLD CAPITALS
7. THE STRUCTURE OF THE HORDE EMPIRE
8. FLORENCE, ROME, VATICAN.
9. TIN, COPPER, BRONZE.
10. WHY THE RECURRING NAMES APPEARED ON
THE MAPS OF THE XIV-XVI CC
11. THE RIDDLE OF THE ETRUSCANS
12. ANCIENT EGYPT
13. THE PYRAMIDS AND THE BURIAL MOUNDS
14. EGYPT THE LAND OF CROSSES

15. THE SARCOPHAGI AND THE RUSSIAN DOLLS

16. TUTANKHAMUN AND CZAREVICH DMITRY
17. PHARAOHS' BOATSSTRUGI.
18. CONCRETE AND THE PHILOSOPHERS STONE
19. BAALBEK
20. WHERE AND WHEN ROMAN NUMERALS WERE
INVENTED
21. THE MONASTERIES
22. THE 'CLASSICAL' ABDUCTION OF SABINE WOMEN
23. THE HISTORIANS' PROBLEM: WHY IS KHOLOPII
GOROD SITUATED NEAR YAROSLAVL AND NOT
NEAR VOLKHOVSKII NOVGOROD ON THE
SWAMPLAND?
24. THE TWO BAPTISMS OF RUSSIA
25. ON THE OLD ICONS ON THE HALO OF JESUS
CHRIST THERE IS WRITTEN A DATE DENOTING YEAR
1370 THE EPOCH OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
APOSTLES' CHRISTIANITY
26. 'THE APPEARANCE OF THE CROSS' WHICH
BROUGHT VICTORY TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
AND DMITRY DONSKOY'S VICTORY 'WITH THE AID OF
THE CROSS'. CANNONS ARE 'THE SCHEMAS WITH
CROSSES' IN THE ARMY OF DMITRY DONSKOY
27. WHY THE CHRONICLES MISTOOK A CANNON FOR
A CROSS
28. THE OUTSTANDING CZAR-KHAN CONSTANTINE I
= DMITRY IVANOVICH
29. THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL
30. 'ANCIENT' PERSEUS AND DMITRY DONSKOY.
MEDUSA GORGON IS A FIRE ARM

31. THE BATTLE OF KULIKOVO ON THE PAGES OF

THE OLD TESTAMENT
32. WHAT IS NOAH'S ARK?
33. THE TATARS THE TURKS TORIT' (TO CUT WAY
IN RUSSIAN)
34. THE COSSACKS-ARYANS: FROM RUSSIA TO
INDIA. EPIC MAHABHARATA
35. THIRTY REFLECTIONS OF THE BATTLE OF
KULIKOVO DISCOVERED BY US IN THE 'ANCIENT'
HISTORY
36. TWENTY FIVE REFLECTIONS OF DMITRY
DONSKOY
37. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY
CHAPTER 5. THE EPOCH OF THE XV CENTURY
1. THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE EMPIRE
2. THE RISE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. THE
OTTOMANS, I.E. COSSACK ATAMANS.
3. THE UNION OF THE TWO STATES: RUSSIA-HORDE
AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE=ATAMANIA. THE
BIBLICAL CONQUEST OF THE PROMISED LAND IS
THE HORDE-ATAMAN CONQUEST OF THE XV
CENTURY
4. WESTERN EUROPE UNDER THE RULE OF RUSSIAHORDE AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE-=ATAMANIA.
5. THE BEGINNING OF THE RELIGIOUS SCHISM
6. THE EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE = THE
RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE XV CENTURY.

7. THE 'MONGOL' EMPIRE AND THE FAMOUS

CHRISTIAN KINGDOM OF PRESTER JOHN
8. THE GREAT TRANSMIGRATION OF PEOPLES.
INDIA
9. THE BACCHANALIAN CULT IN THE MEDIAEVAL
WESTERN EUROPE
10. THE INQUISITION IN THE PAGES OF THE BIBLE
11. THE ASTONISHING SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS IN
POMPEII
12. THE 'ANTIQUE' STATUES WITH THE RIPPLING
MUSCLES WERE CREATED NOT EARLIER THAN THE
XVI CENTURY
13. MOSES BEGINS THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST IN
THE XV CENTURY. 'PASSAGE OVER THE SEA' IS THE
PASSAGE OVER THE RIVER ICE.
14. THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST AND AUSTERE
ANICONISM.
15. IRON CHARIOTS, HORNETS AND THE BRAZEN
SERPENT IN THE BIBLE ARE CANNONS
16. THE MEDIAEVAL GEOGRAPHY IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT
17. MOSES AND JOSHUA BEN NUN
18. CONQUEST OF AMERICA BY RUSSIA-HORDE AND
THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE-ATAMANIA IN THE XV
CENTURY. BIBLICAL PATRIARCH NOAH IS
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS.
19. THE BOOK OF MORMON ABOUT THE CONQUEST
OF AMERICA BY NOAH-COLUMBUS
20. THE 'ANCIENT' BOOK POPOL VUH' ABOUT THE
COLONIZATION OF AMERICA IN THE XV-XVI
CENTURIES

21. THE CLOSE TIES BETWEEN 'ANCIENT' AMERICA

AND 'ANCIENT' EURASIA ARE WELL-KNOWN. BUT
THEY BEGAN ONLY IN THE XIV-XV CC
22. MYSTERIOUS CENTRE WHICH THE WAVES OF
THE GLOBAL MIGRATIONS WERE SPREADING FROM
23. THE COLOSSAL DIVISION OF THE WORLD
BETWEEN 'CASTILE' AND 'PORTUGAL'
24. HOW AND WHEN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA WAS
FALSIFIED
25. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS
26. THE KORAN AND THE BIBLE.
27. MEHMED II THE CONQUEROR AND THE PROPHET
MUHAMMAD. YAROSLAVL METEOR OF 1421.
28. THE ARAB CONQUEST.
29. THE BLOODSTAINED RIGHT HAND THE
RELIGIOUS SYMBOL IN ISLAM.
30. JANISSARY.
31. YAROSLAVL METEOR OF 1421 IN THE BIBLE.
32. DAMASK STEEL.
33. THE STONE DEBRIS IS PRESERVED IN THE
MUSLIM KAABA IN MEMORY OF YAROSLAVL
METEOR.
34. THE BIBLICAL TABERNACLE.
35. AYYUB SULTAN.
36. TACITUS AND POGGIO BRACCIOLINI.
37. PLUTARCH AND PETRARCH.
38. APOCALYPSE IS 'THE BOOK OF THE OTTOMAN
CONQUEST'.
39. WHEN DID THE GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES
'SOLIDIFY'.

40. HERODOTUS THE CHRONICLER OF THE

HORDE.
41. THE CLOCK AND ASTRONOMY.
42. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
CHAPTER 6. THE EPOCH OF THE XVI CENTURY.
1. KAZAN = KHAZAR REBELLION IN RUSSIA-HORDE.
2. THE REVOLT-REFORMATION IN WESTERN
EUROPE.
3. RUSSIA-HORDE'S PREPARATION OF THE PUNITIVE
CAMPAIGN TO SUPRESS THE WESTERN
REFORMATION.
4. THE STORY OF ESTHER AND THE OPRICHNINA AS
THE MASSACRE OF THE RULING MILITARY CLASS
OF THE GREAT EMPIRE.
5. THE DETAILS OF THE STORY OF BIBLICAL ESTHER
= HERETIC ELENA VOLOSHANKA AND DMITRYMORDECAI, HER SON.
6. THE ORIGINAL ESTHER IN THE RUSSIAN HISTORY
OF THE XVI CENTURY AND A NUMBER OF HER
STRIKING DUPLICATES IN EARLIER EPOCHS.
7. JUDITH.
8. THE EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE = THE
RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE XVI CENTURY.
9. MOSCOW OF THE XVI CENTURY IS DESCRIBED IN
THE BIBLE AS JERUSALEM IN THE TIMES OF
NEHEMIAH.
10. JERUSALEM IN PALESTINE.
11. THE NEW JERUSALEM OUTSIDE OF MOSCOW.

12. BABYLONIAN EXILE.

13. THE BIBLICAL TEMPLE OF SOLOMON AND HAGIA
SOPHIA IN ISTANBUL.
14. THE AMAZONS.
15. THE CONQUEST OF CENTRAL AMERICA BY
ATAMAN (COSSACK LEADER) YERMAK =
CONQUISTADOR CORTES.
16. YERMAK'S VOYAGE AND CORTES' CAMPAIGN
CORRESPONDENCE SCHEME.
17. THE CHRONICLER OF THE VOYAGE OF YERMAKCORTES.
18. WHY THE AMAZON RIVER WAS NAMED THE
AMAZON. THE ELEPHANTS IN AMERICA.
19. THE CONCLUSIONS. COSSACK - CONQUISTADOR
YERMAK-CORTES.
20. 'THE STORY OF ESTHER' AS ONE OF THE
SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION.
21. ANCIENT HISTORY IS BEING RE-WRITTEN.
22. THE BIBLE.
23. THE STOPPED SUN.
24. WHEN THE SYMBOLS OF THE CONSTELLATION
OF STARS AND THEIR NAMES WERE INVENTED.
25. WHEN AND HOW THE ARABIC NUMERALS WERE
INVENTED.
26. TRACES OF REPOSITIONING SIX INTO FIVE IN
THE OLD DOCUMENTS.
27. THE AMENDMENT OF THE OLD DATES IN THE
XVII CENTURY.
28. SCANDINAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL TREATISES AND
MAPS OF OLD RUSSIA.

29. CATHERINE DE'MEDICI IS A REFLECTION OF THE

RUSSIAN CZARINA SOPHIA PALAIOLOGINA AND
MARY STUART IS A REFLECTION OF ELENA
VOLOSHANKA, I.E. ESTHER.
30. THE LEGENDARY JOAN OF ARC IS DESCRIBED IN
THE BIBLE UNDER THE NAME OF THE PROPHETESS
AND WARRIOR DEBORAH.
31. THE EPOCH OF THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL
DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE IS THE EPOCH OF THE
INQUISITION OF THE XV-XVI CC.
32. THE BIBLICAL ABDUCTION OF THE WOMEN OF
SHILOH IS THE 'ANCIENT' ROMAN RAPE OF THE
SABINE WOMEN. AKA THE CATALAN ABDUCTION
AND DIVISION OF THE WIVES ALLEGEDLY IN THE XVI
CENTURY.
33. HAREM-TEREM )
34. THE BIBLICAL STORY OF SAMSON IS THE BATTLE
OF ZEMSHCHINA AGAINST THE OPRICHNINA IN
RUSSIA UNDER IVAN IV THE TERRIBLE.
35. SEVEN DECEASED WIVES OF BLUEBEARD. THE
ENGLISH KING HENRY THE VIII AND HIS SIX WIVES
ARE THE REFLECTIONS OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE AND
HIS SEVEN WIVES.
36. WHERE AND WHERE ICARUS ASCENDED INTO
THE SKY. THE RELIGIOUS MYSTERY PLAYS.
37. THE ROMAN EMPEROR CLAUDIUS, AKA IVAN THE
TERRIBLE WAS A WRITER. IT TURNS OUT THAT THE
FIRST VERSION OF THE FAMOUS 'LITSEVOI SVOD'
(THE ILLUSTRATED CHRONICLE COMPILATION) WAS
COMPILED UNDER HIM.

38. THE LIGHTHOUSE OF ALEXANDRIA (PHAROS OF

ALEXANDRIA).
39. TACITUS AND SUETONIUS DESCRIBE THE TIMES
OF TROUBLES IN RUSSIA. THE EMPEROR VITELLIUS
IS THE FALSE DMITRY I.
40. MOSCOW OF THE LATE XVI EARLY XVII CC. IS
DESCRIBED BY FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS AS JERUSALEM.
41. DOMITIAN.
42. THE STORY OF IVAN SUSANIN IN THE
BIOGRAPHY OF 'ANCIENT' DOMITIAN, I.E. OF MIKHAIL
ROMANOV.
43. WHY DOMITIAN WAS BURIED AS A 'GLADIATOR'.
WHERE THE GLADIATOR GAMES ORIGINATED FROM.
44. WHAT WE LEARNT ABOUT THE XVI-XVII CC.
FROM THE 'ANCIENT' SOURCES.
45) THE 'MOST ANCIENT' IRANIAN EPIC POEM
SHAHNAMEH IS THE CHRONICLE OF THE GREAT
EMPIRE OF XII-XVII CC.
46) FORTY NINE REFLECTIONS OF IVAN THE
TERRIBLE WHICH WE DISCOVERED IN THE
SCALIGERIAN HISTORY.
47) FOURTEEN REFLECTIONS OF THE LAWFUL WIFE
OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE.
48) THIRTY EIGHT REFLECTIONS OF ELENA
VOLOSHANKA = BIBLICAL ESTHER.
49) ELEVEN REFLECTIONS OF ANDREY KURBSKY.
50) THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
CHAPTER 7. THE EPOCH OF THE XVII CENTURY.

1) THE FAILED ATTEMPT OF THE RESTORATION AND

THE NEW HEIGHT OF THE UNREST. THE ROMANOVS
RISE TO POWER.
2) THE TURNING OF THE ROMANOVS' RUSSIA AND
TURKEY AGAINST EACH OTHER AS THE TWO
HALVES OF THE FORMER EMPIRE.
3) DIPLOMATIC SUCCESS OF THE REFORMATION.
4) BY DISTORTING HISTORY THE WESTERN
CHRONOLOGISTS MOVE THE UNPLEASANT EVENTS
INTO THE PAST.
5) THE LAST EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE =
THE RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE EARLY XVII
CENTURY.
6) THE CROSS AND THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A
STAR.
7) THE DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE AND THE
CRESCENT MOON WITH A STAR-CROSS.
8) THE ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS ON RUSSIAN
WEAPONRY.
9) EVEN IN THE XVII CENTURY THE RUSSIAN TEXTS
WERE SOMETIMES WRITTEN WITH ARABIC
LETTERS.
10) THE RUSSIAN BILINGUAL COINS.
11) THE HORDE EMPIRE BROKE UP.
12) THE ANNIHILATION OF THE CATHARSSCYTHIANS.
13) THE REBELS STRIVE TO PREVENT THE
RESURRECTION OF THE GREAT EMPIRE.
14) HOW THE ROMANOVS DESTROYED THE
HISTORY OF THE HORDE.

15) WHY THE NAME OF 'NOVGOROD' TAKEN AWAY

FROM YAROSLAVL WAS MOVED TO THE NORTHWEST, TO LAKE ILMEN?
16) THE COAT OF ARMS OF THE RUSSIAN-HORDE
EMPIRE OF THE XVI CENTURY.
17) TWELVE CZARDOM - TRIBES IN THE RUSSIAN
COAT OF ARMS OF THE XVI CENTURY ON THE MAP
OF EUROPE.
18) ON THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
19) HOW THE LATER WESTERN EUROPEANS BEGAN
TO DEPICT THE HORDIANS.
20) WHEN THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO DURER
WERE CREATED.
21) THE ALMAGEST BY CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY.
22) THE FLOURISHING, STAGNATION AND REFLOURISHING IN THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY .
23) GEOCENTRISM, OR THE PTOLEMAIC SYSTEM
AND THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM BY TYCHO BRAHE
(AND COPERNICUS).
24) IN THE XIV-XVI CC. EUROPE RESPECTFULLY
'LOOKED UP TO' THE DISTANT AND MIGHTY CZARKHAN OF THE HORDE.
25) WHAT ARE THE 'SEVEN WONDERS OF THE
ANCIENT WORLD' AND WHERE THEY WERE
LOCATED.
26) ABOVE GROUND AND UNDERGROUND MOSCOW
IN THE TIME OF THE ROMANOVS.
27) UNDERGROUND MOSCOW OF THE XVI CENTURY
IS THE FAMOUS EGYPTIAN LABYRINTH DESCRIBED
BY 'ANCIENT' HERODOTUS AND STRABO.

28) WHAT IS 'THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWER

OF BABEL' DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE?
29) THE BOOK OF DANIEL TELLS US THE 'STORY OF
ESTHER' IN RUSSIA-HORDE OF THE XVI CENTURY.
30) GOTHIC CATHEDRALS AND HORDIAN TEMPLES
AND MOSQUES.
31) ONCE MORE ABOUT HERODOTUS.
32) WHEN THE GREAT ITALIAN ARTISTS OF THE
RENAISSANCE LIVED.
33) WHAT SHAKESPEARE REALLY WROTE ABOUT.
34) CALENDAR-ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE
FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA AND CHRIST'S NATIVITY.
35) ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
CHAPTER 8. THE EPOCH OF THE XVIII CENTURY.
1) THE DIVISION OF THE REMAINS OF RUSSIAHORDE BETWEEN THE ROMANOVS AND THE USA,
WHICH OCCURRED IN THE WRECKAGE OF THE
AMERICAN TERRITORIES OF THE EMPIRE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ROMANOVS' VICTORY
OVER 'PUGACHEV'.
2) THE CITIES OF THE URALS OF THE, ALLEGEDLY,
BRONZE ERA ARE THE TRACES OF MOSCOW
TARTARY, I.E. OF THE SIBERIAN AND AMERICAN
STATE OF THE XV-XVIII CC.
3) IT APPEARS THAT 'PUGACHEV' WAS DEFEATED BY
SUVOROV. LATER ON THIS FACT WAS CONCEALED.
4) THE ROMANOVS ENDEAVOURED TO BRING
MOSCOW DOWN.

5) ABOUT THE 'MOST ANCIENT' CHINESE HISTORY.

6) WHEN AND WHY THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA WAS
BUILT.
7) PIEBALD HORDE.
8) ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SOURCES OF THE
PRESENT DAY MONGOLS.
9) JAPAN.
10) THE MAP OF THE GLOBAL HORDE EMPIRE.
11) DIVISION OF THE RELIGIOUS HERITAGE OF THE
EMPIRE.
12) REWRITING AND 'FRAGMENTATION' OF THE
ANCIENT HISTORY.
13) WHY IN THE XVII-XVIII CENTURIES THEY
ADMIRED CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.
14) THE PUBLIC RIDICULE OF SOME SELECTED
BOOKS OF THE HORDIAN BIBLE ORGANISED BY THE
WESTERN REFORMERS WITH THE ROMANOVS.
15) THE RADZIVILL CHRONICLE WAS
TENDENTIOUSLY EDITED.
16) AN OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF BULGARIA.
17) WHERE THE OTTOMANS CAME FROM.
18) ABOUT THE GYPSIES.
19) THE IDEA OF THE GREAT EMPIRE PROVED TO BE
RESILIENT.
20) THE DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE THE SYMBOL OF
THE 'MONGOL' EMPIRE. WHY LATER IT TURNED INTO
THE SINGLE-HEADED EAGLE ON THE WESTERN
EUROPE'S EMBLEMS.
21) IN THE EPOCH OF THE REFORMATION AN IMAGE
OF THE 'SHIP OF FOOLS' WAS CREATED, WHICH ALL

OF EUROPE WAS INDUCED TO LAUGH AT. THE

REFORMERS RIDICULED THE HORDE EMPIRE.
22) HOW THE 'CORRECT ART' WAS CREATED.
23) THE METHOD OF WORD-MATCH BETWEEN THE
LANGUAGES: WE DISCOVER WORDS FROM
DIFFERENT LANGUAGES SIMILAR IN SOUND AND AT
THE SAME TIME SIMILAR IN MEANING.
24) THE SLAVONIC LANGUAGE AND LATIN.
25) THE SAME WORD COULD BE READ IN DIFFERENT
WAYS.
26) PAGANISM.
27) THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
CHAPTER 9. THE EPOCH OF THE XIX CENTURY.
1) CRITIQUE OF SCALIGER'S CHRONOLOGY.
2) EVEN IN THE XVIII 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 XVIII-XIX CC.
3) THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE, THE CASTS OF THE
GREAT EMPIRE, THE MEDIAEVAL JUDAISM.
4) HOW THE EMPIRE WAS RULED.
5) THE FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY IN THE XVII-XVIII
CC.
6) THE CZAR-GRAD KINGDOM OF THE XI-XII CC. AND
THE HORDE EMPIRE OF THE XIII-XVI CC. ARE THE
ARCHETYPES OF ALL THE MAIN 'ANCIENT
KINGDOMS' IN THE SCALIGERIAN HISTORY.

7) 'RUSSIA THE HOMELAND OF ELEPHANTS'.

8) THE GUNPOWDER AND THE CANONS.
9) THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
PREFACE
1. THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED VERSION OF
WORLD HISTORY WAS CREATED ONLY IN THE XVII
CENTURY. IT WAS REFINED UP UNTIL THE XIX
CENTURY. THIS VERSION IS INCORRECT.
The present book occupies a unique place among our
publications on the New Chronology. It was written by
popular demand of our readers. Many people tell us: "You
criticized the currently accepted version of chronology and
the version of the history based on it. You suggested your
dating methods and pointed out many duplicates
(repetitions), considerably 'shortening' the written history
of mankind. Suppose you are right. But then an important
question arises: What happened in reality? Could you
write a 'concise guide' on your new chronology and the
new version of history"?
We fragmentarily outlined our reconstruction several
times. Now, when a vast amount of material has
accumulated, there arrived a moment to put together the
main findings and to reconstruct the actual past. In [1v]
and [2v] we showed that the archaeological and physical
methods of dating which exist today, including the famous
radiocarbon method, are unfortunately poorly suited for
the dating of artefacts 1-2 thousand years old. These

methods produce errors comparable to the age of the

samples.
We will rely on the new chronology which we established
based on the mathematical, empirical and statistical
results presented in the first three books of the
'Chronology' in seven volumes and also in [6v3], ch.2. The
main chronological shifts by approximately 333 years,
1050 years and 1800 years discovered by A.T.Fomenko in
'ancient' and mediaeval history are indicated in the Global
Chronological Map () created by A.T.Fomenko in
1975-1979. The main research on the New Chronology
was carried out by A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy,
V.V.Kalashnikov and T.N.Fomenko.
We do not substantiate our point of view in this book. This
would in fact lead to an actual repetition of everything said
before. That is why we are presenting just a summary of
the reconstruction. To see the evidence please refer to our
previous main books, of which there are 24. These are the
books of the 'first wave', i.e. seven volume 'Chronology'
followed by the 17 books of the 'second wave' which are
sometimes called the 'Golden Series' (due to its golden
cover), i.e. B-1,, B-17, see the Bibliography. The
important materials are also sited on our official website
www.chonologia.org. Many things said in this book are still
a hypothesis.
Here we usually leave out the references to the primary
sources. You can find them in our previous books. We do
not claim to be extremely precise in the suggested dating.
A great deal of work will be required to refine the new

chronology and some hypothesis. That is why we still

reconstruct history just 'by the centuries', i.e. stating the
century of a given event, but without specifying the date
within the century.
We showed that at present there is no proof of the
Scaligerian chronology which is widely accepted today.
Such proof as we state with full authority was never
there and is still absent. Therefore the history of antiquity
should be re-written. We are compelled to take this difficult
task upon ourselves.
The New Chronology started from the creation of the new
mathematical, statistical and astronomical methods of
dating the events described in the old sources. Based on
these methods we reconstructed the correct chronology of
antiquity. This is our main result. Here it would be
appropriate to recall the name of one of the books by
A.T.Fomenko 'THE TRUTH CAN BE COMPUTED'.
Then, based on the new Chronology, we generally
outlined the reconstruction of history up to the XVIII
century inclusively. It was followed by the next stage. They
started asking us: so what IN REALITY did the famous
'classical' authors Herodotus, Thucydides, Titus Livius,
Homer and the others tell us about? When answering the
question we analysed practically all major 'classical' and
mediaeval sources which form the foundation of the
Scaligerian history of the antiquity, the building of which,
as we found out, was rather late in the XVII-XVIII cc.

In particular we thoroughly researched the following texts:

the Bible (both the Old and the New Testaments), Talmud,
Torah, the New and the Old Testaments 'Apocrypha',
Koran, the Book of Mormon, Popol Vuh (the Sacred Book
of the American K'iche Mayan people, Herodotus, Titus
Livius, Claudius Ptolemy, Homer, Gaius Suetonius
Tranquillus, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Marcus Tullius
Cicero, Plutarch, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato,
Aristophanes, Ovid, Polybius, Pausanias, Virgil, Seneca,
Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Ammianus Marcellinus,
Josephus Flavius, The Aggadah (Aramaic tales), Appian
of Alexandria, Apollodorus, Eutropius, Sextus Aurelius
Victor, Aelius Spartianus, Iulius Capitolinus, Aelius
Lampridius, Paulus Orosius, John Malalas, Marco Polo,
Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, the Epic of 'ancient' India
'Mahabharata', the Epic of the 'ancient' Persia
'Shahnameh' (Ferdowsi), the 'ancient' Germanic heroic
verse, the 'ancient' Old Norse Edda 'Elder Edda', Geoffrey
of Monmouth, Nennius, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
Raphael Holinshed, Saxo Grammaticus, The Legend of
King Arthur, The Legends of Alexander the Great, The
Legend of Troy, the old French Legends, some important
Muslim sources, going further Niketas Choniates, Anna
Komnene, Procopius of Caesarea (and some other
Byzantine authors), Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Robert de
Clari, 'The Primary Chronicle' (or 'Tale of Bygone Years')
and the other major Russian chronicles (including the
Siberian chronicles), the Russian epic multivolume 'The
Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible'(Litsevoy Svod)
(not long ago finally published by the Moscow publishing
house Akteon), Mavro Orbini, Philostratus (Life of

Apollonius of Tyana), Iamblichus Chalcidensis, Diogenes

Laertius, Porphyry of Tyre, Bartolom de las Casas,
Bernal Daz del Castillo, the works by some of the Church
Fathers, the old chronological works and tables (Joseph
Juste Scaliger, Dionysius Petavius, Matthew Blastares
and many other) We shall stop this listing and refer our
readers to our books.
We have studied thousands of images: icons, paintings,
drawings, etchings, frescos, mosaics, stained-glass artworks, tapestries, goblins, sculptures, bas-reliefs, gems,
Cameos, coins, the images on the ceramics, enamel work,
etc. Among other things there were discovered several
dozens of the old zodiacs with some transcriptions of
dates. Some of them were earlier unknown. We already
dated over 40 zodiacs using the astronomic method and
the effective computer generated algorithm of data
analysis which we developed. It turned out that all these
'ancient' zodiacal dates fall into the epoch of the XI-XIX cc.
and not at all into the 'distant past'. We actively continue
this important work which greatly contributes to the
'backbone' of the New Chronology.
Here is another benefit of the new reading of the old texts.
For instance, an interesting question: what were the old
traditions in Russia earlier before the XVII century? It is
not so easy to find an answer. As we already understand,
that the chronicles of the Russian history in existence
today were tendentiously edited and are distorting the true
picture before the XVII century. So where should we
derive the required information from? Apparently we

should turn to the 'ancient' sources: Titus Levy, Herodotus,

Tacitus and the others. They tell us a lot about 'Ancient
Rome', i.e., as we showed, about Russia-Horde of the XIIIXVII cc. So this is where we should extract the old
testimonies about the Hordians, who in these sources are
called the 'Ancient Romans' or the 'Ancient Scythians' or
the 'Ancient Egyptians'. Roughly speaking, the 'ancient
Roman' traditions are indeed the ancient Russian
traditions of the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. Incidentally the
very notion of 'nations' and 'nationalities' developed later,
not earlier than the XVI-XVII cc.
But let's get back to our list of the old authors. It turns out
that practically all of these surviving texts and chronicles
(many of them are linked to each other) in fact tell us
about the events of the XI-XVII cc. It was cast back into
the distant (sometimes enormously distant) phantom past
by the incorrect Scaligerian chronology. Miscalculating it
not just by the tens and hundreds, but even by thousands
of years!
At the same time it turned out that there were not that
many primary sources 'on antiquity'. They occupy just a
few selves in the bookcase. And so we shouldn't think that
in order to reconstruct the past a 'great deal' of sources
are required. Apparently about seven - eight dozen is quite
sufficient.
Besides the reputed chroniclers the accounts of the
antiquity were given to us by the distinguished poets,
dramatists and writers. For instance, Homer and Virgil,
whose works proved to be extremely valuable for the

reconstruction of the true history. Or the famous

Shakespeare. The new chronology throws a bright and
unexpected light on their writings. At last we can
understand what in fact these great authors wrote about.
Before proceeding with the reconstruction which greatly
differs from the version of Scaliger-Petavius familiar today
[1v], [2v] we should give a summary of how the
Scaligerian history came about. This was finally clarified
only over the course of our research.
The historical primary sources accessible today which are
published and available in the public archives are the
comprising element of the Scaligerian version and were
created along with it. Notably by way of distortion and
purposeful editing of the truly old documents. The old texts
themselves which gave the correct accounts of the history
were mercilessly destroyed. All of this took place in the
XVII-XVIII cc. over the course of the international
European program of re-writing the ancient and mediaeval
history. What and who was it necessary for, see [6v2],
ch.1. The program had the state support both in Europe
and in Romanov Russia. Then in the XVIII-XIX cc. The
Scaligerian version was integrated in Asia and China.
Based on it the Asian and the Chinese 'ancient'
chronologies were constructed.
PRACTICALLY ALL THE EVENTS DESCRIBED IN THE
OLD EVEN EDITED DOCUMENTS, TOOK PLACE.
ANOTHER QUESTION IS WHERE AND WHEN? This is
where the chronological and geographical confusion
occurred. Also the deliberate distortion led to the

'lengthening of the history'. There were of course some

natural chronological mistakes. But the main role was paid
by the tendentious editing.
In the epoch of the XVII-XVIII cc. to support the imbedded
Scaligerian version nearly all the editions of the works by
the 'classical' Greek and Roman authors, the Mediaeval
chronicles and memoires published today, were
consciously created.
The sources, which accidentally avoided censorship, were
meticulously searched for over the two hundred years and
either destroyed or eliminated from circulation. This also
continued in the XIX century. The perfect example is the
purposeful destruction of the Sulakedzev library [4v2],
v.2:9. In the XIX century, all the more so today, such old
surviving authentic texts were perceived as something
ludicrous, not worthy of serious study. The historians
immediately begin to argue about forgery or the ignorance
of the chronicler.
It is important to understand that today when publishing
the primary sources they undergo whether consciously
or subconsciously a rigorous censorship of them
corresponding to the Scaligerian version. Only the primary
sources which fit the familiar picture are considered to be
'worthy of attention'. As a result only the texts which
underwent the targeted editing of the XVII-XVIII cc. are
introduced into circulation.
WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTLY
DEFINED BOUNDARY IN HISTORY THE FIRST HALF

OF THE XVII CENTURY. We know more or less what

happened after this point, i.e. closer to our time. In any
case, beginning with the end of the XVIII century. But we
have a very poor knowledge of what took place prior to the
middle of the XVII century. This border line appeared
artificially. It is not a result of the natural forgetting the
information. It separates the accurate chronology from the
incorrect one.
Today it is accepted as an axiom that the Scaligerian
version and the true history is the same thing. But it is not
true. The historians who think that they study the 'ancient'
and the mediaeval history in are fact analysing not the
reality, but an artificial world, some fairy-tale phantommirage, created by the historians and editors of the XVIIXVIII cc. Today the historians use the distorted and edited
texts from the XVII-XVIII mistakenly considering them as
the 'authentic ancient primary sources'. The historians are
immersed in a fantasy world, spending their entire
professional life in it. They have no idea that this 'virtual
reality' was concocted by their recent predecessors.
The made up world turned out to be complex, intricate and
at first glance gives the impression of something very solid
and consistent. But it is not so. Unbiased outside
perspective, based on the objective methods of dating,
rather quickly detects all the tell-tale signs of the
sandcastle in the fairy tale construction. Further analysis
results in this building collapsing.
So why today do the historians work in the end only with
those texts and their derivatives which were edited in the

XVII-XVIII cc.? This is the pressure from a certain school

and long standing beliefs. At some point they were
imbedded by force, and now they have grown into the
'accepted facts'.
Of course, it was not possible to destroy all the preScaligerian documents. Some of them must exist even
today. But imagine that the expert on the 'Scaligerian
mirage' came across an authentic document describing for
instance the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. The difference
between the true history of that epoch and its Scaligerian
depiction is so great, that it would be difficult even to
cross-reference this document with the familiar picture. Or
even to understand what it is about. Not to mention that it
would most likely be written with 'obscure hieroglyphs'. As
the 'ancient calligraphy' familiar to us today is in fact the
handwriting of the falsifiers - editors of the XVII-XVIII cc.
Taken that, as a rule this scholar would have never come
across the real handwriting and scripts of the XV-XVI cc.,
not to mention the earlier epochs.
That is why a random old authentic text they might come
across fortuitously would be most likely declared
'unreadable'. Which incidentally, then happens. If they
succeed in reading it they declare it 'a strange fruit of the
mediaeval ignorance'.
The books which are marked as published in the XV-XVI
cc. often turn out to be the XVII-XVIII cc. forgeries with the
year of publication being backdated. Allegedly 'earlier'.
The mass publication of such books in the XVII-XVIII cc.
comprises an important part of the 'substantiation' of the

Scaligerian version. The authentic books of the XV-XVI cc.

were condemned and destroyed.
Many genuine official documents of Western Europe of the
XVI century issued by the Imperial Hordian chancery were
written, as we understand it now, in Slavic. Many books
published then in the Western Europe were also Slavonic
[6v1], ch.2. Incidentally, the fact of the wide publication of
the Slavonic books in the XVI century Europe is known to
the experts. In that epoch Slavonic was the international
language. Later 'ancient' Latin was created on its
foundation [7v2].
The transition from the Slavonic language to Latin as the
international language in Europe took place only after the
collapse of the Great Empire at the end of the XVI-XVII cc.
Most likely Latin in its developed 'ancient' state emerged
only in the XVI-XVII cc. That is why all the 'ancient' Latin
texts, in the best case scenario, are the translations into
the Latin designated as the 'ancient' language, carried out
in the epoch of the XVI-XVIII cc. The Scaligerian version
was immediately introduced into such translations.
The same can be said about the 'ancient' Greek language.
It was also created together with all the 'ancient' Greek
literature in the epoch of the XVI-XVIII cc. The 'ancient
Greek primary sources' were immediately written,
translated and edited in this language. The genuine
ancient language is probably the Middle Greek, the
Byzantine Greek. It's not a coincidence that it differs from
the Modern Greek language, unlike the 'Ancient' Greek
which is close to the Modern Greek. All the 'classical

Greek' literature is also heavily edited XVI-XVIII cc.

translations of the old texts into the recently invented
'classical' language.
The invention of the Scaligerian version of history was a
consequence of the major political reconstruction of the
world in the late XVI-early XVII cc. Following the collapse
of the 'Mongol' Empire the new autonomous small states
emerged from its fragments. The former imperial
governors became the independent sovereigns. At first
they feared the return of the old 'Mongol' order. That is
why they strived to create the 'long standing ancient roots'
of their authority in the historical past. The main purpose
of the new historical version by Scaliger and Petavius was
to distort the history of the XIV-XVI cc.in the required
direction. It was falsified intentionally.
Only now we begin to understand the scale of the Global
program of the XVII century of creating the fictitious history
of the past. We should not be surprised at the coordination
of action on falsifying history between different countries.
Until the end of the XVI century nearly all the European
and Asian countries were a part of the one united Empire.
That is why all the governors were from one circle of
imperial officials. At first, after the collapse of the Empire
the ties between its former provinces were still strong.
Just the beginning of the 'historical reform' falls at the end
of the XVI century. The main falsification, including the
creation of the 'ancient sources' was carried out in the
XVII-XVIII cc, when the Empire had already collapsed. I.e.
after the Time of Troubles in Russia and the Romanovs'

victory over Stepan Razin. There was also a lot done in

this direction in the end of the XVIII century, particularly
after the Romanovs' victory over Yemelyan 'Pugachev' in
the war of the 1773-1775. ONLY BEGINNING WITH THE
XIX CENTURY THE SCALIGERIAN VERSION OF
HISTORY ACQUIRED ITS PRESENT DAY FORM.
To clarify, today we use an established 'new era'
chronology. However, we should treat it only as a purely
notional timeline. One of many possible. As it becomes
clear, in the 'beginning of the new era', i.e. circa 2010
years ago, no significant event, the accounts of which
survived, ever took place. Moreover, no data whatsoever
survives from that distant epoch. More specifically it is
incorrect to call this era as the Christian era, as we do
today. As according to our results the Nativity of Christ
took place nearly a thousand years later. Namely in the XII
century according to the conditional 'new era'.
Usually, when formulating our hypothesis, we always use
the words 'possibly', 'likely', etc. But as this book is entirely
dedicated to our reconstruction we will not all the time
repeat these words while constantly implying them. We do
not insist on some of our observations. We would like you
to remember this. As our reconstruction is unfamiliar to
many readers, we sometimes repeat some of our
conclusions for the better absorption.
IN VARIOUS ANCIENT TEXTS THE WORDS WERE
WRITTEN DOWN USING ONLY CONSONANTS,
WITHOUT VOWELS. Please see the details in the book
by A.T.Fomenko [1v], ch.1:8. The vowels appeared later

and pinpointed only one of many possible variants of the

reading of the words. First of all it concerns the proper
nouns and led to the significant ambiguity in the reading of
the old names, geographical names etc. In the old text
there was also no breakdown into separate words.
Besides there could be confusion between the sounds L
and R, F and T, B and V, etc. The Old Slavonic had
multiple omissions of vowels and besides, it didn't have
the separation into words. The 'Ancient' Egyptian texts
were also written with the consonants only. 'The names of
the (Egyptian Author) kings are given (in the modern
literature Author) in their conditional, ENTIRELY
FREEFORM, so called CLASSROOM delivery
customarily accepted in the textbooks These forms
often significantly differ from each other and it is not
possible to regulate them in any way, as they are all the
result of the ARBITRARY READING (! Author), which
became traditional' [72], p.176. Also 'the Hebrew written
language originally had neither vowels, nor any other
symbols replacing them The Books of the Old
Testament were written using only consonants' [765],
p.155.
We were able to discover the 'parallels' between the
events within the different periods of the 'ancient' history
only thanks to the new chronology. Without it, it would
have been impossible to understand who should be
compared to whom and what should be compared to
what? The bulk of the material is so vast, that it is
practically impossible to fumble for the right parallels in it
at random. But now, when we have reconstructed the

chronological 'framework of history', a wonderful

opportunity opens up to enrich this formal result with the
'content of the events'. This is the exact way to treat the
'biographical' matches which we present. They are not the
strict proof on their own per se. But they logically arise
from the new chronology established via the mathematical
methods. First we calculate the dates and only then,
based on them, read the old documents anew and begin
to see the true essence. The fact is that the dates of the
events strongly define the interpretation of history and
allow us now to choose the correct interpretation of the
sources from many possible ones.
2. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NOTES.
Today the word 'antiquity' is usually associated with the
events earlier than the V century A.D., for instance. 'Deep
antiquity' is earlier than, let's say, the X century B.C.
'Deepest antiquity' is as far back as the II millennium B.C.
The custom, widely accepted today, for this particular time
scale is one of the serious psychological obstructions in
the way of the perception of the new short chronology. But
this psychological interpretation of the word 'antiquity',
which became familiar today, didn't appear all on its own.
And not so long ago. It is a result of the artificial imbedding
of the extremely prolonged chronology over the last 300
years. The very idea of the 'extremely long written history'
lay on the fertile ground of the natural human respect
towards the clan's remembrance of their own genealogical
tree. You can understand the feelings of the people
striving to glance into the distant past of their ancestors.

The further they can see the higher is their personal selfesteem.
The new chronology dictates a different psychological
picture of the perception of the past. Now the word
'antiquity' should be corresponding with the XV-XVII cc,
i.e. with the events distant from us by 300-400 years. The
expression 'high antiquity' means the XI-XII cc. EARLIER
THE X-XI CC. COMES THE EPOCH OF THE SILENCE
OF THE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS. No written evidence
from those times whether on paper, parchment, papyrus
or the stones has survived. Thus the words 'antiquity',
'high antiquity' and 'extreme antiquity' stay in our lexicon.
However they are imbued with a different meaning. These
epochs are becoming significantly closer to us and the
time scale greatly decreased. We should accept that
based on the written sources we are able to peer into the
past not as far as we thought we could yesterday. But
everything we saw yesterday is visible today. Only closer.
To conclude: based on the mathematical and astronomical
methods we have put forward, it is shown that the
Scaligerian chronology and history are fundamentally
wrong. History up until the beginning of the XVII century
was falsified in the epoch of the XVII-XVIII cc. The
falsification was accompanied with the search and
annihilation of the documents which provided the true
accounts of the past. Primarily it concerned the XV-XVI
cc., the memory of which was destroyed with particular
thoroughness. These activities relentlessly continued for
nearly two hundred years. This is a sufficient amount of

time to destroy all the major texts which could have told
the truth. Therefore we cannot expect that some detailed
factual chronicle written by an eyewitness of the events of
the XVI century would fall into our hands.
Therefore the 'small details', the scraps of truth that were
not cleared out and accidentally survived acquire a special
importance. And taken together they allow us to restore
the truth. The study of the Scaligerian history can be
compared to the work of a detective exposing a criminal
who had invented a plausible legend and took care of his
alibi. That is why it is necessary to at first search for the
true picture in the little things, which escaped the attention
of the criminal, who was covering up his tracks. As it is
difficult to take into account all the details when inventing a
false version. And the experienced detective 'digs them
up'. Getting hold of pieces of evidence gradually 'unfolds'
all the circumstances of the crime.
We express our gratitude to T.N.Fomenko the co-author
of much our research on the chronology. We co-wrote a
number of books with T.N.Fomenko.
A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovsky
Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow State University.
INTRODUCTION
THE EPOCH BEFORE THE XI CENTURY
This section is very short. There is no information in
surviving written sources about any events prior to the XI
century. There was no writing at that time. It appeared

only in the X-XI cc. According to Scaliger's history writing

originated in ancient antiquity allegedly well before "the
beginning of A.D."
In reality THE WRITTEN HISTORY of mankind first
emerges from the gloom only in the X-XI cc. All surviving
ancient documents, including those attributed to "deep
antiquity", in reality describe the events of the XI-XVII cc.
Many of them were forcibly consigned to the distant past
by the erroneous chronology of Scaliger-Petavius.
The epoch prior to the XI century should be envisioned as
"primeval", the dawn of civilization. Primitive tools from
those times have survived to this day and are exhibited in
museums and galleries dedicated to early man, who
allegedly lived many-many centuries and even millennia
B.C. Pottery fragments, bones, flint tools, stone knives and
axes, scrapers, ashes of cave fires, bone and stone arrowheads and spear-heads, ornaments made of mammoth
bones and teeth of predators. It is these galleries of the
modern museums that give us an accurate indication on
human life up to the X-XI cc. During that time people still
dwelt in caves and dug-outs. They didn't yet possess the
know-how to build any significant structures, let alone any
buildings of wood or stone.
But we shouldn't assume that the stone and bone
implements and everyday objects became obsolete during
the XI century. In reality they existed and were widely
used significantly later, up until the XV-XVI cc. For
example, in the XVI century the Germans came to build
the Moscow Kremlin with their STONE AXES, which

contemporary German historians tentatively date to the II

century B.C., fig.1 [] ch.10:4. Thus the stone tools
coexisted with the metal ones up until the XVI century.
The construction of the Moscow Kremlin is dated by the
historians as the end of the XV century, but in the New
Chronology it is attributed to the second half of the XVI
century.
It turns out that all such axes and there are quite a few in
Germany are currently dated by the archaeologists to
the deepest antiquity, the first half of the II century B.C.
The scientists' and archaeologists' view, that the stone
tools found in Europe are exclusively tools of the
prehistoric time, is flawed. As we can see the Germans in
the XV-XVI cc. AD were still heavily reliant on the use of
stone axes.
This incidentally implies a simple solution to a famous
historical puzzle: how did the allegedly ancient cave
people manage to make the round or oval holes of a
REGULAR SHAPE in the stone tools? Here for example is
'most ancient' stone axe in the Ohrid archaeological
museum in Macedonia [] ch.10:4. A deep oblong hole
with the even vertical walls was made from a hard stone.
Could a cave man, who didn't have any tools make such a
thing? Surely you cannot achieve such a regular shaped
hole by simply scraping one stone against the other by
hand. However now, when we understand, that the stone
tools were used up until the XVI century everything fits
together. The holes in the stone axes could be made using
the mechanisms with rotating drills. Which could have

been diamond-tipped for example. Or simply made out of

hard rock.
Another example. We are told that in Russia, in 'Ancient'
Rome and in England they were writing on birch-bark and
it was a very-very long time ago. In fact, as it turns out, the
birch-bark letters were in use up until the XIX century and
in some places even until the XX century. The thing is that
up until the XX century paper was not cheap. The birchbark, particularly in the North, was much cheaper [4v1],
ch.3:11-12. Thus, 'antiquity' becomes considerably closer
to our time.
Contemporary textbooks tell us in a lot of detail about
people's lives in the epoch allegedly earlier than the X
century. Let us remember some 'ancient' cultures.
The legendary 'Sumerians'. The 'most ancient' civilizations
of Mesopotamia and America. The powerful pharaohs of
Egypt. The Trojan Kingdom and the notorious Trojan war
of the allegedly XIII century B.C., lyricized by the blind
poet Homer. The enlightened 'ancient' China. The mighty
Etruscans. The great 'Ancient' Greek civilization. Even
more 'Ancient' Rome which evolved from the Etruscan
civilization. 'Ancient' Carthage and its wars with the mighty
Rome. Mysterious 'ancient' India with its treasures. The
mighty Early and Mediaeval Arab Caliphates. The 'earliest'
Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judaea. The 'ancient'
Assyria, Syria and Persia. The Mediaeval European feudal
lords in their mighty gloomy castles.

All of this, they tell us, existed before the X century A.D. It
is not true. All of this did exist, BUT IN A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT EPOCH, AND MOREOVER OFTEN IN A
DIFFERENT LOCATION. More specifically, after the X
century A.D. I.e. in the last millennium. In other words, the
dates of all the events of the 'classical antiquity' should be
corrected, moved upwards to their true places in the
interval between the X and the XVII cc.
Where were the first settlements situated before the X
century? Presumably at first the majority of people lived in
a warm zone, not far from the equator. In particular in the
Mediterranean, India and Central America. The climate
there was equable, there were a lot of fruit-bearing plants
and enough drinking water. This promoted the fast
procreation of people. There was enough food, there were
no cold winters and it was easy to build dwellings. There
were neither climate contrasts, nor substantial
temperature differences.
But the rampant procreation could not last forever. Soon 'it
became too congested'. The intertribal conflicts began, as
well as the struggle for territory and food. A part of the
population was driven out to the North and to the South.
Having found themselves in the midland the people
discovered that the climate there was much more severe.
The winters were cold. Noticeably less food. It was
necessary to build dwellings to survive in the bitter winter
cold. The weak migrants perished, but those who survived
did so only because they managed to adapt. The load on
the intellect increased, it was necessary to create house

building methods, agricultural tools and equipment for

hunting and navigation on the rivers and the sea, etc.
In other words these people were compelled to develop a
civilisation. Over the course of time the descendants of the
first wave of migrants, having adapted to the new
environment, created their own cultural centres, and after
reproducing in large enough quantities began to widen the
zone of their habitat. The colonization had begun, but on a
higher technological level. It is possible, that is how the
epoch of the XIII-XIV cc. began. But we'll talk about it later.
And now let us go back in time.
To conclude, the epoch before than the XI century is
immersed in darkness due to the virtually total absence of
any surviving documents of that time. We will repeat that
only in the X-XI cc. for the first time there was conceived
the very idea of written language. Possibly, in Ancient
Egypt originally in a form of hieroglyphs-pictures. The
recording of thoughts in this way is primary, and only later
evolved into the more contemporary forms.
Chapter 1.
EPOCH OF THE XI CENTURY.
1. THE FIRST ROMAN KINGDOM OF THE OLD ROME.
This chapter is also brief, as very little data has survived. It
appears that in the Mediterranean in the era of X-XI cc. a
Kingdom emerged, which could provisionally be called
Romaic or Roman, or 'The First Rome'. Its first capital was
a city in the fertile Nile Valley in African Egypt. Here

farming developed rapidly in order to feed the large

population. Sciences and the first technologies originated
here. Very little written evidence about this first Kingdom
has survived.
It is possible that in addition to that Egypt was one of the
main religious centres of both Romea of XI-XIII cc. and
after that The Great='Mongol' Empire of XIV-XVI centuries.
It was the focal point for the cult of the dead. Maybe this
originated due to observations the ancient people made:
that in that area, - due to the hot and dry climate, - a
corpse left in the burning hot sand would not decompose.
Hence they decided that this area would be most suitable
as a burial site.
The capital of the ancient African Kingdom was not far
from the mouth of the Nile and today is called Alexandria.
It was here that the first writing originated in the form of
hieroglyphs, i.e. 'writing with symbols'. It is probable that
this method of communication and transmission of
thoughts was the first to appear. If a person wanted to
communicate something to others, he would draw a
variety of symbols representing different things.
There were as yet no monumental structures as we know
them today in African Egypt - pyramids, sphinxes, temples
or obelisks. They were to appear significantly later, in the
epoch of the XI-XVI cc., when in African Egypt an imperial
cemetery was founded for the czars-khans of Romea, and
later of the Great ('Mongol') Russian-Horde Empire. The
deceased czars-khans of the Great Empire and other
important high ranking people were brought here. They

were buried in luxurious tombs, sometimes with a large

amount of gold and jewels.
Prior to a long transportation their bodies were embalmed
to prevent decomposition during the journey. See an
image from the 'ancient'- Egyptian 'Book of the Dead',
fig.2. It is possible that depicted here is ferrying of the
dead across 'River Styx', i.e. Mediterranean Sea. 'Ancient'
Greek myths tell us about Charon, the ferryman of the
dead, who carried the deceased on his boat across the
River Styx into the Kingdom of the Underworld, that is, as
we understand it now, - to the Nile Valley, Egypt. The
name Charon probably originated from the Russian word
CHORNIU, CHORONIT (which means 'to bury'
translator's note) [5v2], ch.7.
The extent of the burial construction in Egypt itself shows
that the Nile's estuary became a part of the gigantic and
powerful empire, which established its royal cemetery
here. Oblivious to this scientists were compelled to paint a
fantastic picture of 'ancient' Egyptians whose main if not
exclusive occupation was purportedly the burial of their
LOCAL pharaohs. This being true the volume of valuables
(gold, etc.) which was buried here was supposedly only
amounted to a fraction of the state treasury.
In the XI century the Kingdom's metropolis moved to the
Bosporus, where in a strategically advantageous location
the narrowest part of the Bosporus emerged a city of
Yoros (Jerusalem), aka Czar-Grad (City of the Czar
translator's note), aka Troy, approximately 30 kilometres
north of modern Istanbul. It is here that the imposing ruins

of this city and a fortress called Yoros survive to this day.

Later, in the XIII-XIV cc, the Kingdom's capital moved
slightly south, where a new city emerged under the same
name of Jerusalem. Over the course of time it was called
Constantinople, and later Istanbul. The name of
Jerusalem was floating and at different times was applied
to different cities.
Various provinces, fema districts, were part of Romaic
Kingdom. Rus (Russia) was one of them, and it was the
largest, fig.3.
In the era of the X-XI cc. for the first time Paschal cycle
was calculated [6v3], ch.2. The first ecclesiastical calendar
was created. Astronomy emerges, first intended to serve
the ecclesiastical calendar and to observe seasonal
changes in weather and climate.
We will show you astronomical dates of the early zodiacs
calculated by us, which fall within the era of the XI century.
Sometimes there are different solutions arising within the
later epochs.
We would like to clarify that a horoscope is the position of
the planets in a constellation. For example, Mars in
Virgo, Saturn in Pisces, etc. The horoscopes are
calculated in the following way: having located the position
of the planets in their constellation at a certain moment in
time, for example today, and knowing the numerical
value of planets' orbit periods around the Sun, by plotting
backwards or forwards whole multiples of these periods,
you can obtain the positions of the planets in their

constellation in the past and in the future. Currently there

are computer programs which allow us to date horoscopes
found in the ancient manuscripts, frescos, paintings,
tombs, etc. We have created a program HOROS
() designed specifically for the analyses of the
ancient zodiacs and horoscopes which fully utilise all the
astronomical data recorded in them (the principal
horoscope, additional auxiliary horoscopes and so on.)
[]
2. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY
1. (Years 969 or 1206) ZODIAC SP FROM THE TOMB
OF PHARAOH SETI I. A coloured fresco on the arch of
the burial chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the
Kings, allegedly 'deep antiquity'. In fact the first variant:
14-16 August 969; the second variant: 5-7 August 1206
[] and [3v2].
2. (Years 1007 or 1186) ZODIAC OF MITHRA OF
GEDDERNHEIM. It is depicted on stone tablet, bas-relief.
Europe, Germany, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first
variant: 14-15 October 1007; the second variant: 14-15
October 1186 []
3. (Year 1007) THE FIRST ZODIAC SN FROM THE
TOMB OF SENEMUT. It is depicted on the arches of the
tomb, but not in the burial chamber itself. 'Ancient' Egypt,
Luxor, allegedly 'deep antiquity'. In fact: 14-16 June 1007
[].

4. (Year 1007) ZODIAC OF MITHRA OF APULUM. It is

depicted on the stone tablet, bas-relief. Europe, Dacia,
allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 14-16 August 1007 [].
5. (Year 1007) ZODIAC MT ON THE METTERNICH
STELA. It is depicted on the stone tablet found in
Alexandria. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'deep antiquity'. In
fact: 14-16 August 1007. See []
6. (Years 1071, 1189 or 1308) CONCISE ZODIAC KZ.
Stone bas-relief on the ceiling of the temple in the city of
Erment. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact - first
variant: 15-16 May 1071; second variant: 30-31 May 1189.
Third variant: 6-8 May 1308 [].
7. Ptolemy's STAR CATALOGUE "Almagest", allegedly
'antiquity'. In fact: approximately not earlier than XI century
[3v1].
Chapter 2.
EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY.
1. THE SECOND ROME OR THE ROMAIC TSAR-GRAD
EMPIRE. YOROS = JERUSALEM = TROY.
As afore mentioned, the most ancient Kingdom, of which
survive only the vaguest of records, is The Ancient First
Rome or Old Rome in the Nile Valley. In the Scaliger's
version of history, which was created in the XVII century,
there was a kingdom in the Nile Valley which was called
Egypt. This seems to be incorrect. The original Biblical
Egypt bears no relation to this kingdom. The 'Egypt' of the

Old Testament Pentateuch is in fact the Rus'-Horde (the

Russian-Horde Empire) of XIV-XVI cc. [6v1], ch.4. But
hereafter the Biblical name Egypt=Gypt=Kipchak was
ascribed to Africa and attributed to a truly ancient Kingdom
in the Nile Valley. This resulted in confusion.
In the X-XI cc. the capital of this Kingdom moves to the
city of Yoros on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus. We
will provisionally call it The Second Rome. Aka Jerusalem
of the Gospels, aka 'ancient' Troy. Then the capital moved
to Rus', to Yaroslavl Veliky Novgorod, aka 'ancient'
Rome. This in total was The Third Rome, which the
majority of 'ancient authors' consider to be the first
disregarding the previous incarnations. After a while the
capital of the Empire returned to Bosphorus, but not to its
former location, it moved to the other side of Bosphorus, to
its European shore, not its Asiatic shore. It was there that
medieval Constantinople emerged, aka medieval TsarGrad of the end of XIV-XV cc., subsequently - Turkish
(Ottoman) Istanbul. Overall it was The Fourth Rome, or in
a shorter count the second. As we know Moscow was
subsequently called the Third Rome (according to the
short count). In some old texts Tsar-Grad was referred to
as Kiev. That is why some of the significant historical
events in 'Kiev' in fact unfolded in Tsar-Grad on the
Bosphorus.
To summarise, 1st Rome: the Nile Valley (Alexandria,
Cairo); 2nd Rome: Yoros = Jerusalem = Troy; 3rd Rome:
Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' = Veliky Novgorod (Yaroslavl,

Vladimir) = Rome of Enei-Rurik; 4th Rome;

Constantinople; 5th Rome: Moscow.
But when in the XVI century Romes were counted, where
Moscow was numbered as the Third Rome (and not the
Fifth), they have clearly started counting not from the deep
antiquity of African Egypt, but from Rome of Enei-Rurik,
i.e. from Yaroslavl, from the Empire of the great conquest
epoch: Veliky Novgorod First Rome, Constantinople
Second Rome, Moscow Third Rome. Hereafter the
historians replaced Veliky Novgorod with Rome in Italy
and the present picture panned was formed.
To repeat: the original Biblical Jerusalem (the city of
Yoros) is situated on the eastern, Asiatic shore of
Bosphorus, closer to the Black Sea, very near to the
Beykoz mountain (Golgotha) []
In 2006 in front of the entrance to the Yoros fortress there
remained to this day a shield bearing a name: Fortress
Yoros in Turkish: Yoros kalesi [], ch.3. It is notable
that you come across this name literally every step in the
immediate vicinity of the fortress. For example, a street
leading to the fortress, a restaurant situated close to the
fortress, etc.- all bear the name Fortress Yoros. But
YOROS (IOROS) is a simple abbreviation of
JEROSALEM. By the way, in Latin this word is also
spelled with an 'o' - Hierosolyma.
Fig.4 shows an old painting, apparently from the XVIII-XIX
cc., depicting the Turks resting on Beykoz mountain close
to 'the grave of holy Jesus (Yusha or Yusa)'. The
undoubtable focal point of the whole composition is the

picturesque remains of an imposing age-old fortress. It

stands on the very shore of the Bosphorus on a hill next to
Beykoz. The impressive ruins of the old Yoros fortress
survive to this day [], ch.3.
Thus the Turkish name of this old fortress on the
Bosphorus - Yoros (Ioros), precisely corresponds with the
first half of the word IEROSALIM in its old pre-reform
spelling. Moreover this fortress is located PRECISELY in
the very place where the Biblical Jerusalem was supposed
to be situated according to our research.
The fortifications of Yoros, the remains of which are visible
today, were built in 1261 A.D. In fact, the distance from
Yoros-Jerusalem to the top of Beykoz-Golgotha is about
two hours walk, which corresponds well with the Gospels.
Surprisingly we could not find the name of 'Yoros' in the
Bosphorus on any modern map which we have seen. On
many maps the Yoros Fortress is not marked at all,
despite its imposing size. On other maps it is marked
under completely different names, not at all resembling the
word 'Ierosalim'. However, when we asked an
archaeologist from Istanbul if he knew of the fortress
Yoros outside Istanbul, he replied that yes, he knew it, and
that this old Christian fortress is well known to the regional
historians and locals. It turns out that historians
cartographers are attempting to conceal important
information, which can cause 'awkward' questions or plant
the seeds of doubt about the validity of Scaliger's version
of history.

We discovered that the same city on the Asiatic shore of

the Bosphorus (at its Northern exit into the Black Sea) was
called by a number of names: 1) Yoros, i.e. Jerusalem. 2)
Chrisople, i.e. City of Christ (City of Gold). 3) P+Christo
(PChristo), meaning quite clearly: City of Christ (Polis +
Christo). 4) Sanctuary of the god Jupiter (Zeus), sending
fair winds. 5) Simply 'Sanctuary'. We see one of these
names on the old maps. [] ch.4:1.
Incidentally it is interesting to look carefully at the
representation of the crucifixion. It appears that in many
paintings, icons and frescoes Christ's crucifixion is shown
with a background of either a big sea strait or a wide river.
Besides the artists were painting in particular either a strait
or a river, but by no means a sea, fig.5. So, by depicting
water, the opposite shore was always shown [5v1], ch.14.
As we understand it now, it could not have been
otherwise, as the Beykoz mountain is situated right on the
shore of the wide Bosphorus. From there can be seen
very clearly the European shore of the strait, where the
centre of Constantinople is situated, which could have
been also considered the Biblical Jerusalem later on,
when the capital was relocated here from the city-fortress
Yoros. Any artist, had a more or less accurate recollection
of the original story, would have depicted the Bosphorus
strait as a significant part of the landscape, which served
as a backdrop to the site of Christ's crucifixion.
The strategic location of Yoros-Jerusalem is ideal. It
controlled the narrowest part of the Bosphorus close to the
entrance into the Black Sea. Subsequently, it is

conceivable, that at the end of the XIV century, during the

relocation of the Empire's capital from Ancient Rome (i.e.
Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' of the XIII-XIV cc.) to New Rome =
Constantinople by Dmitriy Donskoy=Constantine the
Great, the location of the new capital was slightly moved in
relation to ancient Troy-Jerusalem-Yoros towards the
Marble Sea and relocated it to the European shore of the
Bosphorus, where there was a flatter terrain [KR] .
But let's go back to the XII century. The power of Romea
in the XI-XII cc. spreads over many regions in the West
and the East, where the femas-provinces of Tsar-Grad are
located. Generally speaking each fema was an
independent state formation, but was headed by a Romaic
legate - a king, a tsar or a duke. He was a vassal of
Biblical Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad (Yoros) in the Bosphorus.
Among such femas-provinces were: African Egypt, Rus'Horde, territories of Western Europe, where consequently
(in the XVI-XVII cc.) there would emerge Germany, Italy,
England and Spain, etc. The subordination of these femas
to the imperial centre was reasonably flexible. One of the
characteristics of such vassal state was the payment of
tax to Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad (Yoros). Besides, starting in
the end of the XII century, the femas were united by
shared Christian religion. Tsar-Grad universally
recognized as the religious centre of the Kingdom as a
whole. It could be that the word 'fema' or 'TEMA' has a
connection with a Horde-Tatar word 'Tumen', i.e. a
Russian word 'T'MA', which denoted a military unit (t'ma =
many).

Independent local history in femas was hardly recorded.

Meanwhile chronicles are being written only in Tsar-Grad,
as the capital of the Kingdom. They mainly reflect the
events which interested Jerusalem=Troy in the Bosphorus.
Copies of these chronicles sometimes emerge in some of
the Romaic femas-provinces. But these texts mainly tell us
about the events in the metropolis. And only fleetingly
about local events.
Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad (Yoros) in the Bosphorus in the XIXII cc. was the capital of a strong Romaic Kingdom. We
should also note the brilliant strategic position of the later
Istanbul as well, its formidable defences. The gigantic
walls of Constantinople, which in places have several
rows, were repeatedly rebuilt and reinforced [5v].Its
impressive remains survive intact) to this day.
2. BIRTH OF CHRIST IN 1152 AND HIS CRUICIFICTION
IN TSAR-GRAD IN 1185.
In the XII century significant events take place, as
described in the Gospels: the coming of Jesus Christ, his
life and crucifixion, although the existing text of the
Gospels was edited and most likely dates to the XIV-XV
cc.
In the mid XII century, in the year 1152, Jesus Christ is
born. In secular Byzantine history he is known as Emperor
Andronicus and St. Andrew the Apostle the First-Called.In
Russian history he was portrayed as the Great Prince
Andrey Bogolyubsky. To be more specific, Andrey
Bogolyubsky is a chronicular counterpart of AndronicusChrist during his stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus of the XII

century, where he spent most of his life. In fact the Star of

Bethlehem blazed in the middle of the XII century. This
gives us an absolute astronomical dating of Christs Life.
[], ch.1. Star of Bethlehem is an explosion of a
supernova, which at present is incorrectly dated to the
middle of the XI century. The present-day Crab Nebula in
the Taurus Constellation is the remnant of this explosion.
[TsOS]
Could there be such a date amidst the absolute
astronomic dating, which would accurately correspond to
the crucifixion of Christ at the end of the XII century? After
all, it is entirely possible that such a significant event
would be immortalised in some astronomical image, lets
say on a zodiac with a horoscope. For example, in
Ancient Egypt, near the Empire tsars burial ground. Let
us turn to the results for the dating of the ancientEgyptian zodiacs which we have previously calculated.
You will recall, that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ took
place during the days of Jewish Passover, not long from
the first vernal full moon.>
CONCLUSION. Among the zodiacs dated by us, there is
one, which gives the exact date of the Jewish Passover =
the date of the first day of the vernal full moon. We are
referring to a famous Circular Denderah zodiac or, as it is
also called, Osiris Zodiac, fig.6. This Zodiac gives us the
date of the Passover the morning of the 20th March
1185, and perfectly corresponds with the date of
crucifixion of Jesus Christ in year 1185 [], ch.1.
Besides, the date of the Circular Zodiac corresponds well

with the dating of the Star of Bethlehem, which appeared

approximately around year 1150, as it allows for Christs
age to be approximately 33 years.
In fact Osiris Zodiac means Zodiac of Christ, as,
according to our research, the ancient-Egyptian god
Osiris represented Jesus Christ. [5v], [].>
The Virgin Mary, the mother of Andronicus-Christ, was
originally from Rus. Its no coincidence that in the ancient
documents Rus was sometimes referred to as the House
of Holy Mother of God. Afterwards Mary lived in Tsar-Grad
= ancient Troy. Andronicus-Christ and Mary spent a lot of
time in Rus. They fled there, i.e. return to their
motherland, escaping persecution in Tsar-Grad. This
event was described in the Gospels as the Escape of the
Holy Family from King Herod to Egypt.
Biblical Egypt, - aka Egypt of the ancient pharaohs is
Rus-Horde of the XIII-XVI cc. In a well-known Gospel
story, the details of Christs life after the escape to Egypt,
up to his return Jerusalem at the age of approximately 30
years old, are enshrouded in mystery. Most likely, the
significant part of that time Andronicus-Christ and his
mother spent in Rus. Besides, the name India referred to
the whole of Rus-Horde, and not just to the territory of
modern Hindustan. It is possible that this is reason why
some of the medieval texts, which are today deemed
apocryphal, claim that Christ lived in India for a long time.
Having then returned from Rus back to Tsar-Grad
(Yoros), the emperor Andronicus-Christ (according to the

Russians chronicles the Great Prince Andrey

Bogolyubsky) implemented important state reforms,
impeded corruption, made life easier for the common
people. Trade and agriculture were booming. But the
reforms raised the ire and hatred of the nobility. This
resulted in a plot in the capital which led to a bloody
rebellion. In 1185 the Emperor Andronicus-Christ was
deposed and crucified in Tsar-Grad on the Beykoz
mountain = Biblical Golgotha, on the Asiatic shore of the
Bosphorus, close to Yoros.
Until now there remained an enormous grave, which is
known as: a grave of Yusha (Jesus). Beykoz is the
highest of the mountains of the Upper Bosphorus, 180
metres above sea level. It is situated close the ruins of the
city and fortress of Yoros (Biblical Jerusalem). Yushas
grave is not the real grave of Jesus Christ, but a large
fenced off plot of land, approximately 3 by 17 metres,
where Jesus was crucified, fig.7, fig.8. This is to say, they
commemorated this sacred location [6v2], ch.5.
Not far from the grave of holy Yusha Jesus, at the foot of
the Beykoz mountain, there are three other enormous
graves nearly 7-8 metres long. These are the graves of
Kirklar Sultan, Uzun Elviya Leblebici Baba and Akbaba
Sultan. On the other side of the Bosphorus, i.e. its
European shore, there were, as the local legends say,
several similar looking immense graves of the saints. They
are, probably, symbolic resting places of the disciples of
Jesus Christ.

So, on the Beykoz mountain of Tsar-Grad, near YorosJerusalem, there is a miraculously well preserved
memorial (possibly reconstructed) providing us with a
tangible reminder of the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ in
this very place.
As a result of a coup and a bloody rebellion in 1185 a new
dynasty of Angels came to power. It is considered that
Angel is in this case a family name. However, it is quite
possible that in the times of Andronicus-Christ this word
represented the Tsarist officials in general. Hence is
derived angels, celestial hierarchy, i.e. Gods ministers,
according to the Holy Bible. It is possible, that the wellknown story in the Holy Bible about Satan an evil angel,
who rebelled against God and wished to usurp Him,
originated from there.
Lets refer to the Byzantine chronicler Niketas Choniates.
In regards to Andronicus-Christ it says, that he was a
foreigner, who lived for a long time amongst the
barbarians (as we understand he meant - in Rus). Having
arrived to Tsar-Grad, he surrounded himself with a
barbarian army and introduced barbaric customs into the
country. For example, the Russian pantaloons [],
ch.2:61. Now the picture becomes clearer. AndronicusChrist was the son of Virgin Mary, who was originally from
Rus. It was here in Rus where Andronicus-Christ spent
his childhood. Later he lived in Tsar-Grad. Then he again
returned to Rus and spent many of his adult years here.
Perhaps Andronicus-Christs particular affection towards
Rus wasnt to everyones liking in Tsar-Grad. And during

a tense period of political crisis and rebellion, the matter of

Andronicus-Christs foreign roots surfaced. The rebels
started using it to malign the Emperor.
Therefore, the events described in Gospels, took place in
Yoros (Jerusalem) in Bosphorus during the second half of
the XII century. And the city of modern Palestine, which
today is referred to as Jerusalem, was in fact fabricated
from a small Arab settlement called Al-Quds in a rather
desolate area in the Middle East not earlier than the XVII
or even the XVIII century. It was declared a center of
worship. It bears no relation to the events in the Gospel.
The falsifiers of the XVII-XIX cc. pursued a clear objective:
to relocate on paper! The Gospel events far away from
the real Jerusalem = Tsar-Grad, in order to cast into
oblivion a significant part of authentic history.
To conclude, the emperor Andronicus-Christ, - aka the
great Russian prince Andrey Bogolyubsky, aka apostle
Andrey Pervozvanny (St. Andrew the First-Called),- was
crucified in Tsar-Grad (Yoros) = Jerusalem in 1185.
The Gospel life of Jesus Christ in GALILEE represents
Andronicus stay in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, in the suburbs of
the city Galitch Kostromskoy, which in a local dialect was
pronounced as GALION. Gospel city of CANA in Galilee,
therefore, was a Canian or Khahnian settlement in
Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Consequently, year zero of the era
of the Year of Our Lord (AD) was year 1152 AD.
Up until the epoch of the XVII century, when writing down
the dates, the Roman numeral X, i.e. ten, in Latin

denoting a century (for example, XI century), was simply

the first letter X of the name of Jesus Christ (written in
Cyrillic: Ch=X translators note). That is why initially an
abbreviation: XI century meant Christs First
century,i.e.: First Century of Christs Incarnation.
Therefore, the letter X was separated from the following
numerals with a dot, i.e. they wrote X.I, X.II. etc. [1v.] That
was the way the Christian calendar appeared. During that
epoch all the dates were written down starting with the
name of Jesus Christ, i.e. letter X or letter I. The fact is
that the Roman numeral I, i.e. one, - in the Arabic
representation of a year, for example year 1255, initially
was the first letter I of the name Jesus. So the expression
Year I.255 in those distant times meant: from Jesus year
255. Up until the XVI-XVII cc. there remained the tradition
of recording dates by the way of: either X. (followed by
numerals), or I. (followed by numerals), in other words, by
separating with a dot letters X and I from the other
numerals which represented the date itself. Sometimes J
was used instead of I. See multiple examples in the book
by A.T.Fomenko [1v], ch.6:12-13
Over many centuries, in the XVII century to be precise, the
creation of the reformed version of history began. It
aimed to distort the history of the XI-XVI cc. beyond
recognition. In particular it was achieved by distorting the
chronology. The first letter X (i.e. Christ) slyly declared to
be the representation of ten centuries in the dates, and
the first letter I (i.e. Jesus) was purported to represent a
thousand. As the result of it the dates were artificially
made older by approximately 1000 years. Massive blocks

of events of the XI-XVII cc. slid down by approximately a

thousand years. Phantom antiquity thus appeared.
Our conclusion perfectly corresponds with a well-known
fact, that the medieval Italians used hundreds to
represent centuries: TRECENTE (i.e. YEARS - THREE
HUNDREDs)- the XIV century, QUATTROCENTE (i.e.
YEARS - FOUR HUNDREDs) the XV century,
CINQUECENTE (i.e. YEARS - FIVE HUNDREDs) the
XVI century [242], p.25. But then such naming of the
centuries INDICATES DIRECTLY THAT THE STARTING
POINT FOR COUNTING COMMENCES EXACTLY
FROM THE XI CENTURY, as it disregards todays
conventional method of adding a thousand years. It turns
out, that the medieval Italians didnt know any thousand
years. As we understand it now, the reason for it was
simply because, there was no spare thousand years.
We have described a mechanism of the way of one of the
three principle chronological shift originated,
approximately by a thousand years. The causes for the
other two shifts approximately by 330 and 1800 years
are analogous and, besides, can be explained by the
mistakes of the chronologists of the XIV-XV cc., who relied
on the erroneous astronomical data and methods. In the
book by A.T.Fomenko [1v] the chronological shifts were
provisionally called the following: 1) The Roman-Byzantine
shift by 330-360 years, 2) The Roman shift by either 1053
or 1153 years, 3) The Greek-Biblical shift by 1780-1880
years.

The Roman-Byzantine shift made the history of RomeByzantine longer by forcing it into the past. The Roman
shift made the history of the Roman Empire more
ancient. The Greek-Biblical shift made the history of
Greece and all Biblical history far older by forcing it into
the past.

3. CAESAREAN SECTION
We are all familiar with the medical term caesarean
section or caesarean. In other words, when labour does
not occur naturally, but by means of an incision in the
abdomen. Why is this incision called Caesarean?
Because, according to some sources, that was exactly the
way Julius Caesar was delivered at birth. For example in
an old Russian Palaea we read: The original Roman
kingdom of Iulii Kesar. In the third year of Cleopatras
reign Iulii Kesar named VYPOROTOK (meaning ripped or
torn - translators note) started his rule in Rome. [625:1],
page 254.
The nickname vyporotok could perhaps mean, that he
was ripped or torn out of his mothers womb. In other
words he was removed by means of a medical procedure
through an incision or section. This is the origin of the
expression caesarean section .
But on the other hand, similar information has survived
about Christ too. Though little known today, but clearly
expressed in the canonical church service. For example in

the old Church Slavonic triadic canon of the second mode,

recited on Sundays midnight vespers. Irmos of the ninth
song of this canon sounds like this: (in English translation)
: Him, who before the Sun Gods lantern shined, and
in flesh came FROM VIRGINS SIDE, infinitely incarnated,
blessed and pure, we praise You, Mother of God. [537:2],
p.66; [537:3], p.134.
The words : (He) came in flesh from virgins side are
hard to interpret in any other way but as the birth of Christ
via caesarean section by Virgin Mary Theotokos.
Jesus birth by the caesarean section left its imprint not
only in the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. This
event was much talked about in the Middle Ages and
spawned a multitude of views, theories and myths. The
first thing that should be noted is the claim of the orthodox
doctrine, that Theotokos (the Birthgiver) REMAINED A
VIRGIN AFTER CHRISTS BIRTH. These words are
directly present in the Orthodox sacred worship, see
above. Besides, this theme is in detail discussed in so
called Apocrypha.
To clarify, prior to the XVII century there were a lot of
various pieces of writings about Christ. In the XVII century
a new regime prohibited them and declared them to be
apocryphal. At the same time many of them were
considered canonical enough works even in the XVI
century. They formed part of the authoritative canonical
books, were copied in the monasteries along with the four
canonical Gospels, creation of the holy fathers and
Christian catechisms. One of the ways of disparaging the

inconvenient texts in the XVII century was the following:

they started to name some of the irritating sources Gospels (although they were not called that in the Church
Slavonic tradition). For example they began to call the
works attributed to Thomas the Apostle Gospel
according to Thomas. The idea is clear. The reformists
were achieving the following goal: in the Christian world it
was well known that in one of the Ecumenical Councils the
four canonical Gospels, deemed appropriate for worship,
were selected. The Gospels were the texts that ought to
be read in the church. And, clearly, they ought to be
officially approved. In this sense all the other Gospels
were renounced But it didnt mean that they were rejected
entirely. They could remain as so called reference books.
They could be kept at home and copied. But cunning
reformists, by attaching the name Gospel to any old text
which displeased them, automatically labelled them as
incorrect, forbidden Gospels.
Lets refer to so called Infancy Gospel of Thomas : And
found (Joseph Ath.) a cave there And appeared the
new-born, emerged and took breast of his mother Mary.
And exclaimed and old woman and she came out of the
cave and met Salome, and said to her: Salome, Salome, I
would like to tell you about a MIRACLE: A VIRGIN GAVE
BIRTH AND KEPT HER VIRGINITY. [307], p.217.
Here is another text called Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.
And when Zeloma approached Maryshe cried out
loudly: I have never thought or heard of anything like this:
Her breast is full of milk and She has a baby boy, though

SHE IS A VIRGIN. There was nothing impure at the

conception and NO SICKNESS IN BIRTH. She conceived
being a virgin, GAVE BIRTH AS A VIRGIN, AND
REMAINS A VIRGIN [307], p.243.
Such an insistent claim in the sources, that Theotokos
(Birthgiver) REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER GIVING BIRTH
corresponds perfectly with Christs birth via caesarean
section.
As it happens, Christ is also mentioned in the Talmud.
Although << the image of Jesus presented by the Talmud
is a combination of various Judaic legends, rabbis
commentaries and simply rumours It is considered that
Jesus appears in the Talmud under different names. The
name of JESUS, SON OF PANTERA (PANTIRA) is
mentioned several times the origin of the name son of
Pantera presents us with a conundrum>> [307], p.301302.
In regards to PANTERA scholars write: <<The etymology
of the non-Jewish name Pantera has for many years
presented a challenge to researchers A theory was put
forward, that the name Pantera (Pantira) appeared as a
result of a linguistic mistake in the form of an incorrect
reproduction of a Greek word parthenos (?)
virgin>> [307], p.305.
In our opinion the Greek word PARTHENOS, i.e. VIRGIN
(and this is exactly how the word VIRGIN sounds in the
Greek Gospels) [307], p.305, has appeared in the
Christian tradition as a recollection of the caesarean

section of Christs birth. The word PARTHENOS

originated from a Slavonic word POROT, meaning to rip
open, to cut the body when performing the caesarean
section. Furthermore, perhaps it contains a meaning of not
only TO CUT OPEN, but also TO SEW UP, as
PARTHENOS reminds us of a word PORTNOI (meaning
A TAILOR), i.e. a person, who cuts and sews up.
Naturally, after performing a caesarean section a doctor
has to sew the wound up.
And Talmudic PANTERA (PANTIRA), most likely,
originates (as does PARTHENOS) from the same
Slavonic word POROT(TO CUT OPEN), PORTNOI (A
TAILOR). That is why the authors of the XIX century, who
associated this word with PARTHENOS, were correct.
But then immediately comes to mind a well-known myth
about the birth of the most ancient goddess Athena via a
cut in Zeus head. Since long ago scientists became
aware of the similarity between the ancient Greek Athena
Parthenos and medieval Christian Theotokos of Athenes.
In the medieval times the famous Athenian Parthenon was
nothing other than a Temple of the Virgin Mary Theotokos
[2v1], ch.1. Besides, Athena was also called PALLAS. The
word Pallas means A VIRGIN. The ancient Greek myths
constantly emphasise that Athena was A VIRGIN [196:1],
p.60, 112, 114.
So the Christian origin of the myth about Athenas birth is
thus elucidated. Zeus swallowed whole his pregnant
wife and afterwards with the help of Hephaestus (or
Prometheus), who cleaved Zeus's head with the axe, he

sired Athena who leaped from Zeus's head, fully armed,

with a warlike cry [533], v.1, p.126. Through these
fantastical details can be dimly perceived the birth of
Jesus by caesarean section from the Virgin Mary. Here
Virgin = Athena changes places with Jesus = Zeus: but
the Virgin doesnt give birth to Jesus, but Jesus (Zeus)
gives birth to the Virgin. The incision in the Greek myth
wholly remains, but moves to the gods head.
Incidentally, another character is also mentioned here a
doctor, who performed the incision. He was called
Prometheus or Hephaestus
This most ancient of Greek myths could have appeared
while observing the Orthodox icon The Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin Mary fig.9 [], ch.2.
The Virgin Mary is on her deathbed, Christ stands above
her and holds in his hands, at his shoulder level, a tiny
figure of the Virgin Mary swaddled in a white piece of
cloth. Surely, a person, who knows icon-painting well,
understands that this small figure symbolises here The
Virgin Marys soul. But a lay person and moreover a visitor
from afar, who knows little about the tradition of iconpainting, could easily interpret such an image as the birth
of a little maiden from an adult God. Next the imagination
would take over. As a girl was painted close to Christs
head it therefore meant that she was born from the head.
And so on. Having returned home, to ancient Greece of
the XIV-XVI cc. from a distant capital of the Great =
Mongol Empire, the awed traveler would share with his
fellow citizens is deep knowledge about the life of the

Olympian gods on faraway Olympus. That is how an

ancient myth could have been born. It was Rus that was
considered to be Virgin Marys Home as she had spent
the significant part of her life in Rus and died there
[XP].That is why the images of Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin Mary originated in Rus. And later, as Christianity
was progressing in Western Europe, the images, inspired
by these Orthodox icons, appeared there as well.
But let us return to Zeus. It appears, that he gave birth not
only to Athena, but also to Dionysus=Bacchus: <<Having
disguised himself as a mortal, Zeus had a secret love
affair with Semele (Earth) Hera advised Semele,
who was already six months pregnant, to demand her of
her mysterious lover to reveal his true form He came to
her wreathed in bolts of lightning and roars of thunder and
incinerated her. However, Hermes> managed to save her
six months premature son. Hermes SEWED A BABY
INTO ZEUS THIGH, AND AFTER THREE MONTHS, IN
DUE TIME ZEUS GAVE BIRTH TO HIM. Hence Dionysus
is called twice-born or a child of double doors>>[196:1],
p.69.
In this myth, as in the Judaic texts, Christ kind sort of gives
birth to himself from his thigh. Here Zeus is Jesus, and
Dio-nysus = Nicaean God is also Jesus. The
commentators explained such parallels by purportedly
adopting the doctrines of Christianity from the more
archaic pagan beliefs. But in the new chronology the
picture is reverse. Pagan cultures were variations of
Christianity, common in the Middle Ages. Besides the

mainstream of Christianity, there existed various sects and

cults. They were later declared to be the most ancient
pagan religions. And then, already in the XIX century,
they were surprised to discover that they suspiciously
resembled Christianity. A vast platform opened for the
scientific explanation of this phenomenon.
Given examples (many others are pointed out in our books
of the golden series B) illustrate how wide spread the
myth of the birth of Jesus by caesarean section really is.
This event generated a multitude of versions, notably in
places of wide ranging geographic and linguistic diversity.

Chapter 2.
EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY.
4. THE BIBLICAL STORY OF THE MAGI REFLECTS
THE ADORATION OF RUS'-HORDE TO
ANDRONICUS-CHRIST IN THE XII CENTURY. THE
INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY TO RUSSIA.
In the epoch of Christ, in the second half of the XII
century, Rus adopted Christianity wholly and instantly,
and did not wait for a thousand year as the ScaligerianRomanovian history assures us. Russian Czar Vladimir =
Vladeyushyi Mirom (meaning One Who Rules the World
translators note), Csaritsa (Queen) Malka and Cossak
Military Commander Ataman (military rank in Cossack
regiments tr. note) all came to worship Christ. They are
represented in the Gospel as The Magi or The Three
Kings, under the names of Balthazar, Melchior and

Caspar [6v1], ch.3. Afterwards a magnificent Cologne

Cathedral was erected in their honor, where the famous
sarcophagus of the Three Kings was placed. The shrine
could be symbolic, and the Kings themselves buried in
the central Imperial Burial Ground of African Egypt.
Medieval images survive which depict the Adoration of
the Biblical Magi to the infant Christ set against a
background of banners displaying A CRESCENT AND A
STAR [6v1], ch.3. This is a visual reminder that the
Gospel events took place specifically in Czar-Grad
(Yoros) = Biblical Jerusalem. It was still a recent memory
for some of the artists of the XII-XVII cc. and when
depicting the Gospel events they painted a crescent with
a star, which was a widely recognised symbol of CzarGrad.
Thus Cologne Cathedral was built not in honor of
some obscure shepherds, but was dedicated to the
powerful Czars Magi = Mongols, who were the first to
greet Christ and accept him and spread Christianity in
their country. It was Scythia-Horde-Rus (modern day
Russia tr. note), which to our days is the largest
country in the world, where Orthodox Christianity was
established and remains until now. The important role
attributed to the relics of the Magi-Czars in the medieval
times now becomes clearer. They were not just common
normal Czars, but rulers, who established Christianity as
the STATE RELIGION OF THE GREATEST AND MOST
POWERFUL EMPIRE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, i.e. The
Mongolian Empire. Incidentally, this has also included
Germany, where Cologne Cathedral is situated. Having

colonized Western Europe, The Russian Horde Empire

represented by the Emperor Barbarossa (Barbarian
Ross) - could easily have created there a centre of
worship for their Saintly Czars-Three Wise Men-Magi.
Later, after the fall of the Empire, it was partly forgotten
or intentionally obfuscated. The same purpose was
served by the tendentious restorations of the Shrine of
Three Magi in the XVII-XVIII cc. [6v1], ch.3.
We have discovered a remarkable fact, which proves
our identification of the Magus Melchior with the
Russian-Horde Queen Malka, mother to the prince
Vladimir. In late Christian literature, art and sculptures,
the three Magi are portrayed as MEN (MALE). However,
in the Shrine the two Magi are portrayed as men with
beards, but the third figure standing between them is
CLEARLY FEMALE. See fig.10.
Notably in many old depictions the Queen Melchior is
presented as a white European woman, fig, 11. In [6v1]
we provide many similar examples. In some European
cathedrals this tradition survived even up until the XIX
century. But then, following changes in church policy and
in compliance with the new views on history, the artists
started distorting the female features and turning the
Slavic Queen into a Black Queen and then into a Black
King.
Furthermore, it is curious, that some images of the
Magi in Cologne Cathedral are of a strongly pronounced
Slavic type, fig.11. Now it becomes clear. Here are
portrayed the King and the Queen from Rus-Horde
(Russia-Horde). Later on, following the changes in the

situation in Europe in the XVII-XVIII cc., Western

Europeans became hyper-sensitive to the Slavic origins
of the Magi = Mongols. In later depictions the Magis
Slavic facial type was beginning to be altered. The
female Queen was being turned into a man. She was
given moustache, for example in the Altar painting by
Stefan Lochner allegedly of the XV century in Cologne
Cathedral [6v1], ch.3.
Why did a fair-haired Slavic woman later turn into a
Negro woman, i.e. BLACK woman? And then into a
BLACK man. It is possible, that the Western Europeans
mixed up two Russian words: CHERNYI (meaning
BLACK) and CHERMNYI (meaning RED). In the Russian
language there are well-known expressions: krasna
devitsa meaning a beautiful, fine girl; Red square
meaning a beautiful square. The chances are that the
great queen was called beautiful.
The Russian expression red, beautiful queen could
have been, quite possibly, misinterpreted by the
foreigners, who by then couldnt remember Russian very
well, and from CHERMNAYA TSARITSA (meaning
BEAUTIFUL QUEEN)turned into CHERNAYA TSARITSA
(meaning BLACK QUEEN). A black queen is of course, a
negro a notion assumed by medieval artists and
confidently executed with their brushes The
transformation into a male remains on the conscience of
recent commentators.
To conclude, the relics of the Three MagiMongols
were originally kept in a magnificent golden sarcophagus
in Cologne Cathedral: 1) the great Russian prince

VLADIMIR (Balthazar), who introduced Russia to

Christianity, 2) his mother the princess MALKA
(Melchior), 3) his commander-khan, the Cossack ataman
CASPAR = COSSAK. In the Old Testament he was
called Assyrian Rabsak, i.e. the Russian Caspar, if read
backwards.
They were among the first who visited and accepted
Jesus Christ in the XII century and that is why they were
respectably described as the Magi in the Gospels and
partially in the Old Testament. They introduced
Christianity to Rus-Scythia. Afterwards they were
sanctified. The famous Cologne Cathedral was erected
purposefully as the shrine of these Magi - Mongols. The
foundation of Goth = gothic Cologne House (as
Cologne-Colony itself) was laid down during the
Mongolian conquest of Western Europe, aka the
ancient Roman conquest of Europe. The Magis relics
were brought to Cologne-Colony on the order of the Czar
BARBARIAN-RUSSIAN OR BEARDED RUSSIAN, i.e.
Barbarossa.
Then having consigned Christs life a thousand years
into the past from the XII to the I century, Scaligerian
history did its best to erase from the memory of the future
generations the important fact, that The Kings-Magi in
reality were the great=Mongolian czars of Rus-Scythia,
who have baptized Russia.

5. THE CRUSADES AS REVENGE FOR CHRIST'S

DEATH.

Christs execution in 1185 in Czar-Grad triggered a

violent reaction in both the capital itself and in the
regions-femas of the Romaic Empire. Especially in
Russia, the motherland of Mary Mother of God. At the
end of the XII century it was Rus who was at the lead the
Crusades, which march to Czar-Grad in order to avenge
Christs execution and punish the perpetrators. A bitter
war breaks out which was later multiplied in the
Scalgerian version of history under a variety of names. In
particular it is known to us as the famous ancient Trojan
war allegedly of the XIII century BC, and also as the
Crusade of the XII-XIII cc. AD.
It appears, that IN THE END OF THE XI CENTURY
THE CRUSADERS WERE CONVINCED THAT THEY
WERE AVENGING NOT THE DESCENDANTS OF THE
SAVIORS
EXECUTIONERS,
BUT
THESE
EXECUTIONERS THEMSELVES [217],
P.117-118. This fact is of great significance. In reality
the events took place a century later: at the end of the XII
beginning of the XIII century. The start of the so called
First Crusade, i.e. Crusade to rescue the Holy
Sepulchre, today is erroneously dated to year 1096
[455], instead of approximately year 1196. On the other
hand, the medieval church sources, for example,
Skazaniye o strasti Spasove (Passions of our Lord)
and Pilates Letter to Tiberius, assert that immediately
after Jesus Resurrection, Pilate was summoned to
Rome where he was executed. Caesars army went on a
Crusade to Jerusalem and seized it. It is considered
today to be vapid medieval conjecture, as according to

the Scaligerian chronology, there was no Roman

Crusade to Jerusalem in the third decade of the I
century. However, now the sources testimony literally
makes sense. They were referring to the Crusades of the
late XII early XIII cc. specifically the so called Forth
Crusade in 1204, during which Czar-Grad (Yoros) was
conquered.
Afterwards the later chronologists, mislead by the
centennial chronological shift, moved the Crusade to the
end of the XI century. One of the many repercussions of
this was the appearance of a phantom Crusade of
supposedly year 1096, when Jerusalem was conquered
[455], [2v], [], [].
Chapter 2
EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
6. Savior Not-Made-by-Hands, SUDARIUM AND THE
TURIN SHROUD.
In 1998 a report about the radiocarbon dating of the
famous Christian relic, The Turin Shroud, resonated
strongly with a public. It is considered that this fragment of
cloth still bears some traces of crucified Christ, allegedly
from the I century. HOWEVER, THE RADIO-CARBON
DATING GAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DATE:
APPROXIMATELY THE XI-XII cc. The radiocarbon
analyses were conducted in three laboratories of The
Oxford University, Arizona State University and the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (Zurich) [], ch.1.

In [] we discuss in detail the radiocarbon dating of the

Shroud. It appears that in fact the most probable date is
the second half of the XII century.
The radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to the mid XII
century corresponds well with other independent dates of
Christ's life, arrived at by us. It should be said, that we
have a rather critical attitude towards the results of
radiocarbon dating [1v], ch.1. This method is still very
inaccurate - dating of artefacts which are up to 2000 years
old can give rise to unforeseeable mistakes, which
correspond badly with the artefacts true age! Besides,
when ordering a radiocarbon dating of any given artefact,
the archaeologists often inform the laboratory beforehand
of the estimated age of the sample, and physicists only
'specify' it, by selecting the 'desired date' from a spectrum
of the obtained radiocarbon dates (which objectively have
a broad range). However, the situation with the dating of
The Shroud is somewhat different. The samples of its
material were independently dated by several laboratories
which allows reliance on their conclusions with a certain
degree of confidence. Thus, it is most likely The Turin
Shroud is an invaluable original of the XII century, which
has fortuitously survived till nowadays.
From the point of view of the new chronology the story of
the Turin Shroud, i.e. Acheiropoieta Image looks like this.
The body of Christ was enwrapped in it in 1185. Then,
after some time, it turned up in Russia. Here it was kept
folded so, that on the outside only The Holy Face, which
was depicted on many Russian icons, was visible. As the

Shroud remained in Russia, the icons of the Acheiropoieta

Image were painted mainly by Russian artists. In the West
such images were less wide spread. The Western artists
imagined the story of the Shroud somewhat differently,
fig.12 [], ch.1. In Russia the icon The Image of the
Savior Not-Made-By-Hands was also used as a military
banner and a holy banner. The Savior thus depicted
embellished the banners of Yaroslavl, Tver' and Moscow
Princes, acted as the defender of the Russian Soil and the
protector of Russian armies. They fought under His
banner during the Battle of Kulikovo [], ch.1.
Considering that The Shroud remained in Russia, it
becomes clear why it is precisely here, where the special
ceremony of The Adoration of the Shroud during the Holy
Week originated. It doesn't exist at all in the Catholic
Church. The Russian church service incorporates the
carrying of The Shroud out of the church during the
Procession of the Cross on Good Friday. But, most likely,
the original Shroud was not usually disturbed. In place of
the original one of its numerous replicas were used, which
were kept in every church. The original, judging by the
creases on it, was carefully kept folded, so that only the
face of Christ could be seen. That is why it was called the
Image Not-Made-By-Hands or the Sudarium. During The
Great Revolt of the XVII century, many Moscow treasures,
ransacked in the tumult of the rebellion and occupation,
found the way to the West. It is probable, that it was in the
XVII century when the Shroud was damaged by a fire and
burnt in several places. These singes from the fire are still

visible today. The Shroud found its way to Turin in Italy

allegedly in 1578.
It is possible that even earlier there existed some other
Shroud in Turin. As there are several allegedly authentic
Shrouds known of in the West. But the original Shroud
found itself in Turin, in our opinion, only in the XVII
century. In fact, a special shrine was built for it and it was
placed in Turin Cathedral only in the 1694 [], ch.1.
According to the new chronology, such a date the end of
the XVII century is very telling. It was then, after the
crushing defeat of Razin and vanquishing of the Turks
under Vienna, when it became clear that the era of the
Great Empire was passing, and that Russia-Horde was no
longer to be feared, and that at last, the seized treasures
and relics of the Horde could be released from their
chests, including the Shroud, without fearing that the
former owners would return and reclaim them.

7. MARK THE EVANGELIST.

The magnificent Saint Mark's Basilica in Venice is the
adornment of the city and one of the most popular
buildings in Italy. Its history is extremely interesting in the
light of the new chronology.
It appears, that the first evangelist Mark lived in the XII
century, died in its second half and was buried for the first
and the last time in St. Mark's Basilica, which was
specially erected in his honour [2v1], ch.1. This lavish

burial of Mark allegedly in 1094 (most likely circa 1194)

with the participation of the Doge, Patriarch and all of the
people was later interpreted by the historians as
supposedly 'the rediscovery' of his remains 'a millennium
later' as Scaligerian chronology has already shifted the
time of Mark's life to the I century.
There were no mysterious vanishing and miraculous
reappearances of Mark's relics 'a thousand years later'.
These cunning legends were made up later, when the
historians had already started to coordinate Scaligerian
chronology with the evidence of the old documents, that
pointed to the XII-XIII cc. as the epoch of Mark the
Evangelist's activity.
Saint Mark's Basilica in its modern state was completed
significantly later than the XII century. Today we see the
cathedral which was completed not earlier than XVI
century [2v1], ch.1.
The rest of the evangelists also lived and wrote at the end
of the XII beginning of the XIII cc.

8. TWO BRANCHES OF THE ORIGINAL

CHRISTIANITY.
Following the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ in Czar-Grad
in Bosphorus two branches of Christianity emerged.
The first branch, which we will provisionally call 'royal or
ancestral Christianity', was the religion of the RELATIVES

OF ANDRONICUS-CHRIST. This was the Christianity of

the royal family, the Empire's ruling ancestral clan, but not
the religion of the common people. Inside the clan, as in
any family, there were disputes. After the Crusade in 1204
those of his relatives who came to believe in Him as a God
came to power. But they also regarded their own persona
as holy given that God Andronicus-Christ was their
relation. The 'ancient'-Egyptian artefacts and imagery
convey to us the atmosphere of this ancestral Christianity,
i.e. - the memorials of the royal family burial site. Egyptian
Christ-Osiris, his worst enemy Set, his wife-mother Isida,
etc. were close relatives. Occasionally they fought
between themselves, killed and persecuted each other,
but nonetheless their relationship remained ancestral.
We can see a similar picture in the 'ancient'-Greek
pantheon of the Olympic Gods, where Zeus is another
representation of Jesus Christ. The Olympic Gods were
related, though it still did not rule out wars between them,
machination or conspiracies. But in the course of any
clashes it was never forgotten that the conflicting sides
were godly, which vastly differentiated them from the rest
of the world. The same viewpoint was shared by the
'ancient'- Egyptian gods [486].
But Christ, aka Emperor Andronicus, bequeathed a school
of his disciples-apostles. They have created a
fundamentally different branch of the original Christianity,
namely THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. If we refer to modern
Christianity, we will see that this is exactly what it's called.
The Christian Church today and for a long time has

stressed that it is specifically the APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

The persistency of this claim itself makes one think, that at
some point there also existed some other Christian
Church. Why emphasise this fact so intensely and
constantly, if no other movement apart from the Apostolic
one existed?
The Apostolic movement, unlike the first one, ancestral
one, was, so to say, of the people. It seems that the only
representative of the royal family in the Apostolic
Christianity was Our Lord's Brother Jacob. But he was
soon murdered, after which the primacy passed on to the
Apostles of the common descent to Peter and Paul.
At first there were no fundamental differences between the
two branches of Christianity, but they have soon appeared
and it is clear why. The ancestral-royal branch of the
Christianity was not large, but it commanded absolute
power. At first, and for quite a long time, it reigned
supremely over the Empire. The Christian Czars in the first
centuries of Christianity perceived themselves as relations
to God Andronicus-Christ and forced all of the people to
venerate them as deities. 'In Paganism was established a
system where there existed gods in the heavens and
GODS ON EARTH, I.E. THE EMPERORS'[83], v.2, p.302.
The Christians of the Apostolic Church were forced to offer
sacrifices to the gods, i.e. to the living emperors. Many
refused. It was they who were to become the first Christian
martyrs. If the emperors demanded from the Christians
'the proper veneration', then it most likely meant that the
emperors considered the Apostolic Christians to be of the

same faith, but having strayed from the true path, which
was punished.
To conclude, the Roman Emperors worshiped Christ,
calling him Zeus and Jupiter, but at that considered
themselves to be Gods too and persistently demanded to
be worshiped. The second branch of Christianity the
Apostolic, branch of the people regarded only Christ to
be God and disagreed with the claims of the Royal family,
from which Christ originated, to idolize the rulers. A conflict
arose. The Royal Christianity began to persecute the
Apostolic Christianity. This was the notorious 'Christian
ostracism' allegedly in the first centuries AD, i.e. the epoch
of the XIII-XIV cc.
The people's Apostolic Christianity, unlike the Ancestral
Royal Christianity, was popular on the mass scale and,
what's important, could organize itself and created a stable
church, which was called Apostolic. In time it has evolved
into a powerful organisation, put up a fight against the
Royal Christianity, and in the end has won. Constantine
the Great, aka, as we show it in [], czar-khan Dmitriy
Donskoy, molds Apostolic Christianity into the state
religion of the entire gigantic 'Mongol' Empire. Since then
the czars-khans of the Empire ceased to be the Gods.
This upheaval took place at the end of the XIV century and
was far from painless. This matter was resolved in the
major Kulikovo Battle in 1380. The great importance,
which was given to the Kulikovo Battle and its numerous
representations in world history, also becomes clear.

9. TWO WRITING TRADITIONS OF CHRISTIANITY

APOSTOLIC AND ANCESTRAL-ROYAL.
There were many texts written in both of the branches of
original Christianity. They varied. The people's Apostolic
Church created the Gospels. We are very familiar with
their spirit. The Gospels revere Andronicus-Christ and do
not accept any equality with Him. This is a reverence of a
disciple for his Teacher. Christ is the Sun, which is
unblemished.
In the Ancestral-Royal circle they also were writing a lot
(or used chroniclers and writers). Naturally they were
writing a lot about their famous ancestor Lord Christ. But
the flavour of these texts was essentially different. From
them subsequently grew the 'ancient'-Greek myths about
Zeus-Christ and his numerous relations Olympian Gods,
and also the 'ancient'-Greek legends about God OsirisChrist and his nine closest gods. Modern commentators
refer all such Christian testimonials to an historical period 'paganism', naturally shifting it back to 'antiquity' and
separating it from Christianity.
The differences between the texts of the apostolic tradition
and Ancestral-Royal literature were so great, that today
researchers have to explain with great difficulty vivid
parallels and analogies between the Apostolic Christianity
and 'paganism', which emerge repeatedly.

10. WHEN GOLD BECAME MONEY.

A myth of the Argonauts probably tells us about Christ's

and his disciples'-apostles' - voyage to the rich gold
deposits in Russia. Gold is considered to be the symbol of
Christ. Gold is constantly used in the Orthodox Church
service. Iconostases, icons and the wooden carving in the
cathedrals are gilded with it. The priests' clothings are
lavishly embroidered with gold. Cups and icon covers are
made of it. Orthodox Churches Domes and crosses on
them are coated with gold.
It is possible, that it was exactly in the XII century, in the
times of the Emperor Andronicus-Christ, when gold started
widely being used as money. That is why it was gold that
became the symbol for money. Argonauts, i.e. Christ's and
the apostles' voyage to Russia for gold also becomes
clear.
Initially, when people discovered gold, they didn't
immediately think of using it as money. Gold doesn't rust.
It is a very soft and yielding metal. At first they used to
make houseware out of gold. But gold isn't suitable for all
weaponry or tools it is too soft. In the view of gold's
rarity, its value and convenience in producing houseware,
golden goods were extremely valued in ancient times.
When the chronicles tell us about robberies or gifts, they
often refer to golden vessels, cups, etc. Hence it is evident
that in the ancient times it was initially exactly golden
houseware which was used as common 'currency'.
Only in time, presumably in the XII-XIII cc., gold became
money in the truest sense of the word accounts were
settled with pieces of gold. At first it was weighed, and

then they started cutting pieces of a standard weight,

which soon led to the appearance of golden and silver
coins as a means of payment. And only later, out of
poverty in places they started using copper and other
inexpensive metals. Their value when re-melted would be
negligible. Thus the copper money was nominal, its value
was established only by law, which obliged people to
accept it as a means of payment.
Wide coining of such 'conventional money', which did not
have its own value, as opposed to gold and silver, began
only in the XVII century, already after the collapse of the
Great Empire. For example, the introduction of the first
copper money in Russia in the time of the first Romanovs,
in place of previous gold and silver ones, caused violent
protests among the Russian population, who were used to
REAL MONEY, i.e. golden and silver coins. The notorious
'copper revolts' broke out. Revolts were crushed by force
and the new rules forcefully imposed on the people.
Chapter 2.
THE EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
11. CHRIST WAS BORN IN CRIMEA. IN THE SAME
PLACE MARY MOTHER OF GOD DIED.
The question of where Christ was born preoccupies many
people. Today we are assured that the place of His birth
was modern Palestine where the city of Bethlehem is
located. This name is taken from the Bible. Thus in the
Gospels it named as the town where Christ was born.
However, we discovered that this theory of historians is

incorrect. Most likely The Virgin Mary originally came from

Russia. Besides, many authors from 'antiquity' called
Andronicus-Christ Etruscan, i.e. Russian [].
Furthermore, in the Russian-Horde chronicles the
Emperor Andronicus-Christ is described as the great
prince Andrey Bogolyubskyi, who was born in Russia
[]. Therefore, Andronicus-Christ could have been born
somewhere in Russia-Horde.
It turns out that Christ was born in Crimea, in the same
place where Mother of God died []. We were able 'to
calculate' the exact location of Christ's birthplace. It is the
famous cape Fiolent (aka the Bethlehem of the Gospels)
in Southern Crimea. Crimean Karaites were convinced
that the Cradle of the Savior of the World (Christ) is kept in
Crimea. It appears that the famous Holy Grail is the
Golden Cradle of the Baby Jesus. It remained in Crimea,
where apparently it was searched for for a long time. The
identification of the Holy Grail with the Golden Cradle of
Jesus also has its origins in the legend of King Arthur.
Cape Fiolent was visited by the Russian Emperors in
order to bow down to this Holy site.
Moreover, we came across an important fact. It appears
that an ancient CAVE temple of the Nativity of Christ was
found on the Cape Fiolent. This temple as well as the St.
George's Monastery has survived many events. It still
exists today. A beautiful concurrence with the Gospels
arises, according to which, the Nativity took place in a
CAVE. It is absolutely clear that in this place there should
have appeared a cave temple of the Nativity of Christ. In

the whole world there are only a few cave churches of the
Nativity of Christ. But it is only about one of them, namely
the temple in Fiolent, that so much information, directly
connecting it to the Gospel events, has been discovered. It
is intriguingly, that in the XX century in the St. George's
Monastery in Fiolent they wanted to restore the ancient
rituals-performances in the memory of the Nativity of
Christ [], ch.5.
Are there any references to Christ's Golden Cradle that
survive in the history of Southern Crimea? After all we are
beginning to understand that Jesus was born in Fiolent.
That is why such a vivid detail as the Golden Cradle of
Baby Jesus-Zeus should have been reflected in the
legends of this region. It appears that such references not
only exist, but are also well known. But unfortunately,
today nobody directly makes the connection to Christ, as
the Romanovs enforced eradication of the true Crimean
history [], ch.5.
For many centuries until the end of the XIX century there
were stories about CRIMEAN PRINCES BEING NURSED
IN THE HOLY GOLDEN CRADLE. The cradle was
enveloped in incredible veneration; it was guarded and
kept safe from the enemies. When the enemies were at
close quarters, the holy golden cradle was concealed in
the cave.
Everything is clear. The cradle in which was reared the
Baby Jesus, who was born in Crimea in Crimea circa
1152, on cape Fiolent, became holy to all Christians,
primarily to the Christians of Crimea. It's unlikely that the

cradle was actually gold. Most likely this is a figment of

people's imagination, as Christ was associated with the
Sun and Gold. That is why the Cradle was depicted as
gold in the icons. Please note, that the Golden Cradle
eventually found itself once again in the cave inside the
Crimean mountain. Originally, when Jesus-Zeus was born,
it was in the mountain cave. And it is there it has returned
according to folklore.
It is also clear why the successive Crimean princes and
czars were nursed in this cradle. It was thought that the
rulers of Crimea would receive some of the power and
divinity of the Emperor Andronicus-Christ [], ch.5.
The stories of a Holy Golden Cradle were preserved by
the Crimean Karaites. Here it is said directly, that the
Savior of the world would grow up in it. Meaning Christ.
Most likely, at first not the future, but the past was meant:
in this cradle the Savior of the world (Jesus) GREW UP.
Then He will appear again during the Last Judgment. The
Karaites' legend clearly claims that the Holy Cradle was
kept in Crimea and was hidden in the mountain, in its
depths, i.e. in a cave. It perfectly corresponds with the fact
the Andronicus-Christ was born in the cape Fiolent, in
Crimea. Furthermore, Christ was born in a cave.
Consequently at first his cradle was also in a cave. Later
on as time went by it could have been hidden in a cave
once again, as an object that acquired holy status.
There prevails a variety of opinions in the question of
where exactly in Crimea the Golden Cradle was hidden.
Around a dozen of places of the probable location of the

Golden Cradle are known: Kaplu-Kaya, Basman Caves,

Cross Mountain (Krestovaya Gora) on the South shore,
Beshik-Tau (Mountain) near the cave town of Chufut-Kale
Thus everybody pointed to the Southern Crimea, but
the exact place was forgotten [],
ch.5.
We have discovered the place of death and first burial site
of Mary Mother of God. It is the famous ancient town of
Chufut-Kale in Crimea, not far from Bakhchisaray.
Moreover, the earlier correlation between Virgin Mary and
the Empress Phaustina discovered by us, has immediately
allowed us to identify the place of her death and burial.
You will recall that Bakhchisaray is the 'Mongol' capital in
Crimean Kanate.
Chufut-Kale is a Crimean cave town. It is closely
associated with Virgin Mary. Here are situated the Valley
of Mary, City of Mary, Christian necropolis and the
remains of a Christian temple. The famous Assumption
Monastery is situated near Chufut-Kale. The appearance
of the 'live icon' of the Virgin Mary near Chufut-Kale is very
well-known, in honour of which the Assumption Monastery
was founded. The 'live icon' of the Mother of God is
possibly a reminiscence of a personal appearance in
Chufut-Kale of Mary Mother of God herself. According to
Life of Mary the Mother God, she was buried in the cave.
The Assumption Monastery in Chufut-Kale is indeed a
cave-monastery.
There are several Assumption Monasteries in Russia.
They are dedicated to the Assumption of Mary the Mother

of God. But the most famous of them, steeped in

numerous legends, is unquestionably the Crimean
Assumption Monastery. It is situated in direct proximity to
Chufut-Kale. For hundreds of years thousands of pilgrims
from different countries have been coming here. As
commentators observe, millions of feet have walked the
road to the Assumption Monastery [164], p.5-6. It's all true.
As Virgin Mary passed away, we now understand, in
Chufut-Kale, it is exactly here where the most cherished
main Assumption Monastery should have appeared. And
so it did.
Furthermore, the well-known Golden-Horde (Tatar) story
of the Queen Dzanike-Khanym is a story of the life, death
and Ascension of the Virgin Mary in Chufut-Kale. Today
Queen Dzanike-Khanym is ascribed to the XIV-XV cc. The
historians are mistaken. Later authors were confusing the
events of the end of the XII century and the end of the XIII
century. That is the Church of Christ and the epoch of
Constantine the Great.
A remarkable fact stands out, that throughout the
centuries The Russian Emperors and the members of their
families came to Chufut-Kale, to the Assumption
Monastery and Bakhchisaray to worship. Foreign rulers
also visited. Now we understand why. The august persons
would come here in order to pay reverence to the places,
where Mary the Mother of God had lived and died. Of
course over time the heart of the matter was forgotten.
However a longstanding tradition to visit these holy places
remained unchanged. The people of the XVIII-XIX cc. had

already forgotten the root of this tradition, but they

unswervingly obeyed the ancient custom.
Please note, that none of the Russian crown bearers
travelled to Palestinian Jerusalem to worship. They
probably well understood that there is nothing to worship
there. Most likely they still remembered that not so long
ago a shameless modern replica was fabricated there (on
the initiative of, among others, the first Romanovs). But
they constantly travelled to the ancient Chufut-Kale. The
flow of the visitors of the highest rank, including the
emperors and empresses, didn't wane until the beginning
of the XX century. After the 1917 revolution the legendary
holy places of Crimea suffered a long period of oblivion.
The memory of The Mother of God spending her last days
here practically vanished. And only now, relying on the
New Chronology we are reviving this remarkable historical
information. Hence the role of significant sites in ChufutKale and its surroundings multiplies endlessly.
The famous 'ancient' story of Orestes and Iphigenia is
another Act of Christ and The Mother of God. The old
sources tell us about Iphigenia's (i.e. Virgin Mary's) stay in
Tavrida = Crimea. Flight of Iphigenia, Orestes and Pylades
is The Flight of the Holy Family into Egypt. In Crimea a
special adoration of The Virgin Mary was spread. In fact it
becomes clear why the Church of the Virgin Mary at AyuDag Mountain was situated on the cape which was called
PARTENIT. The simple reason was that Virgin Mary was
called PARTHENOS, meaning Virgin. 'Ancient' names still

point directly to the fact, that it was A Virgin, i.e. Virgin

Mary, who the Crimean Tauroscythians worshiped.
Incidentally, the phrase 'Greek faith' earlier used to mean
'Christian faith', and the CHRISTIANS were once called
GREEK (GREEK was used for CHRISTIANS).
At the end of the XVIII century Romanov with the support
of the Western European military forces was able to defeat
both the troops of Tartaria Moscovite (the war with
'Pugachev') and the Crimean Khanate. As we show in
[4v1], ch.10:4, after invading Crimea the Romanovs
carried out a real pogrom, destroying the rich legacy of
Russia-Horde. It is especially vivid in the example of the
Assumption Monastery. The monks were evicted, a long
'quarantine' was laid on the monastery, the monastery's
library was relocated somewhere and its fate is unknown.
The Khan palace in Bakhchisaray was destroyed. Little
was left from its original look and dcor [], ch.4. It
seems likely that the Romanovs were finishing in Crimea
the last remains of the Horde in the South. Besides, there
were probably apprehensive of documents and books
which were kept there, coming to light, which gave an
account of the history of Russia and Crimea of the XV and
the XVII cc.; historical accounts which were at great
variance to the Romanov historians' enthusiastic versions.
The Romanovs' incredible campaign of wiping out any
historical memory gives food for serious thought. In the
centre of Russia they destroy documents and chronicles
and efface frescos in the central cathedrals of Russia. [4v].

In the remote regions of the Empire they simply banish

from the homes those, who could still tell the truth about
the former life and history of Russia-Horde. Needless to
say there are no traces of the old frescos, inscriptions or
paintings left in the Assumption Monastery. The
destruction has been wholesale and thorough.
The town of Chufut-Kale was earlier called THE
JEWELLED FORTRESS. Chufut-Kale enchanted many
travellers. Evliya Chelebi wrote: 'IN THOSE TIMES ALL
THE PORTALS, WALLS AND GATES WERE
DECORATED WITH PRECIOUS STONES' [164], p.6.
Maybe he is referring to opulent mosaics. But it's quite
possible, that something more luxuriant was meant here.
As we now understand, that it was Chufut-Kale where
Mary the Mother of God had died. Numerous pilgrims
could have brought here generous offerings in the form of
precious stones. They could have also decorated some of
the buildings in Chufut-Kale, which would still cherish the
memory of Mary. As it was a holy and sacred place the
treasures could have been displayed not only inside the
temples, but also on the outer walls. It is probable, that the
pilgrims hung the decorations devoted to the Virgin Mary
straight onto the railing of the mausoleum or the church
dedicated to her. The Roman historian Iulius Capitolinus
reports that in a settlement of Galal (i.e. Kale= ChufutKale) there was erected a temple dedicated to the
Empress Faustina (aka Mary The Mother of God), who
had died there. It's not difficult to imagine that not only the
inside of the church, but also the walls surrounding it,

could have been decorated with the luxurious gifts

bestowed by the faithful. In that epoch no one would have
touched them, the people regarded The Mother of God
with such reverence.
But with time the tradition of bringing precious things here
was forgotten. The memory of the first ceremonies and
customs of the XIII century became a thing in the past.
Bloody wars and pogroms tore through Crimea. Many
things were eviscerated.
The well-known Iosafatova valley near Chufut-Kale well
corresponds the Biblical tradition. There are: a valley with
an old name 'Iosafatova valley', a famous old cemetery
steeped in adoration for many centuries. The historians
themselves mention the 'Biblical appearance' of the
necropolis. It is fascinating that burials in the Iosafatova
valley began since XIII century. It is all correct. The
relatives of Andronicus-Christ died in the beginning of XIII
century. Virgin Mary came to Crimea and died at the end
of XII beginning of the XIII cc. Exactly at this moment a
cemetery appeared and began to expand in the
'Iosafatova valley' near Chufut-Kale. So it is for a reason
that in Life of Mary Mother of God it is said that Mary was
buried near the Iosafatova valley. As we have shown,
Mary Mother of God was indeed buried either on the
territory of Chufut-Kale or in the cave church of the
Assumption Monastery, i.e. in close proximity to the in the
Iosafatova valley ch.4.

12. THE HOLY GRAIL IS THE GOLDEN CRADLE OF

CHRIST.
The legend of the Holy Grail is widely known. In the
Scaligerian history its essence is obscured. It is not known
what the Grail actually is. Allegedly it is a cup into which
Joseph of Arimathea collected Jesus' blood during His
crucifixion. At the same time it is considered that the Holy
Grail is related to the Last Supper and is linked with the
communion cup in which wine symbolizes Christ's blood.
The Western sources get confused about the location of
the Holy Grail. They position it sometimes in France, in
Britain and sometimes in the East. The Modern Christian
Church doesn't officially speak out on the subject of what
is the Holy Grail exactly. The legends of the Holy Grail
appear both in the West and in the East starting with the
XII-XIII cc. The aforementioned hazy interpretations of the
Holy Grail most likely appeared quite late, not earlier than
XV-XVI cc. The true story is forgotten and replaced with
vague theories and philosophical speculations.
Presumably The Golden Cradle of Christ is in fact The
Holy Grail. We have discovered that the later chroniclers
would sometimes mix up Christ's Nativity with the
crucifixion. In some legends [], ch.5, the Infant Jesus is
killed with a small spear, by piercing His body. Evidently
this is a mix up of the caesarean section with Jesus'
execution. Christ was born as the result of a medical
procedure: the Virgin Mary was given a small incision with
a knife ('a small spear') in her body and the Baby was
delivered. During the crucifixion Christ suffered the blow of

a spear in His side. These two events have intertwined. In

both cases blood was flowing. It could have (both factually
and symbolically) coloured Christ's cradle and His body
during the crucifixion (and at his birth). That is why they
starting saying later that several drops of Christ's blood got
into the Holy Grail. The same cup started to be called
Joseph of Arimathea's sacred cup. So the commentators
quite rightfully note that in some ancient texts the Infant
Jesus and crucified Christ become victims. In other words
the act of birth and the act of death become identified with
each other. The cradle coloured with Christ's blood is on
the whole the same thing as the Cup containing His blood.
Christ was lying in the Cradle; His blood was in the Cup
(Grail).
So, Christ's Cradle was situated in Crimea which has
become a holy relic which received the following names
'the Golden Cradle' and 'The Golden Holy Grail'. For some
time people knew where it was situated. Then the memory
of it began to fade. But the tradition of connecting the Grail
with Crimea lived on and had longevity. Consequently at
some point the search for Grail was to start exactly here.
And so it did. In [], ch.5, we tell about numerous
attempts to find the Holy Grail in Crimea, which were
undertaken in the XX century, as an example. Not only
Russian archaeologists and enthusiasts were looking for
it, but also many Western Europeans. This once again
emphasizes a wide spreading of the information about the
Golden Cradle.

It becomes clear why Mary Mother of God at the end of

Her life came exactly to Southern Crimea. For some time
She lived either in Chufut-Kale or somewhere near it. The
choice of the place was not random and was a very
natural one as on the Fiolent Cape not that far from
Bakhchisaray and Chufut-Kale Mary gave birth to
Andronicus-Christ. Therefore in the end She returned to
the birthplace of Her famous son, and lived here until Her
death. When a person specifically choses a place as their
final resting place, such a choice is not usually a random
one.
13. TO CONCLUDE: CAPE FIOLENT IS THE
BIRTHPLACE OF CHRIST, MOUNTAIN BEYKOZ IS THE
PLACE OF HIS CRUCIFIXION, CHUFUT-KALE IS THE
PLACE OF DEATH AND FIRST BURIAL OF MARY
MOTHER OF GOD.
To conclude, we were able to discover three geographical
points, where the important events of the XII century took
place. In the XIX XX cc. nobody anymore made a direct
connection between the places identified by us and the
story of Andronicus-Christ and Mary Mother of God (this
connection was forgotten in the epoch of the XVII-XVIII
cc.)
1) Andronicus-Christ was born in the Cape Fiolent in
Crimea, circa 1152.
2) He was crucified on Beykoz Mountain = Golgotha in
1185, on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus. Nearby are
situated ruins of the original, i.e. Biblical Jerusalem, which

was also called Yoros. On the shore of the strait, slightly to

the south, is situated modern Istanbul.
3) The Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ for some time lived
and then died and was buried in Crimea in the cave town
of Chufut-Kale. These events took place at the end of the
XII century.
In the XII-XIII cc. all three places enjoyed great respect.
Here numerous pilgrims used to arrive. It was the time of
Royal Christianity. Christ was worshiped and was called
Zeus, Dionysus, Apollo, etc. Mary Mother of God was also
referred to by different 'ancient' names. In Jerusalem =
Czar-Grad, in Beykoz-Golgotha and also in Crimea the
'ancient' temples and shrines dedicated to Andronicus
Christ were erected. Bloody sacrifices would take place
there, among them, quite possibly, human ones. Such was
the character of Royal Christianity of that time. After the
victory of the Apostles' Christianity, Royal Christianity
began to be called the primal Judaism and 'paganism'.
At the end of the XIV century after the Battle of Kulikovo,
in the Great = 'Mongol' Empire the Apostles' Christianity
was adopted as the state religion. The bloody sacrifices
were banned. From the end of the XIV century Royal
Christianity was declared as 'paganism' (primal Judaism),
that is to say 'a false cult'. Hostility to it began, which also
affected the attitude to the former relics. The places of
worship themselves were preserved because they were
Christian. But terminology, ritualism and many other things
which create the 'external appearance', as well as the form
of customs, changed. As before the faithful would arrive to

visit the Holy places, however by then they would

generally be the Apostles' Christians. The former 'pagan'
past of the relics had begun to be forgotten and turned into
a well-respected, but none the less 'someone else's' past',
'antiquity'. The new priests would slightly change the old
names, which would compound the confusion in people's
minds. Eventually the Christians were made to think that
Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus were some ancient deities and that
the deep past of Beykoz, Chufut-Kale and Fiolent was by
no means Christian, but in fact, 'pagan'.
A particularly severe distortion was created in the XVIXVIII cc., when the false Scaligerian history was invented
and implanted by force. It confused the picture even more.
While combatting the memory of the Great Empire, they
did their best to consign to oblivion the former 'Mongol'
relics, including the older places of worship. To a large
extent it was successful. However, 'success of the
reformers' was far from complete. As not so long ago, in
the XVII-XVIII cc. many could still remember the true
history. Of course the younger upcoming generations were
soon re-educated, however, a firm tradition had already
been developed and established. That is why until now
many come to Beykoz Mountain, Cape Fiolent and the
City of Chufut-Kale to worship, though not longer fully
aware of the true meaning of these holy places.
14. King Arthur.
# The Horde wars and the conquests of a latter epoch of
the XIV-XVI cc. were falsely inserted into the Life of
Arthur-Christ. For example the story of the Battle of

Kulikovo has been inserted. In it Arthur is identified with

Khan Dmitryi Donskoy (Emperor Constantine) and also
with the Biblical David. The well-known battle of Arthur
with a fierce giant is David fighting Goliath. That is once
again the Battle of Kulikovo.
# The well-known wizard Merlin is a magus-sorcerer and
also the Holy Spirit of the Gospels, and also (in some of
the fragments of chronicles) the Emperor AndronicusChrist himself.
# King Uhter is King Herod, and in other fragments it is the
Holy Spirit who procreated Christ (Arthur).
# The story of Arthur's birth is the Gospel story of the
Immaculate Conception and the Nativity of Christ.
# In the Life of Arthur the story of John the Baptist is
inserted.
# The notorious traitor Modred or Mordred who rebelled
against Arthur is the reflection of the Gospel King Herod
and also to a greater degree - Judas Iscariot. The
scheming Judas is also reflected in the image of King's
Arthur 'unfaithful wife Guinevere'.
# The cycle of legends of King Arthur was created quite
late, in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. The story of Christ is
fantastically entwined here with much later events, mainly
of the military history of the Horde. It's no coincidence that
the name ARTHUR coincides with the word ARTA or
HORDE.

# The famous Round Table of King Arthur and the meeting

of twelve of his best knights at the Round Table is a
recollection of Christ's famous Last Supper, when at the
same table not long before Christ's death all 12 of Jesus'
apostles gathered together [XP], ch.7.
A great deal is written about King Arthur and the Holy
Grail. The literature dedicated to the Arthurian legends
and their reflection in the fictional literature of different
epochs and different people is truly vast. Now such a keen
interest towards the persona of Arthur makes perfect
sense.
15. HERACLES
Heracles (Hercules) is a famous hero from 'deep antiquity'.
Numerous 'ancient' authors have written about him. The
theme of Heracles resonates continually and loudly at the
beginning with the XV century. 'Heraclean' statues,
paintings, frescos and mosaics were being created,
literary works, operas, symphonic poems and musicals
were being written. A list of the prominent authors who
created works in honor of Heracles occupies a
considerable amount of space in the encyclopedia [533].
Here is the result of our research of Heracles' life story
[] It appears to resemble King Arthur's 'biography'. The
first and the last thirds of the life story are the phantom
reflections of the story of Andronicus-Christ. The first third
tells us about birth and adolescence. The last third is
dedicated to the final stage of his life, including crucifixion.
The middle of the 'biography' is of a completely different
nature. In Arthur's case it concerns the epoch of the

Ataman (Ottoman) conquest of the XV-XVI cc., the

jousting contests (i.e. 'ancient' gladiators' tournaments). In
the case of Heracles the picture is similar. The middle of
his 'biography' is the 12 famous heroic deeds. They are
identical to the tilting matches. Heracles battles against
various characters and monsters, besides this there is
some mention of 'fair ladies'. The 'ancient' Heracles
behaves like a medieval knight.
We discovered that the 12 heroic deeds of Heracles
correspond with the zodiacal constellations. Furthermore,
it turned out that in some of the constellations the planets
were specified. Therefore the description of Heracles'
heroic deeds is an encrypted zodiac. We have dated it. It
turned out that the astronomical solution exists (which at
first glance was far from obvious). More than that, as a
result there was a single digit date, i.e. year 1513, []
ch.2.
Thus, the beginning and the end of Heracles' 'biography' is
one of an early description of the life of AndronicusChrist.
The middle was made up of the events of the XV-XVI cc.
The image of Andronicus-Christ was strongly reflected in
both Royal, Ancestral and the Apostles' people's
Christianity. In the Royal Christianity he was described in
particular as the hero and demi god Heracles (and also as
Zeus, Apollo-Apollonius, Dionysus, etc.). It was Royal
Christianity which yielded an offshoot called Judaism with
its sceptical attitude towards Christ.
Furthermore, it turned out the 'biography' of the famous
'antique' hero Theseus (Theos = God) consists of the

events of both the XII and the XVI cc. Incidentally, this is
already familiar to us from the life story of Heracles, which
consists of two layers the story of Andronicus-Christ of
the XII century and the events of the XV-XVI cc.
16. CHRISTIAN CROSS AND CRESCENT MOON WITH
A STAR.
In the epoch of the XII-XVI cc. the following two wellknown symbols effectively signified the same thing. It is a
crescent moon with a star and a Christian cross adjacent
to a crescent moon, fig.13 [], ch.5. Today a crescent
moon with a star is considered to be exclusively a symbol
of Islam, of the Muslim faith, and a cross, at the base of
which there is a crescent is regarded purely as a Christian
symbol. However, Christianity of the XII-XVI cc. was one
entity, and it was only at the end of the XVI century that a
split began to appear, which led in the XVII century to the
division of Christianity into several denominations
Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Catholicism, Judaism,
Buddhism, etc. A formerly united Christian symbol a
crescent moon and a star=cross possibly first
symbolised the Star of Bethlehem, which lit up at Christ's
birth in year 1152, and also the solar eclipse, associated
with the crucifixion of Christ in year 1185. You may recall
that during the solar eclipse the sun initially turns into a
half crescent. The crescent may also symbolise the Moon,
which blocks the Sun. The star (cross) inscribed inside the
crescent was depicted in various ways four-pointed, fivepointed, s ix-pointed and eight-pointed.

After the division of the churches in the XVII century the

symbol of the star-cross has 'multiplied' and gradually
turned into its modern versions, including that of a
crescent and a star (today, as a rule, five-pointed) and
also into a cross, adjacent to a crescent, etc., fig.13. A sixpointed star (= 6-pointed cross), which has 'separated'
from the crescent began to be called the 'star of David',
which, by the way, is not surprising, as a significant part of
the legends of Biblical David refer to Andronicus-Christ
[] Christ was always associated with the Star of
Bethlehem. So the 'star of David', which today is
considered exclusively to be a Judaic symbol, most likely
symbolizes The Star of Bethlehem of the XII century.
The fact, that on the domes of many Russian churches
and cathedrals there is towering a Christian cross and a
crescent, attracts our attention. Historians and members of
clergy are often asked a question: what does it mean? As
today a crescent is considered to be a symbol of Islam,
distant from Christianity. So why then a crescent can be
seen together with a cross? Usually the answer is as
follows: purportedly, in the epoch of the religious wars
Christianity in Europe defeated Islam. So they put an
Ottoman crescent at the base of the Christian a cross as a
symbol of victory, so that the people always remembered
of the' triumph of the cross over the crescent'.
But such 'explanations' are invented post factum and do
not represent the facts. The true meaning we have made
clear above.

In some places in Russia there have survived old

depictions of a Christian cross and a crescent, where the
crescent is not situated below, BUT IN THE VERY
CENTRE OF THE CROSS, fig. 14 AND EVEN ON TOP
OF THE CROSS, ABOVE IT, fig.15 [] ch.5. So it is
completely impossible to say, that here is depicted 'victory
of the cross over the crescent'. If we follow the 'logic' of the
historians, then we'll have the opposite: the crescent,
placed ABOVE the cross should have been symbolizing
the victory of Islam over Christianity. But how could a
symbol like that appear in the Christian Orthodox
cathedrals?!
17. THE OLYMPIC GAMES.
It is possible, that the first 100-200 years after Christ's
crucifixion up until the adoption of Christianity in the XIV
century after the holy Battle of Kulikovo, the Olympic
Games in memory of Christ were held in the Empire every
four years. At first it was a commemorative celebration in
the memory of Christ according to the laws of the
'Ancestral' Royal Christianity. Following the adoption of the
Apostles' Christianity at the end of the XIV-XV cc. this
custom was abolished and declared to be 'pagan'. On our
suggestion the history of the Olympic Games was subject
to a further deep analysis by Kurinnoy I.I. and the
interesting results he arrived at are described in his book
[455:3].
18. ONE HUNDRED AND FIVE REFLECTIONS OF
ANDRONICUS-CHRIST = ANDREY BOGOLIUBSKY

WE HAVE DISCOVERED IN THE SCALIGARIAN

HISTORY
Fig.16 shows the erroneous Scaligerian dating of the main
multiple reflections (altogether there are already 105 of
them) of Emperor Andronicus-Christ, aka the Great Prince
Andrey Bogoliubsky, that we discovered. It resulted in an
impressive list of 'phantoms'.
'Chronicle biographies' of Czar-Grad's Emperor
Andronicus and the Great Russian Prince Andrey
Bogoliubsky are the most complete surviving SECULAR
testimonies about Jesus Christ, who lived according to the
new chronology, in the XII century.
a) ANDRONICUS COMNENUS, Czar-Grad, 'Byzantine'
emperor, 1115-1185 []ch.1-2.
b) ANDREY BOGOLIUBSKY, the Great Russian Prince of
the XII century []ch.3.
Some of the 'reflections' of Andronicus-Christ are partial.
These biographies are comprised of several strands
among which there is a prominent 'strand of AndronicusChrist'. Sometimes it is the principle strand, sometimes
not. In the latter case fragments of Christ's life are heavily
intertwined with the information about other people from
the epoch of the XII-XV cc. So here is a complete list of
the reflections of Andronicus-Christ we have discovered:
1) GREGORY VII HILDEBRAND, allegedly the XI century,
in Rome [2v1], ch.4.

2) RUDOLF OF SWABIA, anti-king, allegedly the XI

century, in Rome [] ch.1:9.
3) EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, English king, allegedly
the XI century [] ch.1:9.
4) ROMANOS DIOGENES, allegedly years 1068-1071, in
Byzantium [] Appendix 1.
5) ISAAK KOMNENOS (COMNENUS), allegedly years
1057-1059, in Byzantium [], Appendix 1.
6) MICHAEL KALAFAT, allegedly years 1041-1042, in
Byzantium, [] Appendix 1.
7) ROMAN ARGIR, Byzantine Emperor, allegedly years
1028-1034 [] Appendix 1.
8) Death of a Russian prince OLEG, allegedly the X
century [] ch.1.
9) IGOR, a Russian prince, allegedly the X century []
ch.1.
10) ASKOLD (Asa-Kolyada), a Russian prince, allegedly
the IX century [] ch.1.
11) FOKA, Byzantine Emperor, allegedly years 602-610
[] Appendix 1.
12) VASILY THE GREAT a famous Saint, allegedly the
IV century [2v1], ch.3:6.

13) VASILY - a famous Christian evangelist, allegedly the

IV century [] ch.5:14.
14) DOMITIAN (partial), an 'ancient' Roman emperor,
ruling allegedly in years 81-96 [] ch.12.
15) HADRIAN, an 'ancient' Roman emperor, ruling
allegedly in years 117-138 [] ch.1. Overall the
biography of Hadrian is cast in a favourable light. However
in the end of the story told by historian Aelius Spartianus a
theme of 'cruel and bad' Hadrian unexpectedly emerges.
What is it all about? Why is there such an abrupt change
in attitude towards the wonderful Hadrian, moreover,
within just one fragment, one which is clearly at odds with
the overall the sympathetic tone of the description? Surely,
the most contradictory qualities can reside in one person.
However in this case an idea occurs, that we yet again
come across a widely spread opinion in the 'antiquity' of
the XIII-XVI cc. that Andronicus-Christ was an 'evil
person', 'mamzer', 'cruel monster'.
Byzantine Nikita Choniates, acknowledging the altogether
outstanding role of Andronicus in History, talks a lot about
his negative characteristics. He veraciously accuses him
of a number of 'evil deeds'. We (can also see the same in
the rabbinical Judaic version which presents Jesus as a
negative character [307]. Similar sceptical overtones also
can be heard in works of the 'ancient' Titus Livius (Livy),
when he described some of the duplicates of AndronicusChrist. At the same time the other duplicates of Jesus are
described in a positive way [] Such contrasts are
not surprising. The persona of Andronicus-Christ caused

turbulent disputes and polarised opinion. The emperor

died in 1185 as a result of the bloody revolt in Czar-Grad.
It was followed by the revenge from Russia-Horde: the
perpetrators of Andronicus-Christ's crucifixion were
violently executed. All of this led to the sharply divided
opinion.
16) AELIUS VERUS (the Elder, the father), 'ancient'
Roman personage allegedly of the first half of the II
century (under Hadrian) [] ch.1.
17) AELIUS VERUS (the Younger, the son) 'ancient'
Roman Caesar, who ruled in Rome allegedly in years 161169 [] ch.1. (Lucius Aelius Verus Caesar)
18) COMMODUS, 'ancient' Roman Emperor, ruled
allegedly in years 180-193 [] ch.2. We cannot ignore a
colourful plot which reveals the rebellious atmosphere
simmering around the figure of Andronicus-Christ in the
year 1185. We are specifically talking about the Senate
Decree dedicated to Commodus-Christ [140:1], p.71-72.
Each of its lines is infused with hatred. The text was
written by people clearly not under control and openly
spilling their emotions onto paper. Harsh negative
comments about Jesus on the pages of the rabbinical
Judaic texts [307] pale in comparison with this scandalous
Decree. The senate's decree probably came about amidst
Czar-Grad scribes (Pharisees) and high priests who
fiercely hated Jesus, according to the Gospels, and who
made every effort to bring about His demise.
The true meaning of the senate's document becomes
clear only now, after our research. This is the voice of

Christ's enemies, surviving until today on the pages of

'ancient authors'. The latter editors forgot that it was Jesus
who they were talking about here. If they knew, they would
have destroyed the document.
No documents of such a strikingly critical nature have
survived about any other Roman emperor. Of course,
plenty negative things were written about Nero, Caligula
and others. But in all those cases the emotions were much
more restrained. There was no such fierce personal hatred
towards a ruler. In Commodus' case the senators lost any
control of themselves. Such fanaticism probably had a
religious foundation. As Commodus is a reflection of
Christ, the picture becomes clearer. The sympathisers and
adversaries were split down religious lines.
Commodus-Christ was constantly called a GLADIATOR in
the senate's decree (see next chapter). Repeated
exhortations to 'pull' His body 'by a hook' were frequently
made. They demanded to tear Commodus' corpse to
pieces. Each sentence ends with an exclamation mark.
Most likely, the document absorbed the cries of the mob,
which, according to the Gospels, demanded Jesus'
execution. In the Gospels this scene is described
sparingly, but this 'ancient' text is much more detailed. In
this way we can penetrate the events, briefly described in
the Gospels, in more depth [] ch.2.
19) KOLYADA, god of the medieval Slavs, and also the
Middle Ages West European SANTA CLAUS (SANTA
CRUZ) []ch.6.

20) ODIN, a Germanic and Norse medieval god, but

allegedly 'very-very' ancient [] ch.5.
21) JESUS CHRIST, allegedly the I century [] ch.1-2.
22) APOLLONIUS OF TYANA, 'ancient' miracle maker,
allegedly the I century [] ch.1.
23) ANDREW THE FIRST CALLED, THE APOSTLE,
allegedly the I century [] ch.4.
The Scaligerian-Romanov dating of Baptism of Russia by
Apostle Andrew allegedly in the X-XI cc. radically differs
BY A THOUSAND YEARS from the same Scaligerian
dating of the life time of Apostle Andrew as the I century.
However the Baptism of Russia by Andrew himself ideally
corresponds with the New Chronology and the shift to
years 1053 or 1153. By retrieving the Gospel events from
the phantom I century into the realistic XII century, we put
everything in its place. It becomes clear, why it was
exactly in the XII-XIII cc. when we see the 'explosion of
Evangelism' and the blossoming of Christianity. It
becomes clear that Russia 'didn't wait' for a whole
THOUSAND YEARS to 'finally' adopt Christianity, but
effectively adopted it immediately after the emergence of
the new religion in the XII century. In the XVI century Ivan
IV the Terrible, not knowing yet of the Scaligerian
chronology, which was introduced well AFTER HIM,
'pointed out that the RUSSIANS ADOPTED
CHRISTIANITY NOT FROM THE GREEK, BUT FROM
APOSTLE ANDREW HIMSELF. The same fact was
pointed out to the Greeks a century later by the monk-

priest Arseny Sukhanov who was sent to Greece' [208],

p. 121.
24) GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, the Roman Emperor,
allegedly I century BC []ch.2:51.
25) MARK ANTONY, 'ancient' Roman military
commander, allegedly the I century BC [] ch.1.
26) Death of the Egyptian Queen CLEOPATRA, allegedly
the I century BC [] ch.1.
27) SALMOXIS, a divinity of the 'ancient' Thracians,
allegedly 'very-very ancient' [] Appendix 1:1.
28) EUCLID, a famous mathematician, geometrician,
allegedly years 315-255 BC [] ch.8:5. Thus, among
the numerous reflections of Jesus Christ there is a fairly
unexpected one. Christ is described in some of the
'ancient' sources as the 'ancient' Greek mathematician
Euclid, to whom 'Elements', a famous book on geometry,
is attributed. Presumably, the Emperor Andronicus-Christ
was a patron of science, was interested in mathematics
and by his order and maybe even under his supervision,
the definitive work 'Elements' was created. By the way, the
name Euclid is just a slight variation on the word KOLIADA
one of Christ's names.
29) HANNON, Carthaginian hero, allegedly the IV century
BC [] ch.3:2. Ancient Carthage is Czar-Grad, aka
the 'New City', aka Biblical Jerusalem, aka 'ancient' Troy.
The famous Punic wars between Rome and Carthage are
the internecine feuds between Russia-Horde and Czar-

Grad, and also the reflection of the Ataman (Ottoman)

conquest in the XV-XVI cc, fig.17 [] ch.3.
Scaligerian historians assure us that the Carthage of the
chronicles is situated in Africa. However there are no
archeological remains here of the powerful Carthage and
the great Carthaginian Kingdom, worthy of exuberant
chronicle descriptions. Several dilapidating brick columns
were presented and declared without any proof to be the
remains of 'that very' temple of Baal which stood in 'that
very' Carthage of the chronicles. But such crumbling
remains of the medieval foundations can be pointed out
practically anywhere. In Africa, Europe, Asia, America
Identification of these bricks and stones with the 'annalistic
Carthaginian' ones are entirely based on the erroneous
Scaligerian geography and chronology.
It appears that not so long ago the archeologists took a
textbook of the Scaligerian history and read in it that
Carthage 'must be in Africa'. Having arrived to the North of
Africa and having looked around, they saw nearby some
dusty ruins. Rejoicing they said: There, we have found
'Carthage'. They found some inscriptions which were
loosely interpreted as connected to Carthage. However
such inscriptions do not at all prove that the
METROPOLIS of Carthage was situated there. The city of
Carthage, i.e. Czar-Grad, had many colonies scattered
around the world. In each of them were kept the CzarGrad documents, correspondence, etc. So the unearthing
of Carthaginian coins in North Africa or say, in America, is
not conclusive prove that 'the metropolis is found at last'.

Later, already in the XIX-XX cc., looking at a long and

barren line of the North-African shore, in the very centre of
which the historians have pointed out a small fertile valley
and erroneously 'marked' here (on a map) the capital of
the Carthaginian Kingdom, commentators were compelled
to explain to themselves and to the public, how a generally
fruitless land could feed such a large and powerful state,
AS DESCRIBED IN THE CHRONICLES. But as no logical
explanation was possible to find, they began to
persistently repeat: 'Yes, it's infertile, but productive'
[] ch.3.
Nevertheless, let's assume for a moment that historians
are right and that in fact it was here in Africa, where the
majestic capital of the mighty Carthaginian Kingdom was
situated. But then it should be expected that in the 'most
fertile valley' there survived some visible remains of the
big city, etc But no! There is nothing of the sort there.
The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia melancholically
informs us: 'NOTING HAS SURVIVED of the famous
Carthaginian temples' [988:00]. Of Carthage itself also
nothing. Here they hastily concocted an explanation:
Carthage was, purportedly, 'mercilessly destroyed so
many times over'. That is why no traces have survived of
it.
THUS, THERE ARE NO TRACES OF THE FORMER
GRANDEUR OF CARTHAGE OF THE CHRONICLES
LEFT IN NORTH AFRICA. In a more or less reliable
history starting with the XVII century, we discover here
only a small town. Just several hundred inhabitants. One

mosque. No convenient harbours. Only 25-30 dwellings.

Poor living conditions. Three scanty Arabic villages. One
church [988:00]. A museum, organised here by the
Europeans in the XIX century in honour of the allegedly
great 'ancient' past of these desolate places. Cardinal
Lavigerie studied Scaligerian history well and decided to
'revive' the memory of Carthage here. He built a museum.
But the cardinal made a mistake. He should have built it in
a different place: in Czar-Grad. Admittedly there are
enough museums in Istanbul without it.
Archeological works in place of the 'great African
Carthage' began only in 1817 [988:00]. They were
leisurely digging in the XX century as well. Nothing
remarkable was discovered until now [] ch.3.
30) ISOCRATES, the Athenian orator and writer, allegedly
years 436-338 BC [] ch.1:6.
31) SOCRATES, Greek philosopher and thinker, allegedly
years 469-399 BC. In the famous drama by Aristophanes
'The Clouds', which tells us about Socrates-Christ, a
Gospel story is described: a story of a greedy traitor Judas
Iscariot and the execution of Jesus. 'The Clouds' is
considered as originating from a secular source. But
Scaligerian history assures us that the life of Jesus is
described exclusively in the religious original sources. As
we can see it is not true.
It is possible that at the heart of 'The Clouds' was an old
text, which was later lost. It was Christian and described
the story of Judas Iscariot and the execution of Jesus.

However, in the epoch of the Reformation, the dram was

tendentiously rewritten. The derisive remarks addressed at
Socrates-Christ and His mentees disciples are scattered
about all of the text. They created an overall tone of
mockery of Christianity. Later the Christian content of the
play was forgotten altogether, and it began to be
considered as just some 'tale from ancient life'.
Now when a true essence of many old texts becomes
clearer, they begin to be much more interesting. For
example, Aristophanes' "The Clouds" is usually
considered to be a tedious epic poem. Indeed, primitive
jokes and scoffs scattered about the text can hardly
captivate a modern reader. But as soon as we discovered
that all of this anti-Christian 'humour' was added on to it by
more recent editors, and as soon as it becomes clear, that
'The Clouds' is an old text of the New Testament, telling us
about Christ and Judas Iscariot, then the interest towards
the play immediately increases. The same sort of thing
happens to a number of other old sources. A new view
perspective transforms them from half-forgotten and
supposedly bleak texts into gripping accounts of the past.
32) LYSANDER, Spartan king, allegedly the V-IV cc. BC
[] Appendix 1:2.
33) NICIAS, Athenian commander, the ruler of Athens,
allegedly the V century BC [] ch.5.
35) PAUSANIAS, Spartan king, allegedly the V century BC
[] ch.4:6.

35) ANDROCLES, leader of the Athenian radical

democrats, allegedly the V century BC [] ch.5:8.
37) ANDOKIDES, Athenian orator and public figure,
allegedly the V century BC [] ch.5:7-8.
37) CYRUS THE YOUNGER, a Persian Prince, allegedly
the V century BC, died allegedly in year 401 BC [] ch.2.
38) TIMOCREON, Athenian, allegedly the V century BC
[] ch.4:7.
39) PHRYNICHUS, Athenian strategist, allegedly the V
century BC [] Appendix 1:3.
40) POLYCRATES, the tyrant of Samos, allegedly the VI
century BC [] ch.6.
41) ZOPYRUS, a Persian nobleman, organised the
regaining of control over Babylon under the rule of king
Darius, allegedly the VI century BC [] ch.6:14.
42) CYRUS THE ELDER, Persian king, allegedly years
559-530 BC [] ch.3.
43) CROESUS, King of Lydia, allegedly years 560-546 or
590-545 BC [] ch.3:3-5.
44) SERVIUS TULLIUS (MASTARNA in Etruscan) the
penultimate king of the Royal Rome, allegedly years 578535 BC. 'Ancient' historians spoke about his Etruscan
origin [] ch.2. But in the epoch of the XVII century
Reformation rebellion the information about the Etruscan,
aka Russian, origin of Servius Tullius began to be

considered 'exceptionally detrimental', 'very much

incorrect'. Having grown to hate Russia-Horde, the former
metropolis of the Empire, the reformers started declaring
the Slavs, and especially the Russians, to be second rate
people. That is why in some chronicles the words SLAV,
SLAVONIAN surreptitiously were emended to SLAVE.
Titus Livy probably acted in similar way, or it could have
been his editors. It was decided that was better to declare
Servius Tullius, aka Christ, to be a SLAVE, rather than
continue to consider him to be ET-RUSCAN, Russian.
Having confused the others, in the end, they got confused
themselves. After which they began to authoritatively
speculate sometimes patronisingly, and sometimes
assertively and aggressively about the 'slave origin' of
Christ. Like, he was a 'bad bastard'. His mother Mary was
purportedly a slave too, moreover, a defiled one [307],
p.358. Or else even worse a lewd whore [] ch.2.
Various theories have blossomed around this theme.
The 'Theory' about Servius Tullius' = Christ's supposedly
slave background was being forced into the minds of
people of the Reformation epoch with difficulty. Not so
many were ready to accept it and forget the true history. It
is known, that 'THE ROMAN SCIENTISTS ANNALISTS
STRUGGLE WITH THIS TRADITION of biasedly labelling
Servius Tullius and his mother as 'slaves' Author) can
also be seen in the narration of Livy, who, incidentally
himself eulogised her' [483], v.1, p.515, commentary 131.
This 'ancient' struggle unfolded most likely in the epoch of
the XVI-XVII cc. when the rebels-reformers began to
enforce the Scaligerian version of history. The uprising

opposition was overpowered, though with some effort.

However, as we can see, many traces of the real history
have survived [] ch.2.
45) PYTHAGORAS, a famous 'ancient' philosopher and
mathematician, allegedly the VI century BC [] ch.2.
46) CYLON, Athenian, Olympic champion, allegedly the
VII century BC [] ch.4:4-5.
47) ROMULUS, the first king of 'ancient' Royal Rome,
allegedly the VIII century BC [] ch.1.
48) ISAIAH, messiah in the Old Testament, allegedly the
VIII century BC [] ch.4.
49) DAVID, Biblical king in the Old Testament, allegedly
the XI century BC [] ch.8.
50) OSIRIS, an 'ancient' Egyptian god, and also an
Egyptian deity HORUS, allegedly 'gargantuan antiquity'
[] ch.5.
51) SVYATOGOR, Russian Hero, allegedly 'very ancient'
[] ch.5:11.
52) DIONISUS, an 'ancient' god, allegedly 'gargantuan
antiquity'. Also god ADONISUS [] ch.5:7; [] ch.2.
53) ORPHEUS, 'ancient' god, allegedly 'gargantuan
antiquity' []ch.8:7.
54) ZEUS, supreme 'ancient' god, allegedly 'gargantuan
antiquity' []ch.2:53.

55) PRIXUS (or FRIXOS), an 'ancient' hero, allegedly

'gargantuan antiquity' [] ch.2.
56) JASON, an 'ancient' hero, who procured the Golden
Fleece. Allegedly, 'gargantuan antiquity' [] ch.2. The
voyage of the Argonauts to Colchis for the Golden Fleece
is Andronicus-Christ's voyage to the goldfields in Russia.
First twelve Argonauts are Christ's 12 Apostles. It is
generally thought that the Argonauts invented the sail. The
invention of sails in the XII century corresponds quite well
with the new chronology. In those times navigation was
still coastal and didn't require complicated sails. The
Empire of that time was colonising mainly only the coasts
of the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Only later with the
invention of the fully-fledged sails, the ships started
venturing into the open sea and were capable of sailing
upwind. Later, with the emergence of the horse cavalry,
The Empire colonised vast spaces of Eurasia. But this
took place as late as in the XIII-XIV cc.
57) APOLLO, an 'ancient' god, allegedly 'gargantuan
antiquity' [] ch.1.
58) MARCYAS, a silenus, an 'ancient' character, allegedly
'gargantuan antiquity' [] ch.1.
59) JOB, an Old Testament character, allegedly
'gargantuan antiquity' [] ch.3:9.
60) ESAU (a partial duplicate), an Old Testament
patriarch, allegedly 'gargantuan antiquity' [] ch.3.

61) JACOB (a partial duplicate), an Old Testament

patriarch, allegedly 'gargantuan antiquity' [] ch.3.
Biblical Esau and Jacob are the intertwined reflections of
Andronicus-Christ, John the Baptist and Judas Iscariot.
The fifth lost Gospel is a story of Esau and Jacob in the
Old Testament.
62) ORESTES, a famous 'ancient' hero, brother of
Iphigenia [] ch.6.
63) RHADAMANTHYS, an 'ancient' god [] Appendix
1:2.8.
64) ASCLEPIUS (AESCULAPIUS) an 'ancient' god []
ch.1:2.13.
65) HERACLES (or HERCULES) (partial duplicate), an
ancient hero [] CH.1-2.
66) ARTHUR (partial), an well-known Medieval English
king, allegedly the VI century [] ch.7.
67) MERLIN, a wizard, a close associate of King Arthur
[] ch.7.
68) HELIOGABALUS (or ELAGABALUS), a Roman
emperor of allegedly the III century BC [] ch.2.
Andronicus-Christ, having arrived from Russia to CzarGrad, introduced new customs, including those in clothing.
For instance, it was thanks to him that the people of CzarGrad started wearing trousers [] ch.2:61. Some
opposed such innovations adamantly and accused the

Emperor of adherence to the 'barbaric' customs. Similar

events also occur under Heliogabalus.
Hence an intriguing story emerges. HeliogabalusAndronicus has arrived, as it turns out, from Russia (Syria)
to New Rome (Czar-Grad) in finery, in the description of
which we can recognize the rich garments of the RussianHordian czars. Gold, purple, precious stones RussiaHorde was a rich country. Contrary to that, proud Romains
and Greeks dressed, as we were told, considerably more
modest. The provinces of the Empire were clearly poorer.
That is why the wealth of the newly arrived czar-khan and
his entourage annoyed them. Moreover they did not like
the introduction of the new Scythian clothing. For example,
trousers.
An observation that garments made entirely of silk were
also introduced by Heliogabalus becomes clear.
Previously the Russian warriors specially dressed in silk,
so that during their campaigns, when it is difficult to bathe,
the bad bugs would not nest. Silk repel pests [v.4].
Heliogabalus 'was the first to acquire silver self-cooking
vessel' [140:1], p.142. Here we recognise the famous
Russian samovars. Some of the noble-men of Czar-Grad
were looking on with envy and discontent at the riches of
the Hordian Czar who arrived from Russia. They could not
accept that the Hordian czars wore not only expensive
garments, but also luxurious footwear with precious
stones, as well as opulent diadems. It is curious that
Heliogabalus-Andrey would sometimes organise snowy
hilltops in the garden during the summer, by delivering the

snow.
It was probably a commemoration of the snowy Russian
winters, which never occurred in Czar-Grad.
69) THESEUS, an 'ancient' hero [] ch.3.
70) BACCHUS, an 'ancient' deity []ch.2:52 and
ch.5:7, and also [] ch.2.
71) PROPHET MUHAMMAD (partial), a famous figure
allegedly of the VII century AD []
72) ALEXANDER OF MACEDON (Alexander the Great)
(partial), a famous ruler allegedly of years 356-323 BC
[] ch.8.
73) ABU-MANSUR IBN-MUHHAMAD, an 'ancient' Iranian
sheikh, allegedly the X century [ShAH)], ch.2
74) KEYUMARS an 'ancient' Iranian king whose dates of
birth and death are considered to be unknown. Suggesting
that it is a very, very ancient character [] ch.2.
75) SIYAMAK, a son of king Keyumars, an 'ancient'
Iranian prince, whose dates of birth and death are
considered to be unknown. Suggesting that it is a very,
very ancient character [] ch.2.
76) JEMSHID, an 'Ancient' Iranian king, allegedly 'very
ancient' [] ch.2.
77) MERDAS, an 'ancient' Iranian king, allegedly 'from
deep antiquity' [] ch.2.

78) ZOHAK (partial), an 'ancient' Iranian king. Dates of life

are considered to be unknown [] ch.2.
78) FEREYDUN, an 'ancient' Iranian king. Dates of his life
are considered to be unknown [] ch.2.
80) ZAL-DESTAN (partial), an 'ancient' Iranian hero []
ch.4.
81) ROSTAM or RUSTAM (partial). A famous 'ancient'
Iranian hero [] ch.4.
82) KAI-KHOSROW (partial), a famous 'ancient' Iranian
king [] ch.5.
83) ZOROASTER or ZARATHUSTRA, ZARANTUSTRA,
ZARADUSHT, ZARDOST (partial), a famous Persian
(Iranian) sage, prophet, saint; allegedly 'deepest antiquity'
[] ch.7.
84) EUSTRATE (OR EUSTRATES) PECHERSKY, holy
martyr, crucified in Kiev allegedly in year 1096 []
ch.10.
85) HAMLET, prince of Denmark. He was described in
'The Life of Amleth' by Saxo Grammaticus allegedly of the
XII century and in tragedy by Shakespeare ('s tragedy)
'Hamlet' [] ch.2.
86) MACDUFF, a Scottish Thane, allegedly the XI century.
He is described in Holinshed's Chronicles and 'Macbeth', a
tragedy by Shakespeare [] ch.3.

87) APEMANTUS, a cynical philosopher, a contemporary

of Alcibiades, allegedly the V century BC. He was
described in Shakespeare's drama 'Timon of Athens'
[] ch.4.
88) APOLLONIUS OF TYRE (partial), a famous 'ancient'
character, a hero of a rather famous 'novel' of allegedly
the III century. He was described in Shakespeare's play
'Pericles' [] ch.6.
89) TITUS ANDRONICUS, an 'ancient Roman character
described in the texts of the XVI century, in particular in
Shakespeare's tragedy 'Titus Andronicus' [] ch.6.
90) POLYDORUS, described in Virgil's 'Aeneid' []
ch.3.
91) ALCIBIADES (partial) a famous 'ancient' Athenian
[] ch.5.
92) MILTIADIS (partial), a famous 'ancient' character
allegedly of the V century BC [], ch.1.
93) GUINEVERE (partial) King Arthur's wife (Christ's)
[], ch.7. Chroniclers sometimes mixed up a man and a
woman.
94) THE PHOENIX a mythical creature that dies and is
reborn. [] ch.3.
95) 'A CERTAIN MAN', outwardly of human form, but
godlike in deeds'. Thus Flavius Josephus begins his

accounts of Christ, though in this part of his book he

doesn't mention His name [] ch.11.
96) MITHRA (or MithraAttis), an 'ancient' Aryan god, and
also an 'ancient' Persian god [2v1], ch.1.
97) BUDDHA and KRISHNA, famous Eastern deities
[2v1], ch.1.
98) CAESAR OCTAVIAN AUGUSTUS (partial), a Roman
Emperor allegedly of the I century BC the I century AD
[] ch.1.
99) IGOR OLGOVITCH, a great Russian Prince of Kiev,
martyr, allegedly the XII century [] ch.1.
100) JOHN LAGOS (partial), described by a Byzantine
author Nikita Choniates, the XII century []ch.2.
101) PATROCLUS (PARTASIS), an 'ancient' Greek hero,
who fell in the Trojan War, and is described by Homer in
his Iliad [] ch.2.
102) ARISTIDES of Proconnesus described by Plutarch
[]ch.1.
103) CLEOMEDES of Astypalaea, described by Plutarch
[]ch.1.
104) A number of other ancient heroes and characters
delivered by caesarean section. Emperor AndronicusChrist came into this world in this way. So: theres Typhon
and Seth of ancient Egyptian. Lets remember a Biblical
story about the creation of Eve from Adams rib. And God

caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam (a man), and he

slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
instead thereof; And the rib, which God had taken from
man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man
(Genesis 2:2122). If we refer to the Medieval depictions
of the given subject-matter, then on some of them we will
see a picture rather resembling the birth by the caesarean
section, fig.18 [] ch.6. See the details in our books of
the Golden Series B (Zolotaya Seriya).
105) IGOR OLGOVICH, Prince of Novgorod and Seversk
and the Grand Prince of Kiev (Holy Martyr Blessed Prince
Igor Chernigovsky), executed in the XII century, allegedly
in year 1147.
Hence, the life story of Andronicus-Christ (Andrey
Bogolyubsky) as reconstructed by us, is becoming
enriched with many new interesting episodes. Previously
the historians erroneously dated them as completely
different personas and ascribed them to the deep past.
19. FIFTY NINE REFLECTIONS OF VIRGIN MARY =
MARY THE BIRTH GIVER OF GOD
As we have shown in [], the Virgin Mary, Birthgiver of
God, lived in the XII century. She was born in Russia,
probably in Rostov or nearby. For some time she lived in
Czar-Grad, died and was originally buried in Crimea, in the
cave town of Chufut-Cale. Throughout Christianity the
attitude towards the Birthgiver of God is particularly
respectful. However in the rabbinical-Judaic version, and
also clearly apparent the writings by the 'ancient' authors

(like Titus Livy), the Virgin Mary, as well as Christ, are on

the contrary portrayed negatively. Mary was accused of
fornication with a Roman soldier. They also allege she
was raped. According to another version, a soldier secretly
entered Mary's place at night in the guise of her husband.
On that basis Jesus was called a 'pitiful mamzer', a
bastard, i.e. born to Mary and Joseph out of wedlock
[307]. As we discover further, in a Roman version by Titus
Livy, the Birthgiver of God is described as a famous
'Roman She-Wolf' ('The Capitoline Wolf'), and also as a
promiscuous Larentia cheating on her husband with
strangers. Similarly critical view of the Virgin Mary can be
found in the works of other chroniclers. The picture is
clear: many disputed the Christian idea of the Immaculate
Conception and tried to belittle and to distort this motif,
tirelessly conjecturing about the debauchery, a Roman
soldier, rape, etc.
The following characters are the phantom reflections of
Mary the Birthgiver of God in the Scaligerian 'History
textbook':
1) VIRGIN MARY, allegedly the I century.
2) PALLAS ATHENA PARTHENOS A FAMOUS
'ancient' Greek goddess [2v2], ch.1:15.
3) MAIA (MAYA), MAIESTAS, MARIAMMA
(MAARIAMMA), MARIANNE, MARITALA, MANDANE (OF
MEDIA) mother of 'messiah' Cyrus, THE 'GREAT
MOTHER' of Pessinunt, MARIAM, MARYIAM (MIRIAM),
MERIDA, MYRRHA , MAIRA (MAERA), MUT-EM-WIA

'most ancient' Indian, Asian and Egyptian goddessesmothers [2v1], ch.1:6.

4) Goddess LATONA or LETO, mother of the famous
'ancient' god Apollo [], ch.1.
5) ISIDA (ISIS or IZIDA) 'ancient' Egyptian goddess,
sister or wife of god Horus (duplicate of Christ) [v2] [ ].
6) DEMETER 'ancient' Greek goddess.
7) NEPHELE first wife of Athamas and mother of the
'ancient' hero Phrixus (=Christ) [ ], ch.2.
8) CREUSA (or KREOUSA) wife of the 'ancient' hero
Aeneas [ ], ch.3.
9) DAUGHTER of Tarchetius, King of Albania, described
by Plutarch [], ch.1.
10) ROMAN SHE-WOLF, who reared the royal brothers
Romulus and Remus. Allegedly 'deep antiquity' [],
ch.1. Various early authors talked about a Dog or a
Lioness, but not about the She-Wolf [], ch.1.
11) LARENTIA, a wife of the 'shepherd' who brought up
the Roman infants Romulus and Remus [], ch.1.
12) THE 'SECOND' LARENTIA described by Plutarch
[], ch.1.
13) VESTAL VIRGIN described by the 'ancient' Roman
historian Sextus Aurelius Victor in a legend of Romulus'
and Remus' birth [], ch.1

14) RHEA (or REA) SILVIA, THE VESTAL VIRGIN,

MOTHER OF ROMULUS AND REMUS, the famous
'ancient' Roman kings [], ch.1, 2.
15) In various texts VIRGIN MARY was confused with
(partially) MARY MAGDALENE [], ch.1.
16) MOTHER of the 'ancient' Roman king Servius Tullius.
She was described, in particular, by Titus Livy [],
ch.2.
17) LUCRETIA, the famous 'ancient' Roman, raped by
Sextas Tarquinius. Described, for example, by Titis Livy [
], ch.2.
18) PATRICIAN VIRGINIA, who erected a new holy altar.
Described by Titus Livy [], ch.3.
19) HELEN OF TROY - 'ancient Greek' abducted by
Trojan Paris. The Trojan War started because of her.
Described in particular by Homer [], ch.2.
20) MAIDEN (QUEEN) KUNTI, mother of Yudhisthira
(duplicate of Christ), described in the 'ancient' Indian epic
Mahabharata. In the Indian sources Virgin Mary reflected
also as the Goddess MAYA, who suckled Buddha
(another duplicate of Christ) [], ch.1.
21) DRAUPADI KRISHNAA, Indian princess, consort of
Yudhisthira, Christ's duplicate. Described in the 'ancient'
Indian epic Mahabharata [].

22) GODDESS PARVATI (partially), described in the old

Indian sources [], ch.1.
23) MYRTO, the second wife of the philosopher Socrates
(duplicate of Christ) [], ch.1.
24) PARYSATIS, mother of 'ancient' kings of Persia
Artaxerxes (Herod's duplicate) and Cyrus (duplicate of
Christ). Described by Plutarch and Xenophon [], ch.2.
25) MANDANA OF MEDIA (Persian Queen, Persian
Princess), mother of the 'ancient' king Cyrus (duplicate of
Christ). Described in particular by Herodotus and in the
Tale of Aphroditian [], ch.3.
26) UMILA, the middle daughter of King Gostosmysl
(duplicate of King Astyages, father of Mandana),
corresponds to the daughter of King Astuages of Persia. A
story about her is in the Russian Ioakim ( Russian version
of the name Joachim) Chronicle, for example [], ch.3.
27) Cult of the GOLDEN WOMAN (ZOLOTAYA BABA) in
Siberia [], ch.8.
28) MYLITTA or MYLITA an 'ancient' Great Assyrian
Goddess [], ch.8.
29) Mother of 'ancient' hero Apollonius (of Tyana)
(duplicate of Christ). Her name is not mentioned here
[], ch.1.

30) Philosopher DEMETRIUS- DEMETRA, a friend of

Apollonius (of Tyana) described by Philostratus. A 'malefemale' confusion [], ch.1.
31) A noble woman CAESARISSA
PORPHYROGENITUS MARIA, who has played a big role
in Andronicus-Christ's life. She set him on a throne.
Described, for example, by a famous Byzantine author
Niketas Choniates [], ch.2.
32) Parthenia (Pythais) , mother of 'ancient' Pythagoras
(duplicate of Christ). Described by Yamvlikh, in particular
[], ch.2.
33) PLOTINA, 'ancient' Empress, enthroned Roman
Emperor Hadrian, i.e. King Servius Tullius, i.e.
Andronicus-Christ [] ch.1.
34) SEMIAMIRA or (JULIA) SOAEMIAS mother of
'ancient' Emperor Heliogabalus (duplicate of Christ).
Described by various Roman authors as the 'most
virtueless woman'. So here Mary Theotokos (the Birthgiver
of God) is represented in the critical rabbinic version []
ch.2.
35) ANNIA FAUSTINA 'THE ELDER', wife of 'ancient'
Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius [] ch.3.
36) FAUSTINA 'THE YOUNGER' (Faustina Minor), wife of
'ancient' Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. She is mother
of Emperor Commodus (duplicate of Christ) [] ch.3. We
have analysed biographies of the 'two Faustinas'
Faustina The Elder and Faustina the Younger. It emerged

that 'both' Empresses are the phantom reflections of the

Virgin Mary from the XII century. Consequently, using the
information about Empress Faustina, we considerably
widen our knowledge about Theotokos (The Holy Mother
of God). For example, OF THE PLACE OF HER DEATH
AND ORIGINAL BURIAL. For many years this subject has
given rise to much discussion. But nevertheless the
disputers rely on the same primary sources known before.
Commentators just reinterpret time and time again the
well-known testimonies of the ancient writers, while trying
unsuccessfully to derive 'new knowledge' out of them.
Unlike this 'walking in circles', we rely on the New
Chronology and on the NEW TESTIMONIES discovered
with its help. Now it is possible to bring in some facts
which were erroneously attributed to the different
characters and to the different epochs. In particular, we
could use the biography of the Empress Faustina. Before
us no one considered these testimonies to be a reference
to the Holy Mother of God. They were attributed to some
little known ancient queen. That is why no one paid any
particular attention to these documents. It turns out that
they are exceptionally valuable.
As a result we made an important discovery. There was
enough new data in order to suggest and prove the
hypothesis that Theotokos died and was originally buried
in Crimea, in the cave town of Chufut-Kale [] ch.4.
37) 'LIVE ICON' of MOTHER OF GOD, which appeared
near Crimean cave town Chufut-Kale [] ch.4.

38) MIRACLE-WORKING ICON OF MOTHER OF GOD

which accompanied Russian Prince Andrei Bogolyubskiy
(Christ) circa 1164-1169,[] ch.4.
39) JANICKE-KHANYM (partial), a great khan queen,
allegedly the daughter of Tokhtamysh-Khan of the Golden
Horde. Her mausoleum is situated in the Crimean cave
town of Chufut-Kale [] ch.4.
40) Legendary Maria, in whose memory a famous fountain
of tears was erected in the Bakhchisaray Palace [] ch.4.
Until the present day a Christian cross inserted inside a
crescent has survived on it, fig.19. In time, it was probably
a decision to invent something in order to cast into
obscurity the memory of the original Christian meaning of
the monument dedicated to the Virgin Mary. That is why
the legend was told with enthusiasm, that the Fountain
was erected in memory of a CHRISTIAN girl either some
Georgian girl, or some Greek Dinorah Khionis, or maybe it
was a Polish MARIA Potocka [] ch.4. Purporting that as
the girl was a Christian, a Muslim Star inside a crescent
was depicted in the form of a Christian Cross. So, there,
you have an explanation of the Christian symbol on the
'Muslim' monument.
The publishers of the books about Bakhchisaray
photograph the monument in such a way that the Christian
Cross on its top is cut out of the shot. So there are fewer
questions, to which they don't have the answers.

Thus, the famous Bakhchisaray Fountain of Tears and

Bakhchisaray tomb of the 'Beautiful Princess' were
erected most likely as memorial monuments to the Virgin
Mary, Mother of Christ. She died in Chufut-Kale, near
Bakhchisaray at the end of the XII beginning of the XIII
cc. Chufut-Kale became a holy city and turned into the
main residency of the Crimean khans. Then, after
transferal of the khan's capital from Chufut-Kale to
Bakhchisaray, the memory of Mary Mother of God was
also transferred, having in particular built a magnificent
marble Fountain of Tears (Mary's Fountain), which
became a pilgrimage destination, as well as Dilara Bikech
durbe (which in translation means: a tomb of a Beautiful
Princess). It is most likely that this tomb is symbolic.
41) IPHIGENIA, ARTEMIS, DIANA (partial) 'ancient'
goddesses of 'Ancient' Greece [] ch.5.
42) SAINT THEODORA a prominent Crimean Medieval
Queen. The capital of her principality was a famous
Crimean cave city of Mangup [] ch.5.
43) ELEKTRA (partial), sister of the famous 'ancient'
Greek hero Orestes (Christ) [] ch.6.
44) KLYTAEMNESTRA (partial), mother of 'ancient'
Orestes (Christ) [], .6.
45) IGRAINE Duchess, wife of Medieval Duke Gorlois of
Tintagel and mother of famous 'English' king Arthur. She
was described, for example, by Thomas Malory in his
'History of King Arthur' (Le Morte d'Arthur) [] ch.7.

46) ALCMENA, wife of 'ancient' Amphitryon and mother of

famous hero Heracles (duplicate of Christ) [] ch.1.
47) AYE-MARY (MARIAN, MYRINE, MARIAMNA,
MARIENNA, MARIANDINA) 'ancient' queen of Amazons
[] ch.2.
48) AETHRA, mother of Theseus (duplicate of Christ) []
ch.3.
49) AMINAH, wife of Abd Allah, mother of Prophet
Muhammad [] ch.1.
50) MOTHER of Persian shah-king Fereydun (duplicate of
Christ). She is not named here [] ch.2.
51) SIMURGH BIRD (SIMORGH BIRD) (partial) (a
legendary supernatural creature in the famous Iranian
Epic the Shahnameh [] ch.4.
52) RUDABA (or ROODABEH) 'ancient' Persian
princess, who fell in love with Zal (duplicate of Holy Spirit)
[] ch.4.
53) FARANGIS 'ancient' Persian (Turanian) Princess,
mother of King Kai Khosrow (duplicate of Christ) []
ch.5.
54) NAHID 'ancient' Persian Queen, wife of ruler Darab.
Nahid is mother of Iskender=Iskander (partial duplicate of
Christ) [] ch.8.

55) OLYMPIAS a famous 'ancient' queen, mother of

Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon).
Alexander is a partial duplicate of Christ [] ch.8.
56) GERTRUDE (partial) mother of 'Danish' prince
Hamlet. She was described in particular by Saxo
Grammaticus and William Shakespeare [] ch.2.
57) DAUGHTER of king Antioch (partial). She was
described, for example, in the play 'Pericles' by
Shakespeare, ch.6.
58) LAVINIA, daughter of 'ancient' Roman hero Titus
Andronicus. She was described, in particular, by
Shakespeare in his tragedy 'Titus Andronicus' [] ch.6.
59) MAGIC, MARVELLOUS (ENCHANTING) 'COW', who
nourished Infant Fereydun (Christ) with her milk []
ch.2.
20. THIRTY NINE REFLECTIONS OF JOHN THE
BAPTIST.
As we have shown in [], John The Baptist lived in the
XII century. The main contribution to his life story was
made by the following real characters of the XII century.
a) LEONTIUS, Bishop of Rostov, who lived in Russia.
b) Saint THEODOR of Suzdal (Rostov), who lived in
Vladimir.

c) Byzantian JOHN (IOAN) KOMNENOS, who lived in

Czar-Grad and was described by Nikita Khoniat in
particular.
d) Byzantian ALEXIOS (or ALEXIUS) BRANAS or
VRANAS, who lived in Czar-Grad and was described by
Nicetas Choniates for example.
The following characters in the 'Scaligerian textbook' are
the phantom reflections of John the Baptist.
1) JOHN THE BAPTIST, allegedly the I century. Some
ancient authors confused Christ and John the Baptist
[].
2) ST. VLADIMIR glorified among the saints as EQUAL
APOSTLES, Vladimir The Red Sun (partial), Russian
Prince allegedly of the X century [], Appendix 2.
3) YAROPOLK (partial), Russian Prince allegedly of the X
century.
4) JOHN CRESCENTIUS I Medieval Roman hero
allegedly of the X century, predecessor of Pope Gregory
VII Hildebrand of the XI century, - one of the reflections of
Andronicus-Christ [2v1], ch.4.
5) JOHN CRESCENTIUS II It appears, that there is
another Crescentius (Crescentii) in the Scaligerian history
of Rome. Allegedly he was the son of the 'John
Crescentius I' (991-998). It is considered that the 'son' also
ruled Rome from 1002 to 1012. Very little is known of him.
Only that 'he continued his father's work'. Could it be, that

this 'John Crescentius', the son of John Crescentius, is a

second version of the same legend about John
Crescentius 'The First' [2v1], ch.4.
6) MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO (partial), famous 'ancient'
hero, public figure, orator [], ch.1.
7) PUBLIUS CLODIUS PULCHER initially a close friend
of 'ancient' Cicero, and later his staunch adversary. He
was described, for example, by Plutarch [], ch.1.
8) ISAIAH (partial), the Biblical prophet [], ch.1.
9) THE ERYTHRAEN SIBYL, a legendary 'ancient'
prophetess [], ch.1. Most likely, the famous old
testament Sibylline Oracles were written by the Christians
of the epoch of the XII-XIII cc contemporaries of Christ
and his followers. These remarkable works were created
within the framework of the same literary school as the
canonical Gospels and the Old Testament prophecies
included in the modern Bible. It appears that among the
originators of these creations was John the Baptist =
Cicero = Sibyl, and also Christ's Apostles. It was they who
wrote the first versions of the Gospels, Apocalypse and
Biblical prophecies. Later these books were amended. All
of the Christian texts of the XII-XIII cc. branched out and
became more complex. As a result there survived a
multitude of books whose subject is closely related. In the
XVI-XVII cc. the Scaligerian history artificially 'dispersed'
them both chronologically and physically. Some of these
texts were declared to be authentic, others to be
apocryphal. After that began a deliberate desk bound

'scientific work' on interpretation and clarification of why

the pre-Christian Sibylline Oracles speak so much and so
loudly about Christ.
10) JASON (partially) - 'ancient' hero [] ch.2.
11) AENEAS (partial) 'ancient' Trojan hero [], ch.3.
12) AQUARIUS, including constellation of Aquarius on the
old star maps [], ch.1.
13) REMUS, brother of the 'ancient' king Romulus [],
ch.1.
14) CELI VIVENNA (IVAN, IOANN) 'ancient' Et-ruscan
(Russian) hero [], ch.2.
15) SERVIUS TULLIUS (partial) 'ancient' Roman king. In
particular, execution of the Roman king SERVIUS
TULLIUS is a (partial) reflection of the execution of John
The Baptist. Some authors confused Christ and John the
Baptist [], ch. 2.
16) CYRUS (partial) 'ancient' king [], ch.1.
17) CLEON, son of Cleaenetus, 'ancient' character,
'ancient' Greek contemporary of Nicias (Christ) and
Alcibiades (Judas) [], ch.5.
18) APOLLONIUS OF TYANNA (partial), and also 'bad
EUNUCH'. Described by Flavius Philostratus. To reiterate,
some ancient authors confused Christ and John the
Baptist [], ch.1.

19) UNRULY BROTHER OF APOLLONIUS OF

TYANNA- 'ancient' character [], ch.1.
20) ABARIS, defended 'ancient' Pythagoras (Christ).
Described by Yamvlikh [], ch.2.
21) THE OLD TESTAMENT (GENESIS) ESAU. In
particular, hairiness of Esau, and also animal skin into
which Rebekah wraps Jacob these are the animal skins
which the Prophet John The Baptist wore.
22) SABINUS, 'ancient' character under the Roman
Emperor Domitianus (Herod), mentioned by Flavius
Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana [ ], ch.1;
[], ch.12.
23) ANTINOUS the most faithful companion of the
'ancient' Emperor Hadrian [] ch.1
24) ANTONINUS, twin-brother of the 'ancient' Roman
Emperor Commodus (Christ) [] ch.2.
25) AGAMEMNON (partial) the famous 'ancient' Greek
king killed by his wife Clytemnestra [] ch.6.
26) PYLADES a friend of 'ancient' Orestes (Christ) []
ch.6.
27) KAY foster brother of the 'English' king Arthur,
practically the same age. Described, in particular, by
Thomas Malory [] ch.7.
28) MAIDEN OF THE LAKE (partial), WALKING ON
WATER, in the story of King Arthur [] ch.7.

29) BALIN a poor, but noble knight in the story of King

Arthur [] ch.7.
30) ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, categorically
opposed Mordred marrying Guinevere. Described in the
story of King Arthur [] ch.7.
31) SAINT GERMANUS, who condemned King Vortegirn's
marriage as incest [] ch.7.
32) HERCULES IN LION SKIN (partial) [] ch.1. Also
HERCULES (performing, during) his fifth labour (cleaning
up of the Augean stables with water [] ch.2.
33) IBN HAYABAN prophet who proclaimed to the Jews
the impending arrival of the more powerful Prophet
Mohammed [] ch.1.
34) SERGIY a Christian Arian, who baptised Prophet
Mohammed with water according to the Christian
ordinance [] ch.1.
35) VENERABLE ANTHONY OF KIEV NEAR CAVES
(ANTHONY OF THE CAVES) spiritual guide to (Martyr)
Eustratius Of Kiev Near Caves (duplicate of Christ).
Allegedly the XI century, Kiev [] ch.10.
36) HAMLET SENIOR (KING HAMLET) murdered father
of Prince Hamlet. Described by Saxo Grammaticus and
William Shakespeare [] ch.2.
37) HAMLET JUNIOR, i.e the actual Prince Hamlet
(partial). Time and again we have noted that some authors

have confused Christ and John The Baptist (incidentally,

they were second cousins) [] ch.2.
38) DUNCAN and BANQUO two rulers lords described,
in particular, by Holinshed and Shakespeare in his tragedy
'Macbeth' [] ch.3.
39) KING DUFF, described, in particular, by Holinshed
and Shakespeare in his tragedy 'Macbeth' [] ch.3.

21. SIXTY ONE REFLECTION OF JUDAS ISCARIOT.

As we have shown in ], Judas Iscariot lived in the XII
century. The main contribution into his life story was made
by the following characters of the XII century:
a) ISAAC ANGELOS Byzantine ruler.
b) THE WIFE of Andrei Bogolyubskiy (Christ), a sister of
the Kuchkovivhi (we have already seen that some ancient
authors confused male and female).
c) YAKIM KUCHKOVICH, Andrei Bogolyubskiy's first
wife's brother who was taking revenge on the Prince for
his brother's execution; PETER, YAKIM'S SON-IN LAW
and the steward ANBAL, YASSIN by birth (from the
Caucasus).
The Phantom reflections of Judas Iscariot are the following
characters from the 'Scaligerian textbook'.

1) PROCONSUL EGEAT (partial) or STRATOKLY, brother

of EGEAT, described in the Life of Apostle St. Andrew The
First-called (Protocletos) (duplicate of Christ) [ ], ch.4.
2) CHENCIO (also Cencius or Centius) - a Roman
nobleman, who allegedly plotted (organised a plot) against
Pope Gregory Hildebrand VII (duplicate of Christ) [2v1],
ch.4.
3) TYPHON and SETH 'ancient' Egyptian characters,
enemies of god Osiris (duplicate of Christ) [], ch.5.
4) MICHAEL IV THE PAPHLAGONIAN (partial)
Byzantine Emperor, succeeding Romanos III Argyros
(duplicate of Christ) allegedly in the XI century [],
Appendix 1.
5) OLEG, Russian Prince (partial), who killed Askold
(duplicate of Christ) and Dir [], ch.1.
6) SNAKE or SERPENT, who slyly bit Prince Oleg
(duplicate of Christ). On the pages of the ancient
chronicles Judas Iscariot was sometimes described as a
cunning snake who's bitten Jesus. In the Gospels it is
Judas's notorious kiss [], ch.1.
7) ASP, which bit 'ancient' Egyptian Queen Cleopatra. In
the apocryphal Gospels it is said that Judas has bitten
Jesus on his 'right side' [], ch.1.
8) TIMON THE MISANTHROPE described by 'ancient'
Plutarch [], ch.1. It is the very same Timon ('The
Dark') described by Shakespeare in his 'Timon of Athens'

[SkAK]. Ch.4.
9) INHABITANTS OF THE CITY OF ISCOROSTEN, THE
DREVLYANE (or the Derevlians, Drevlianians), who
attacked the Russian Prince Igor (duplicate of Christ)
[], ch.1.
10) SULLEN TELAMON, 'who saw everything in gloomy
light'. It is one of the twelve 'ancient' Argonauts (apostles
of Christ, i.e. of Jason) (NOR], ch.2.
11) THE SLY KING OF THRACE (or KING OF
THRACIANS), who betrayed
Polydorus (duplicate of Christ) because of his greed.
Described in 'The Aeneid' by Virgil [], ch.3.
12) PHILOLOGUS, a traitor, who received a noble
upbringing and education from Cicero, a freed slave of his
brother Quintus [], Appendix.
13) ENEMIES of philosopher Socrates (duplicate of
Christ), who received 30 silver minae (30 pieces of silver)
for him [], ch.1.
14) XANTIPPE, argumentative and bad-tempered wife of
Socrates [], ch.1.
15) STREPSIADES, greedy and cunning enemy of
Socrates (Christ), described in particular by Aristophanes
[], ch.1.
16) TISSAPHERNES, former friend of Cyrus the Younger
(duplicate of Christ), who slandered him. Described for
example by Xenophon [], ch.2.

17) CLEARCHUS, son of Rhamphias a Spartan general,

mentioned by the Greek historians: Thucydides,
Xenophon, Diodorusand others. Betrayed prince Cyrus
The Younger (duplicate of Christ) [], ch.2.
18) A certain 'MONEY BUSINESS' in Czar-Grad, which
was the reason for some Scynthian deaths. The Russian
princes Ascold and Dir attacked Czar-Grad in order to
avenge [], ch.2.
19) MARD GIREAD and a 'careless defender' of the city of
Sardis described by Herodotus. It was on their account
that the inhabitants of Sardis were defeated and King
Croesus (duplicate of Christ) was captured [], ch.3.
20) THE ALCMAEONIDS - blasphemous perpetrators
(those responsible for) of Cylon's death (duplicate of
Christ). Described by Thucydides and Herodotus [],
ch.4.
21) ALCMAEON the founder of the Athenian family of
the Alcmaeonids [], ch.5. It was in the XVII - XVIII cc.
that the story of 'ancient' Alcmaeon-Judas became
especially popular [], ch.5. It means that for the people
of that epoch 'antiquity' was not at all so ancient. On the
contrary it was rather of current interest. It was vigorously
disputed. The fact is 'antiquity' is the epoch of the XIV-XVI
cc immediately before the XVII-XVIII cc.
Scaligerian editing of ancient sources falls exactly on the
epoch of the XVII-XVIII cc. The reformers without any
reservations were altering the evaluation of the events of

the recent past, unashamedly recolouring black into white

and vice versa. It's no coincidence that it was at that time
an noticeable increasing interest towards Alcmaeon-Judas
started in Western European society. From a sinister
character and greedy traitor there was 'created' on paper
an attractive image of a tragic, somewhat messed up,
but on the whole a 'very good hero'. It is true, he stabbed
to death his own mother, deceived his wife, fell into
incestuous relationship with his daughter [533], v.1, p.60.
But on the whole, they say he was a wonderful person,
deserving the deepest sympathy. He is exemplary. Thirty
operas were composed about him. For soloists, chorus,
ballet and orchestra [], ch.5. The opera-houses were
packed with enthusiastic listeners-reformers.
In the East in particular in the Russian Orthodox Church
the persona of Judas Iscariot was always evaluated
extremely negatively. Beautiful operas were not composed
in his honour. He was not exhibited as an exemplary
figure. There were no eulogies, his praises were not sung.
22) MESSENGER-INFORMER, who betrayed the Spartan
King PAUSANIAS (duplicate of Christ). Described for
example by Thucydides.
23) THEMISTOCLES renowned 'ancient' Athenian.
Described by Thucydides, Plutarch and other authors [],
ch.4.
24) ALCIBIADES (partial) renowned 'ancient' Athenian
of the Alcmaeonidae family (the Achaemenids) (see
above). Some authors confused Christ with Judas Iscariot
[], ch.5.

25) TIMAEUS, a cunning friend of Andokid (duplicate of

Christ), described by Plutarch [], ch.5.
26) HERMOCRATES - Syracusian, who betrayed
commander Nicias (duplicate of Christ), described, for
example, by Thucydides [], ch.5.
27) GYLIPPUS (partial) a Spartan commander,
participated in Nicias' war, stole 30 talents of money [],
ch.5 and Appendix.
28) OROETES 'ancient' Greek satrap, enemy of king
Polycrates (duplicate) of Christ. Described by Herodotus
[], ch.6.
29) MAEANDRIUS King Polycrates of Samos' secretary.
Described by Herodot [], ch.6.
30) ACTOR a cowardly accomplice of Spartan King
Lysandros' plot (duplicate of Christ) [], Appendix.
31) SNAKE, dangerous for the Spartan King Lysander
[], Appendix.
32) PROVOCATOR, who accused Apollonius of Tyana
(duplicate of Christ) and his companions of offending
Roman Emperor, by mocking his godlike voice [], ch.1.
33) PROSECUTOR, who 'made up' a denunciation of
Apollonius. He personally spewed charges at Apollonius
(Christ), in an attempt to ruin him [], ch.1.

34) EUPHRATES - supposedly a friend in the beginning,

but in reality a secret envier and opponent of Apollonius of
Tyana (duplicate of Christ) [], ch.1.
35) MARSYAS (partial) 'ancient' Silenus. He loses a
'contest' with the god Apollo (duplicate of Christ). Partially
Marsyas is also a reflection of Christ Himself [], ch.1.
36) CYLON, a wealthy nobleman, who attempted to
become student of Pythagoras (duplicate of Christ) [],
ch.2.
37) JACOB (partial) a character from The Old
Testament, who bought his birthright from Esau (here
Esau is Christ). But in the other episodes of the Old
Testament, on the contrary, Jacob is Christ, and Esau is
Judas Iscariot [], ch.3.
38) Valkerie - false prophet, contemporary of the Biblical
prophet Isaiah (i.e. Jesus) [], ch.4.
39) STEPHANUS a traitor, who offered his advice and
help to the conspirators, in order to assassinate Roman
Emperor Domitian (partial duplicate of Christ) [], ch.12.
40) CLODIANUS a conspirator, who participated in the
assassination of Emperor Domitian (here Christ) [],
ch.12.
41) AVIDIUS CASSIUS 'ancient' Roman general of the
epoch of the Emperors Aelius Verus father and Aelius
Verus son (both are the reflections of Christ), and also of

Aelius Hadrianus (Christ)and Commodus Antoninus

(Christ) [] ch.1,3.
42) PREFECT in Rome under Emperor Hadrian, who
deceived the Emperor. Received payment of three
hundred million [] ch.1.
43) AEGISTHUS (partial) - enemy of Orestes (Christ),
lover of Queen Clytemnestra, Agamemnon's wife []
ch.6.
44) SNAKE, who bit Orestes (Christ) and destroyed him
[] ch.6.
45) ERIGONE Erinyes, the main accuser of Orestes
(Christ), committed suicide (she hanged herself) [] ch.6.
46) MODRED or MORDRED - a notorious traitor, who
rebelled against King Arthur (here - Christ) [] ch.7.
47) GUINEVERE (partial) the 'unfaithful' wife of King
Arthur. Chroniclers sometimes confused Christ and Judas
[] ch.7.
48) SNAKES, who attacked a young Hercules-Christ []
ch.1.
49) DEIANIRA wife of the 'ancient' hero Hercules
(Christ). It is a duplicate of the cunning wife of Andrei
Bogolyubskiy [] ch.1.
50) DIOSKURI 'ancient'-Greek characters [] ch.3.

51) MENESTHEUS, protg of the DIOSCURI, 'ancient'

Greek character [] ch.3.
52) LYCOMEDES 'ancient' Greek king, who killed
Theseus (Christ) treacherously on the island of Scyros
[] ch.3.
53) AHRIMAN demon, embodiment of evil in the
'ancient' Iranian mythology. Ahriman or its malicious son
DIV or BLACK DIV opposes Siyamak (Christ) [] ch.2.
54) ZOHAK (partial) malicious, dragonlike character,
enemy of the good king Jemshid (Christ). Described in the
Iranian epic Shah Nameh. At the same time the 'good part
of Zohak' is the reflection of Christ. Sometimes Judas was
confused with Christ []ch.2.
55) KORSUN JEW, who sold the martyr Eustrate
Pechersky (duplicate of Christ). Allegedly the XI century,
Kiev [] ch.10.
56) ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN two
characters from Shakespeare's tragedy 'Hamlet'[]
ch.2.
57) LAERTES, son of Polonius and brother of Ophelia
characters from Shakespeare's tragedy 'Hamlet' []
ch.2.
58) SATURNINUS (partial) an 'Ancient' Roman ruler,
duplicate of Isaak Angelos, a relative of Titus Andronicus,
whom he dethroned. Described by Shakespeare in his
tragedy 'Titus Andronicus' [] ch.6.

59) MOOR AARON scheming and greedy lover of

Queen Tamora, enemy of Titus Andronicus. Described by
Shakespeare in his tragedy 'Titus Andronicus' [] ch.6.
60) TAMORA - Queen of the Goths, enemy of Titus
Andronicus. Duplicate of the malicious wife of Prince
Andrei Bogolyubskiy, she conspired in the plot against
him. Described in Shakespeare's tragedy 'Titus
Andronicus' [] ch.6.
61) DOMITIA LONGINA malicious wife of Emperor
Dimitian (partial duplicate of Christ) [], ch.12.
Now we are presented with a wonderful opportunity to
learn many new things about the life of Andronicus-Christ,
Apostle Judas Iscariot and on the whole about the events
of the distant XII century. The books by Herodotus,
Thucydides, Xenophon and other 'classics' inform us
about the events dimly reflected or not at all described in
the canonical Gospels and in the New Testament
Literature. Based on the 'ancient' authors we are writing
much more detailed life descriptions of the famous Gospel
characters.
22. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
We will list the exact astronomical dates from the ancient
zodias which point themselves into the XII century and
are included in the 'framework' of the new chronology
along with some other data.

1. (Years 1146 or 1325) ZODIAC RC 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: 15-16
April 1146; the second variant: 10-17 April 1325 [].
2. (Year 1148) SECOND ZODIAC SX FROM THE TOMB
OF SENENMUT. It is depicted on the arches of the tomb.
'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 17-18
June 1148 [].
3. (Year 1148) ZODIAC RD OF RAMSES IX. Frescos on
plaster on the arches of the burial chamber. 'Ancient'
Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly 'Antiquity'. In
fact: 17 June 1148 [].
4. (Year 1151) ZODIAC AE of NATIVITY, allegedly the I
century. Depicted in the old book of Ebenezer Sybli. In
reality his dating is as follows: 25th December 1151. So in
fact the zodiac is dedicated to the birth of Andronicus
Christ (Andrei Bogolyubskiy) [].
5. (Year 1166) ZODIAC RG ON THE GOLDEN HORN
(OF GALLEHUS) FROM COPENHAGEN. The engraving
on the horn made of gold. Denmark, allegedly the V
century. In fact: 17-28 May 1166 [].
6. (Year 1168) LONG DENDERA ZODIAC DL. Depicted
on the stone slabs on the ceiling of a temple, bas-relief.
'Ancient' Egypt, Dendera, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 2226 April 1168 [].
7. (Year 1182) ZODIAC OF RAMSES VII = THEBES

COLOUR ZODIAC OU. Colour fresco on the tomb ceiling.

'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly
'antiquity'. In fact: 5-8 September 1182 [].
8. (Year 1185) THE CIRCULAR ZODIAC OF DENDERA
DR. Depicted on a large stone slab, bas-relief. 'Ancient'
Egypt, Dendera, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: morning of
the 20th March 1185. It appears that this well-known
Zodiac was dedicated to the crucifixion of AndronicusChrist in 1185 [].
We are being assured that it was the French who
dismantled The Circular Zodiac of Dendera in the epoch of
Napoleon and moved it to Paris. For example in the book
'Ancient Egypt. History and archaeology'(Whitestar
Publishers, Italy, 2001) it says: "In 1820 Sbastien-Louis
Saulnier, a member of French parliament, commissioned
Jean Baptiste Leloraine, a master mason, to remove the
zodiac, which he succeeded to complete in four weeks.
Zodiac arrived to Paris in January 1822 and was acquired
by the king for his library" (p.107).
However other sources inform us rather differently.
"Senkovskii O.I., a famous Russian Orientalist, Arabist, an
educated man of his time together with his servant
without any qualms cut out a part depicting the zodiac
from the ceiling of the Denedera Temple. In 1821 the most
intriguing ancient Egyptian monument was put aboard a
bark, sailing to Russia, however the breakdown of
diplomatic relations with Porte forced Senkovskii to

suspend the registration of the unusual baggage. Later the

zodiac removed by him emerged in Paris [59:0], p.13-14.
It turns out that the French somehow intercepted the most
valuable stone slab with a Circular Zodiac from the
Russians. As we see, the role of the Russian explorers of
Egypt, including the outstanding Egyptologist Golenishev
V.C., was later on deliberately played down. The Germans
and the French were declared the 'principal Egyptologists'.
It is worth mentioning that on the frontispiece of the FIRST
edition of the Napoleon album 'Description of Egypt' which
appeared in 1809-1828 in France, the stone slab with a
Circular Zodiac, as a separate unit separated from the
ceiling of the temple, was not yet depicted [1458:1], p.38.
It was added only IN THE SECOND French edition of the
work [1458:1], p.38. In other words post factum [],
ch.6.
9. (Years 1186 or 1007) ZODIAC OF MITHRA OF
GEDDERNHEIM. Stone bas-relief. Europe, Germany,
allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first variant: 14-15
October 1007; the second variant: 14-15 October 1186
[]
10. (Years 1189 or 1071 or 1308) CONCISE ZODIAC KZ.
Stone bas-relief on the ceiling of the temple in the city of
Erment. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the
first variant: 15-16 May 1071; the second variant: 30-31
May 1189; the third variant: 6-8 May 1308 [].
11. (Circa 1150) The famous supernova explosion which
today is dated to year 1150, in fact it took place a century

later, circa 1150. It was this star that was reflected in the
Gospels as the Star of Bethlehem [2v1], [].
12. (Year 1185) According to the church tradition it is the
solar eclipse that is connected with the crucifixion of
Jesus. Whereas the evangelists didn't call the duration of
the 'fall of darkness' at a point on the earth surface acting
as the THREE hours of darkness, but THE FULL TRAVEL
TIME OF THE MOON's UMBRAL SHADOW ALONG THE
EARTH SURFACE. In other words the duration of
eclipse from the beginning to the end. The evangelists had
a good reason to use here the expression 'all over the
world'. The full solar eclipse of the 1st May 1185 occurred
the same year that Christ was crucified [], ch.1. A
crescent with a star became an ancient symbol of CzarGrad. It appears that it symbolized the Moon eclipsing the
Sun in the year of the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ, and
the Star of Bethlehem, blazing up circa 1150 (and later on
erroneously moved to year 1054). The crescent could
have depicted both the Moon and the disc of the Sun at
the moment of a near full eclipse forming a sickle shape.
Chapter 3.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY
1. THE MIGHTY TROJAN WAR AS A REVENGE FOR
CHRIST. RUSSIA-HORDE LAUNCHES CRUSADES TO
CZAR-GRAD, AND WITHIN A SHORT TIME THE
CENTRE OF THE EMPIRE IS TRANSFERRED TO
VLADIMIR-SUZDAL RUSSIA.

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 [].
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' AchaeansGreeks described by Homer in 'The Iliad'. The Achaeans
were led by 'ancient' Achilles, aka Russian-Horde prince
Svyatoslav []. Those responsible for AndronicusChrist'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.

2. THE CRUSADES ADVANCED ON TO JERUSALEM =

CZAR-GRAD NOT FROM THE WEST, AS WE ARE
BEING TOLD TODAY, BUT FROM THE EAST.
In [] 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.

3. HELEN OF TROY AND MARY MOTHER OF GOD.

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 Prussian) ? 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 phantomduplicates. 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) 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'.

4. THE TROJAN HORSE.

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 The Trojans decided to 'DRAG THE
HORSE INTO THE CITY (?-Author). Having dragged the
horse in, they indulged in a joyous feast and then fell
asleep Meanwhile the warriors, hidden inside the horse,
quietly crept out and set fire to the Trojans' houses
Countless myriads of Greek forces flooded through the
gates which had been open by their comrades who were

already inside Troy. 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. Halfsleeping 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, aquaeductio) 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 [] ch.1.

5. SCHLIEMANN'S FALSE TROY.

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.
# 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'.
# There are grounds to suspect that Schliemann simply
ordered Parisian jewellers to fabricate 'ancient golden
jewellery'. Schliemann was an extremely wealthy man.

# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.

# 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.

6. EXODUS OF TROJANS FROM TROY = CZAR-GRAD.

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.
7. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIA AS THE CENTRE
OF A NEW EMPIRE, SUCCESSOR OF THE PREVIOUS
ONE.

As a result of the decline of the old regime and the capture

of Czar-Grad by the Horde-Crusaders in 1204, RussiaHorde, 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
[] 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.

8. UNIFICATION OF SLAVIC AND TURK PEOPLES

UNDER THE HORDE RULE.
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 fig.20 [7v1], ch.1.
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 AndronicusChrist, one of his apostles, leaves the destroyed CzarGrad = 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, AeneasJohn 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 []
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 VelikoRossia, 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.

9. RUSSIA-HORDE BECOMES A POWERFUL EMPIRE.

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 czarskhans, skilfully used the GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF

VLADIMIR-SUZDAL RUSSIA, I.E. INBETWEEN 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
[]
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.
10. VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF CHRIST = 'ANCIENT'
ROMULUS, DESCRIBED BY LIVY AS LARENTIA,
A WOMAN BY THE NAME OF 'SHE-WOLF'.
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 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 [] we have analysed a famous 'ancient'
storyking 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], []

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 [] 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 [] 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 [] 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.
On fig.21. 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.

11. THE TREE OF JESSE (ESHAI, YISHAI OR YISAY)

IN THE RUSSIAN PRE-ROMANOVS CHURCHES.
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], [], 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.

12. THERE WAS NO FOREIGN 'TATAR-MONGOLIAN'

CONQUEST OF RUSSIA.
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.

13. WHEN THE 'ANCIENT' ECLIPSES TOOK PLACE

AND WHEN THE ASTRONOMICAL ZODIACSHOROSCOPES
WERE CREATED.

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],
[] [] [] At the end of each chapter of this
book we quote such dating.
14. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
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 []
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 []

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) []
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 []
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) []
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

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

Chapter 4.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIV CENTURY
1. THE CREATION OF THE RUSSIAN STATE =
RUSSIA-HORDE UNDER THE MILITARY, NAMELY THE
HORDIAN RULE
We will reiterate some elements of our reconstruction. At
the end of the XIII beginning of the XIV cc. a final
unification of the diverse peoples of Russia, instigated by
Aeneas-Ryurik, took place. Partly peacefully, partly

through military means, the people of Povolzhye (Volga

Region) and Severnoye Prichernomorye (The Northern
Black Sea Area) merged into a centralized state under the
military = Hordian rule. It was fully realised under the
Grand prince khan, Khagan (Kagan) Georgii Danilovich,
aka Genghis Khan or Gurkhan in the foreign sources. A
vast and powerful state falls under his power.
At the head of the state was a czar, an 'autocrat', who had
absolute power. Vladimir and Suzdal Rus' (Russia) was
the capital region, which at that time was called VELIKII
NOVGOROD (Great Novgorod). It has entered the
chronicles under this name. Yaroslavl became the centre
of the administrative governance. It was reflected in the
chronicles as 'Yaroslavovo Dvorishe (Yaroslav's Court) of
Velikii Novgorod'. The fortified czarist headquarters were
situated at different times in different cities: in Rostov
Velikii, in Kostroma, in Vladimir, in Suzdal (= 'ancient'
Suzy) and in some other centres of Vladimir and Suzdal
Rus' (Russia).
In the chronicles the term LORD NOVGOROD THE
GREAT (Gospodin Velikiy Novgorod) defined not just one
particular city, Yaroslavl, for example, but an entire region,
which was a property bestowed upon the Grand-Prince in
the epoch which spanned Ivan Kalita=Khalif to Ivan III.
This was a capital district up until the XVI century when
the capital was transferred to Moscow.
Lord Novgorod the Great, the Grand-Prince capital region
comprised of the following cities: Yaroslavl, Rostov,

Kostroma, Pereyaslavl, Mologa, Vladimir and Suzdal

[362], v.4; v.5, column 21.
It is known that the Scandinavian sources called Velikiy
Novgorod a LAND OF CITIES [523], p.47. It means that
they clearly considered it to be a COMMUNITY OF THE
CITIES [5v2], ch.9. The Russian sources also tell us about
the INDEPENDENT ENDS OF NOVGOROD, which
occasionally would even fight against each other. These
ENDS (KONTSI boroughs) were independent of each
other, and each of them had its own chief and its own
seal. Each 'konets' ('end') owned particular regions in the
Novgorodian land. The entire Novgorodian land was
divided between them. Besides, SEVERAL SEALS FROM
EACH END (KONETS) were SIMULTANEOUSLY
attached to the Novgorodian state charter. For example,
one of the oldest Novgorodian charters has EIGHT such
seals [5v2]. When deciding on the matters of great
importance the representatives of the ENDS would meet
at one of the public assemblies called Veche (the highest
legislature and judicial authority in the Republic of
Novgorod Tr.). There were at least two Veche: one 'at
Yaroslav's Court' as they wrote in the charters, and the
other - 'Sofiiskoye veche' (which took place in front of the
Cathedral of Holy Wisdom). The Veche 'AT YAROSLAV'S
COURT' was considered to be the main one. Presumably,
the representatives of the cities from the entire GrandPrincedom would gather in Yaroslavl and from there would
give out the charters in the name of the 'Lord Novgorod
the Great' at the Yaroslav's Court.

Based on the new empirical/statistical dating techniques,

we have discovered 'authentication' of the ancient and
mediaeval dynasties. A certain chain emerges, 'at the
head' of which, i.e. the closest to us in time, happens to be
a dynasty of the RussianHordian czars-khans of the
years 1273-1600. All the rest of the main ancient
dynasties turn out to be its phantom reflections, dated
back into the past [1v], [2v]. It means that the main ancient
and mediaeval kingdoms reflected in the ancient
chronicles to some extent are the descriptions generally
speaking of the same Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.
In particular all three famous 'ancient' Roman Empires: the
Royal Rome of Titus Livy (or the First Roman Empire)
allegedly of the VIII-VI cc. BC, then the Second Roman
Empire allegedly of the I-III cc., then the Third Roman
Empire allegedly of the III-VI cc ., then the mediaeval Holy
Roman Empire allegedly of the X-XIII cc. they are all the
phantom reflections of the same Habsburg Empire = of the
Novgorodians of the XIV-XVII cc., i.e. the reflection of the
Great Empire. In other words, the 'ancient' Royal Rome
founded by Romulus, perceived as the City and as the
Kingdom is the 'Mongolian' Empire [1v], [2v],[7v1].
The famous 'ancient' historian Titus Livy, the author of the
definitive 'Books from the foundation of the city' was in fact
a chronicler of the 'Mongolian' Empire of the XIII-XVI cc.
Most likely he lived in Western Europe in the XVI-XVII cc.
As it happens in many places in his book Titus Livy
displays a view point which today is called Judaic.
However, at the same time, he most likely is Christian. But

not in the modern sense of this word, but in the sense of

the epoch of the XV-XVII cc.

2. THE INVASION OF THE 'MONGOLS' INTO

WESTERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPE, ASIA AND
AFRICA.
THE RISE OF THE HORDIAN EMPIRE.
By the end of the first half of the XIV century the
restoration of the Empire commences under the rule of
Ivan Danilovich Kalita = Caliph = Khalif. The Russian
cavalry = 'Mongolian' hordes invade Europe, Africa and
India, fig.22 in a wide reaching offensive. The 'Mongol' =
great invasion begins.
As a result a considerable part of Eurasia was colonized.
The rest were forced to accept to varying degrees their
vassal dependency from Russia-Horde, possibly only in
the form of paying the tax.
The conquests of the Prince Georgiy Danilovich (Genghis
Khan) followed by his brother Ivan Danilovich Kalita (BatuKhan) resulted in the rise in the first half of the XIV century
of the Great = 'Mongol' Empire with its centre in Vladimir
and Suzdal Russia.
A new political force began its supreme reign in the
historical arena. You can call it the Russian-Horde Empire
as its centre was situated in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia =
Velikiy Novgorod, and its military forces were called the

Horde = Rat' (Russian for 'army') = Rodom (Russian for

'by birth'). The Empire was also called Israel.
In the XIV-XVI cc. the Russian-Horde Empire spread its
power over Eurasia, Northern Africa and a significant part
of America. Generally it was not a conquest, but a
colonization, as the local population, which consisted of
separate small ethnic groups, could not raise any
significant military resistance to the Imperial army =
Cossacks = Israelites. The new large colonies emerged on
the colonized lands with the advent of the 'Mongolian'
administration. Among them were the regions of Western
Europe, the Great Mogul in India, the 'Mongolian' state in
China, samurais (i.e. Samarians - natives of Samaria),
Samarians (from Samara), natives of Samara) in Japan,
Mamelukes in Egypt, the Maya and Inca state in America,
fig.23 [7v1],ch.1.
In the Russian sources the world Empire was called ALL
RUS' (ALL RUSSIA) or the Russian Kingdom. In the
foreign sources - the 'Mongol', i.e. the 'Great' Empire.
According to S.Herberstein the word RUSSIA was then
understood as 'Diaspora', 'proliferation' and the name 'ALL
RUS' (ALL RUSSIA) meant simply 'all the proliferation'
[161], p.58.
In the Western European sources Russia-Horde of the
XIV-XVI cc. was reflected as the Habsburg Empire of the
XIV-XVI cc. In the name Habsburg the second part BURG means CITY. The first part is possibly a Latinized
reading of a Slavonic word HAB (pronounced NAV) written
in Cyrillic. It means NEW. In Latin H is spelled like a

Slavonic N = H. And Latin B = Slavonic V=B. In this case

HABSBURG is simply NEW CITY, NOVGOROD. Such a
name carried a reminiscence of the capital of RussiaHorde Velikiy Novgorod = Yaroslavl. Incidentally the
name of the capital of the later Habsburgs of the XVIIXVIII cc. itself VIENNA in Austria, possibly originates
from the Russian word VENETS meaning wreath or
crown, i.e. CROWNED, or ROYAL city. Further down the
line the Hordian origin of the Habsburgs was forgotten.
After the split of the Empire in the XVI-XVII cc. the
Western Europeans started composing their 'correct
history' anew, where there was no longer a place for
Russia-Horde. The name VIENNA is close to VENETI, i.e
the name of Slavic people, See a book by Orbini [617] and
[5v].
About the Czarist Headquarters. In the Great Empire
starting with Ryurik-Aeneas and ending with the middle of
the XVI century the Imperial headquarters was always
separate from the capital. The capital remained an open
city where there were situated the state offices and
embassies, and international trade took place. The
Imperial headquarters was a completely closed city. No
outsiders were admitted. Starting with Ryurik-Aeneas and
up to the middle of the XVI century the city of Yaroslavl on
Volga (the chronicles' Velikiy Novgorod) was the Russian
capital. The Imperial headquarters changed its location
several times. At first it was situated in Rostov Velikiy
(Rostov the Great), then later in Vladimir, Suzdal,
Aleksandrova Sloboda, etc. Something similar was taking
place in Italy, when the Russian (Etruscan) invaders came

there. They turned Florence into the capital of Italy. The

Imperial headquarters was established by them in a
different place in the future Italian Rome.
3. THE EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE = THE
RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE XIV CENTURY.
Little is known about the history of the czars-khans of the
Great Empire up until the XIV century. On the whole the
XIII century is a dark and deep antiquity. Only since the
'Mongol' conquest the picture becomes clearer. With the
emergence of a vast Empire the chronicle writing became
more orderly and detailed. There appeared the imperial
libraries which survived until the XVI century. After the
schism of the Empire in the XVII century they were
destroyed by the rebel reformists. Nevertheless a large
amount of information has survived, although it is quite
distorted and edited. The great conquest, which led to the
emergence of the Horde Empire, was started by Georgiy
Danilovich Moskovskii (Grand Prince of Moscow), aka
Genghis Khan.
&& GEORGIY = YURY (YURIY)= GIURGII DANILOVICH
'MOSKOVSKII' (OF MOSCOW) = GENGHIS KHAN.
He reigned in 1319-1325. Aka Holy Georgiy
Pobedonosets (St.George the Victorious). In the Western
European chronicles he was reflected as Habsburg, i.e.
Novgorodets meaning 'of Novgorod' (of the New City),
'Henry VII of Luxembourg' 1309-1314 according to [76] or
1308-1313 according to [304], v.2, p.406. We all know of
the Tomb of Henry VII which in present day is situated in

Pisa. It is very recent; it is a part of the 'material proof'

specially created in the XVIII-XIX cc. to substantiate the
Scaligerian history. However, there still remains the
identity traces between 'Henry VII' and Georgiy of Moscow
on the tomb-newly made. Oskar Jger informs us that 'the
inscription... says... that the emperor's remains are
preserved in the tomb incorruptible' [304], v.2, p.411. The
Incoraptable remains or relics are a sign of holiness.
Indeed, Georgiy Pobedonosets (George the Victorious) is
consecrated a saint. So into the West-European 'Henry's
tomb' the relics of some other saint were placed. But of
course they were not George's.
According to our results czar-khan Georgiy Danilovich, like
the other khans of the Great Empire, was buried in the old
imperial cemetery in Egypt [5v2], ch.7:5.
Georgiy united the Russian lands under the rule of the
'Lord Novgorod the Great', as in that time Vladimir and
Suzdal Russia was called. He started the great conquest
the aim of which was subjecting the entire known world
under the rule of the Great princes-khans of Vladimir and
Suzdal.
At first the capital was situated in Rostov Velikii (Rostov
the Great). Georgiy founded a new capital for the Grand
Princes the city of Vladimir, which means: one who rules
the world, the capital of the world. He also founded Nizhny
Novgorod. He was killed at an early age. The
circumstances of his death are not clear. According to
some reports he was murdered by the conspirators.

He was consecrated a saint and canonised under several

names several times: 1) as Holy Great-Martyr George
(April 23, O.S); 2) as the Martyr Holy Blessed Grand
Prince Georgy Vsevolodovich the miracle worker of
Vladimir is commemorated on February 17 (February 4,
O.S.)
Due to the mistakes of the recent chroniclers, the Grand
Prince-Khan Georgiy is described in the Russian and
'Mongolian' history (which is one and the same thing)
several times under different names. Specifying them we
indicate the century into which the historians erroneously
dated the original. So:
a) Ryurik the founder of the Russian dynasty of Grand
Princes, erroneously dated to the IX century. The figure of
Ryurik is multi-layered. His first layer is the Trojan King,
'variag' Aeneas ('Varangian') who came to Rus' in the XIII
century. b) Mstislav Vladimirovich 'The Brave', erroneously
was dated to the XI century; c) Georgiy Vsevolodovich,
erroneously dated to the XIII century; d) Genghis Khan, or
in the other more correct variant of this name, CaesarKhan, erroneously dated to the XIII century.
So in 1318 Georgiy Danilovich = Genghis Khan begins the
conquest. The details of the colonization - unification are
not known well. The historians extended this period over
several decades. In reality it is shorter. We learned it at
school as 'the beginning of Tatar-Mongol invasion from the
EAST'. For the Western-Russian chroniclers that was what
did happen. The ancient Ukrainian or Polish chronicles
laid the foundation of some of the Russian chronicles

which came down to us. It is not a coincidence that the

Radzivilovskaya letopis (Radzivilovsky chronicle) was
found in Kenigsberg.
The Old Russian coat of arms was Georgiy Pobedonosets
(George the Victorious). It is not surprising. Georgiy =
Genghis Khan was in fact the founder of the Russian
'Mongol' Empire.
The Radzivilovskaya letopis (Radzivilovsky chronicle)
begins the story of the 'epoch of Ryurik from the Great
strife, the war between the different regions of the state.
This is the strife of the late XIII - early XIV cc. in Russia,
already familiar to us. It concludes with the unification
under the rule of the 'house of Kalita', Genghis Khan =
Yuriy = Ryurik (king Aeneas). This is the result of the
famous plea 'Come and reign and have authority over us!'.
The chronicle rightfully informs us of the emergence of a
new state.
The name Georgiy = Giurgii or Yuriy is the name of the
famous annalistic Ryurik. Ryurik is just a different form of
an Old Russian name Giurgii, i.e. Georgiy = Yuriy. There
is no separate name Ryurik in Russia today. It does not
exist in the church calendar either. But not because this
famous name is forgotten. It's just it is being used in a
different form Yuriy or Georgiy. The names Yuriy or
Georgiy are considered to be different names only in
present day. In the Old Russian language they were the
same.

So the annalistic 'The Calling On the Princes (Varangians)'

is the unification of Russia by Yuriy = Genghis Khan,
started by the king Aeneas Noah - Ryurik.
&& IVAN DANILOVICH KALITA = KHALIF = BATU KHAN
Ivan Danilovich Kalita 1328-1340 according to [362]. Two
versions of the beginning of his reign are indicated in
[145], which are year 1322 or year 1328. The beginning of
the Prince's reign is indicated for the second time under
the year 1328.
In the Western European sources Ivan Kalita = Khalif was
reflected as Habsburg 'Ludwig der Bayer' 1314-1347
according to [76] or 1313-1347 according to [304], v.2,
p.414. 'Ludwig der Bayer' is a reflection of the following
three Russian czars-khans: Ivan I Danilovich Kalita 13281340 according to [362] + his son Simeon Gordyi (Simeon
the Proud) 1340-1353 + his son Ivan II Krotkii Krasnyi
(Ivan II the Meek, the Fair of Moscow) 1353-1359
according to [36], [362].
Ivan Kalita continued uniting the lands under the rule of
the Lord Novgorod the Great, which was started by his
brother Georgiy = Genghis Khan. During his time the
'Mongol' conquest spread far to the West and to the
South. He finally has subjected the Western Europe, in the
XIV century he FOUNDED THE VATICAN AND ROME IN
ITALY as a centre of the social and religious power in the
West. The word VATICAN itself probably originated from
the name of khan Batu. To be exact VATI-KAN is BATU
KHAN or BATYA KHAN. In the Western sources he is

reflected as 'Pope' Innocent III. He simultaneously was

both a social and a spiritual ruler = khalif. He founded the
institution of the Popes in Italy [4v2], ch.2:22.
Kalita=Khalif expanded the city of Yaroslavl or, as they
used to call it, 'Yaroslavov Dvorishe of Velikiy Novgorod
(Yaroslav's Court of Novgorod the Great) at the
intersection of the Volga and Northern Dvina rivers' trade
routes.
Ivan Kalita was the czar and the pontiff simultaneously. In
the West his memory lived on long after him, which in time
became the stuff of myth and legend: of an 'ancient' god or
king Cron, of a mediaeval king-priest John the Presbyter,
etc. [4v].
He died in the West, probably in Italy. He left behind two
branches of government: the czarist in Russia and the
pope's in Italy, which was also claiming the social power.
These two branches were locked in battle long after his
death.
Due to the mistakes of the recent chronologists, the Grand
Prince-Khan Ivan Kalita is described in World History
several times under various names: a) Cronus, a
legendary king of Assyria. The Chronographia by John
Malalas tells us about it. In various 'ancient' Greek myths
Cronos is a progenitor of the Olympian gods. b) Yaroslav
Vsevolodovich, was erroneously dated to the XIII century.
c) Batu Khan, was erroneously dated to the XIII century.

He died of a sudden illness. It is quite possible that he was

poisoned. He was buried, most likely, in Egypt [4v2],
ch.2:22.
&& SIMEON GORDYI (SIMEON THE PROUD), AKA
ALEKSANDR NEVSKY.
Simeon Gordyi 1340-1353 according to [362], [36], [145],
aka Aleksandr Nevsky. In the Western European sources
he was reflected as the Habsburg 'Ludwig der Bayer'. i.e.
the 'Novgorodians Barbaric People'. Also the biography
of 'Ludwig der Bayer' was contributed by the Grand
Prince-Khan Simeon the Proud along with Ivan Kalita.
He reigned over the Empire from Veliky Novgorod. In
Yaroslavl he established a centre of the international trade
between the East and the West. He created a court of
governors of Veliky Novgorod as a centre of the
administrative control of the Empire. Under his rule and his
successors' rule such remote regions as Egypt and China
were assimilated into the Great Empire [5v].
On account of mistakes made by the recent chroniclers,
the Grand Prince-Khan Simeon the Proud is described in
World history a number of times under various names: a)
Aleksandr Yaroslavich Nevsky, erroneously was dated to
the XIII century; b) Menke Khan, erroneously dated to the
XIII century; c) Berke or Birkai Khan, erroneously dated to
the XIII century; d) Khan Chanikbek.
&& IVAN THE MEEK (THE FAIR).

Ivan the Meek (the Fair) 1353-1359 according to [36],

[362] or 1354-1359 according to [145]. In Western
European sources he was reflected as the very same
'Habsburg (Habsburger) Ludwig der Bayer'. I.e. the
'Novgorodians Barbaric People'. He ruled the Empire from
Veliky Novgorod and continued to build the Empire:
transport routs, the monetary system, the international
trade between the East and the West in Yaroslavl. After
his death his son, Dmitry Ivanovich, who was still a minor,
remained to become the future Donskoi.
Ivan the Meek is also known in history under the name of
Yaroslav Tverskoi, who erroneously was dated to the XIII
century.
The distant travels became possible only with the
appearance of the vast Empire and its safeguarded
caravan trails. Before then nothing of the kind existed.
Travelling over the long distances was extremely
dangerous. Even at such close proximity to one's home,
one could find oneself in an alien environment with a
different language and customs, falling easy prey to
highwaymen or rogues. Only a powerful Empire was able
to provide relatively secure transport routes, along which
immediately set forth not only the military forces and
merchants, but travellers too.
&& DMITRY OF SUZDAL.
Dmitry of Suzdal 1359-1363 according to [362], or 13601362 according to [36], [145]. In the Western European
chronicles he was reflected as 'Karol IV Habsburg' 1347-

1378 according to [76]. We would like to point out that

"Karol IV" means just the 'Fourth King'. He is the reflection
of a 'sum' of the following two Russian czars-khans:
Dmitry of Suzdal and Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi 13631389.
Very little is known of Dmitry of Suzdal. After the death of
Ivan Ivanovich the Fair an uprising begins within the state
and a struggle for power with Prince Dmitry, the minor, the
future 'Donskoi'. Dmitry of Suzdal is also known in history
under the name of Vassily of Kostroma and erroneously
dated to the XIII century.
&& DMITRY DONSKOI.
Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi 1363-1389 according to [362] or
1362-1389 according to [36], [145]. In the Western
European chronicles he is reflected as 'Karol IV
Habsburg'. Some facts of Dmitry Donskoi's biography also
found their way into the history of Habsburg Venceslav
following Karol IV.
Dmitry Donskoi is also known in history under the names
of a) Svyatoslav Igorevich, erroneously dated to the X
century; b) Dmitry of Pereyaslavl, erroneously dated to the
XIII century; c) Tokhta Khan, erroneously dated to the XIII
century; d) Khan Tokhtamysh; e) the Roman Emperor
Constantine the Great, erroneously dated to the IV
century.
At the end of the XIV century the Great Strife begins in
Russia-Horde. In 1380 a bloody religious battle takes

place between the army of Dmitry Donskoi and

Velyaminov-Mamai the temnik (Russian for the rank of
army commander, and translates as "leader of
thousands"). The Battle of Kulikovo is considered to be
major in the history of mediaeval Russia. According to our
results, the battle took place in the territory of modern
Moscow, where the Yauza River enters the Moscow River
[4v1], ch.6. At that time there was no city of Moscow there.
The place of the battle up until now is called in Moscow
the KULISHKI FIELD, i.e. the Kulikovo field. The mass
burials of the soldiers fallen in the Battle of Kulikovo,
survive in Moscow in the Old Simonov Monastery and in
the Andronikov Monastery. Today the historians are either
reluctant to speak of them or are simply ignorant about
them.
Dmitriy Donskoi laid down the foundation of the city of
Moscow in the place of the Battle of Kulikovo. The capital,
the czarist headquarters of Dmitriy Donskoi was the city of
Kostroma.
In Western European sources the battle is reflected as a
famous battle allegedly of the year 1386 near the Lucerne
city of Sempach [304], v.2, p.446. As we have shown in
[] the Battle of Kulikovo also forms the backbone to
the main plot of the great 'ancient' Indian epic Sanskrit
poem 'Mahabharata'. Here it is described as a famous
battle in the field of the Kurus (Kurukshetra). It is also
reflected in Titus Livy's 'The History of Rome' and in the
Old Testament (in particular, as the battle between David
and Goliath). The Battle of Kulikovo's significant role can

be explained by the fact that it was a religious battle for

the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity as an official
religion over the entire 'Mongol' Empire. The very same
battle is described on the pages of the 'ancient' sources as
a battle of the Emperor Constantine with Maxentius []
Thus Dmitriy Donskoi=Constantine the Great has baptised
all of the Horde Empire by the end of the XIV century.
It turns out that the 'ancient' Roman sources described in
detail the situation preceding the Battle of Kulikovo of
1380. The opposition between the former HEREDITARY,
ROYAL Christianity and PEOPLE'S APOSTLES'
Christianity becomes acute. A religious war approaches.
Dmitriy Donskoi stands at the head of the Apostles'
Christians, and Khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov leads the
supporters of the Royal Christianity. The religious
antagonism discrepancies become insuperable. The
dispute escalates towards military conflict. At stake
which religion will be adopted as the state religion in this
vast Empire? It becomes clear that reconciliation is
impossible. No one is willing to yield.
Following the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity by the
Empire the defeated Royal Christianity was declared by
the victors as 'foul paganism'. At that time such a stigma
reflected irreconcilable differences between the two
branches of the old Christianity. Later this conflict
subsided. The Apostles' Christianity prevailed, and the
Hereditary Christianity was consigned to history. But the
pernicious stigma on the pages of the original sources
remained. Subsequent historians naively interpreted it all

too literally. They concluded that 'the foul pagans' didn't

believe in Christ at all. The historians were mistaken. The
'pagans' did believe, but in a different way. They called
Him not only Christ, but also the other names, which are
forgotten today. For example: Hors, Thor, Kolyada, Rod,
Zeus, Dionysus, Osiris, Theseus, Heracles, etc.
4. THE EXPANTION OF THE EMPIRE.
So, in the beginning of the XIV century the two brothers
Ivan (Batu Khan) and Georgiy (Genghis Khan) Danilovichi
were the czars-khans of the Great Empire. The creation
of the empire was reflected in various 'ancient' documents
of the 'antiquity'. In particular, it contributed to the legend
of the foundation of the famous 'ancient' Rome, allegedly
in the VIII century BC by the brothers Romulus and
Remus, descendants of king Aeneas.
The most important political aim for the czars-khans of
Russia-Horde of the XIII-XIV cc. aka the 'ancient' Roman
Empire becomes the reinstatement and the significant
expansion of the Czar-Grad Empire of the XI-XII cc.
Russia-Horde was naturally considered by the people as
the successor to Ancient Romea, because it was Russia,
where king Aeneas-John = Ryurik, the representative of
the former Czar-Grad = Trojan = Jerusalem dynasty,
arrived to. The other parts of the former Romaic Kingdom
in the XIII century were engulfed in the strife.
As we already said, at the end of the XIII beginning of
the XIV cc. the conquest of the world instigates from
Russia-Horde. We call it the 'first wave'. It was not so

much a question of military occupation of distant realms,

populated mainly by isolated tribes or entirely
undeveloped, but more akin to the reclaiming and
absorbing of them into the Empire. Various ancient
authors for example, John Malalas or Mauro Orbini
inform us that the MAJORITY OF THE REGIONS OF
EURASIA AND AFRICA DURING THAT EPOCH WERE
STILL SCARCELY POPULATED. That is why the armies
of the Russia-Horde, which were irrevocably spreading out
in different directions from the Volga River, would settle in
as yet undeveloped territories and establish new cities and
new civilisations there. We would like to repeat that it was
a rather peaceful colonization, including that of the vacant
territories of Western Europe. A large part of the settlersCossacks was sent to Africa and Asia, including India and
China. The Horde reclamation of India of that epoch is
known to us from the ancient sources as the appearance
of the famous 'Aryans' and the creation of the AryanIndian civilization in Hindustan. The Cossacks (i.e. the
Israelites), who came to Egypt, here established the
Mamelukes dynasty, described later in the history of
'Ancient' Egypt under the name of the 'ancient' Hyksos.
This migration from the centre of the Horde Empire in all
different directions was later described in various
chronicles as DIASPORA or THE GREAT
TRANSMIGRATION OF PEOPLES, as the great Slavic
conquest, as the rise of Babylon, etc. In the Bible RussiaHorde (Israel) is also described as militant Assyria. Titus
Livy and the other 'ancient' authors describe the same
events as the rise of Royal Rome and the conquest of the
world.

In the epoch of the XIV century the firearms were

invented, which provided the armies of Russia-Horde with
an overwhelming military advantage for a long time. Sergiy
Radonezhskii (Sergey Radonezhsky) (aka Berthold
Schwarz) was the inventor of the canon. For the first time
canons were used on a large scale in the Battle of
Kulikovo in 1380 []
The Empire encompassed practically the entire Eurasia
and a great part of Africa, including South Africa, African
Egypt, and the Nile Valley, where traditionally the Empire's
ancestral Royal cemetery was situated. As we have said
earlier, the choice of location, among other things was
also due to the unique conditions in Egypt. A dry and hot
climate facilitated a good preservation of the remains.
Here the embalmed Hordian czars-khans, their relatives,
court nobility, governors, etc.- were transported postmortem on the Hordian ships (called strugi)- across the
Mediterranean Sea = the 'ancient river Styx'. The
embalming itself was invented to preserve the bodies of
the deceased during a lengthy transportation from the
locations situated far from the African Egypt. Those who
died in Egypt did not necessarily have to be embalmed.
There, in the white-hot sands, the mummification takes
place without any embalmment.
In other words, various famous Egyptian burials of
pharaohs and other burials in Egypt (in Luxor for example)
which are known today, are the graves of the eminent and
distinguished people of the Horde Empire.

By contrast, the burials of the 'Russian czars and

czaritsas', allegedly of the pre-Romanovs epoch, which
today are on display in Arkhangelsky Monastery of
Moscow Kremlin, are forged, created by order of the
Romanovs in the course of them re-score the Russian
history in the 'correct' key [4v.2)].

5. SCYTHIA WAS CALLED SCOTIA, I.E. SCOTLAND.

The spelling of SCYTHIA was also used for SCOTLAND,
as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us [4v2], ch.3, ch.6:11.
The words SCYTHIA and SCOTIA are almost identical.
We attribute the origin of the name SCOTLAND from
SCYTHIA by the fact that the 'Mongol' conquest also
swept through the insular England. Here arrived the
Scythians and founded the cities and the state. This is the
genesis of the name Scotland.
Let's address the mediaeval ENGLISH sources. What did
they call Scotland? It turns out - SCOTIA and
GUTLONDE, i.e. a COUNTRY OF GOTHS = GUTLONDE [517], [4v2], ch.3:1.5. It corresponds wonderfully
with our reconstruction.
We have to add almost nothing ourselves. It is enough
simply to quote the source materials accurately. We
suggest taking a look at the mediaeval records from the
perspective of the common sense and the new
chronology.

6. A WONDERFUL CONSISTENCY IN THE LOCATIONS

OF THE OLD CAPITALS.
If the Horde = 'Roman' colonization of Europe, Asia and
Africa took place so recently and systematically enough,
then some consistency in the location of the imperial
colonial centres = the future capitals, should have
manifested itself. Let us imagine ourselves in the place of
a khan-czar who has to swiftly and sensibly organize the
effective ruling over recently conquered vast territories.
Many of them, according to Mauro Orbini [617], 'WERE
YET TO BE DEVELOPED AT THAT TIME [5v1], ch.9.
There were a few locals there. For example, Orbini claims
that when the Slavic army arrived to Holland for the first
time IT WAS STILL A DESOLATE UNDEVELOPED
COUNTRY [617].
Most likely the command outposts vicariates - were set
up along the trade routes of the empire. Not randomly, but
in the same specific distances. Naturally, the location
didn't always allow for this, but something like it was aimed
for. What was the benefit of that? At the very least such
system would introduce some logical order for trading,
postal and courier services. The Khan was able to
approximately know how long it would take the couriers to
deliver an order from the capital of the Empire to any given
region. Long distances were measured by, let's say,
thousands of versts (versta - a Russian unit of distance
equal to 1.067 kilometres (0.6629 mile)). It was, for
example, one thousand versts to the 'closest' colonial
centres. To the next ones two thousand. And so on. It is

a simple and naturally-occurring idea for the Empire which

was rapidly extending its boundaries towards little
developed territories. Thus acted 'ancient Rome' in the
Scaligerian history. Meaning, that was the way the
"Mongol' Empire acted. It would cast something like a web
over the geographical map, in the intersections of which,
along the rays emanating from the centre, would appear
the local command outposts fig.24 [4v2], ch.2. Of course
over time some of them would make way for other
outposts, which would appear later and for other reasons.
Besides, this pattern was also affected by geography
seas, mountains, rivers and wetlands.
It would be interesting to see if any, even vague traces of
such a regular pattern still remain. If our hypothesis is
correct, then many of the present day capitals should be
broadly situated on a number of peripheries with the same
centre, fig 24. The location of the centre would point us to
where the capital of the Empire, which at some point
colonized and developed Eurasia, was situated. Could it
happen to be the Italian Rome? It is difficult to foresee.
Only the calculations can provide us with the answer.
Let us take a modern globe. Specifically, a globe and not a
flat map, which distorts the actual distances. Let us mark
the present day European and Asian capitals on the globe:
Amman, Amsterdam, Ankara, Athens, Baghdad, Beirut,
Belgrade, Berlin, Bern, Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest,
Bucharest, Warsaw, Vienna, Damascus, Dublin, Geneva,
Jerusalem, Kabul, Copenhagen, Lisbon, London,
Luxembourg, Madrid, Moscow, Nicosia, Oslo, Paris,

Prague, Rome, Sofia, Istanbul, Stockholm, Tehran, Tirana,

Helsinki. Let us choose on a map an arbitrary point, which
we will be changing later, and calculate the distance
between this point and all the 37 capitals. We will get 37
numbers. We would like to stress that the distances are
being measured on the globe, i.e. the earth surface, and
not the flat distorting map.
Let us see, if the set point could be the centre of a number
of circumferences, along which all, or nearly all the
specified cities are situated. If not, let us set a different
point. This way we can try to search through different
points on the globe. It is clear that if the capitals are
scattered randomly, i.e. they were emerging independently
from each other, then there will be no central point. But if
the capital were emerging the way we have described it,
then the central point might occur. It is interesting to see
where it might be. Could it be the Italian Rome? That
would be natural for the Scaligerian history. Or could it be
Istanbul? Which would mean that it was the Romaic
Kingdom which at some point developed and populated
Europe. Or maybe the centre was situated in Vladimir and
Suzdal Russia? This is what our reconstruction claims.
The only thing which remains to be done is to conduct
technically uncomplicated, though cumbersome
calculations.
The answer is as follows. Indeed, there exists a centre,
respective of which nearly all the indicated capitals line-up
around two peripheries of circles in the best possible way.
This point is the city of Vladimir in Russia, fig.25.

Incidentally, isn't it the reason why it is called Vladimir,

meaning The Master of the World? This work was
conducted by A.U. Ryabtsev - a professional cartographer
(city of Moscow).
So, the result demonstrates that THE GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EUROPEAN
AND ASIAN CAPITAL BARES TRACES OF A CERTAIN
ANCIENT ORDER. It manifests itself in the concentric
pattern of most of the capitals around a single centre the
Russian city of Vladimir. Of course, such a pattern could
have occurred accidentally. Nevertheless, our findings
provide a perfect justification of the location of the capitals.
The vast territories of Eurasia were developed and
populated during the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century.
Vladimir and Suzdal Russia was at its centre. The
civilization encompassed the vast territories while creating
the Eurasian Empire with transport routs, central
government and strong administration. The future local
capitals began to emerge in the intersections of the
system of transport routs created according to a strict
scheme, along the concentric circles around the centre - at
approximately equal distance from it [4v2], ch.2:18.
7. THE STRUCTURE OF THE HORDE EMPIRE.
In the XIVXVI cc. all the regions of the Empire including
areas at a considerable distance from the Russia-Horde were ruled by the governors subjected to the supreme
Hordian czar-khan. The Western European chronicles
called him the Emperor, deeming him to be the only one in
the world. They are quite correct about that. The attitude

of the Empire's provinces towards Russia-Horde and its

czars was very respectful and sometimes would verge on
idolatry. For instance, in the Mediterranean resorts there
would appear some myths and legends about the mighty
and ubiquitous gods, feasting on the distant and
unreachable Olympus. Some of these legends found their
way onto the pages of the chronicles. Later they were
declared by the historians to be 'very ancient'.
The reasons for Russia-Horde becoming the metropolitan
country of the Great Empire are clear. A significant portion
of the wealth and natural resources of the entire planet are
concentrated there. Being well aware of it, the khans-czars
of Russian-Horde created a powerful army not so much as
to guard the wealth, but to build a large and well organized
Kingdom based on it. Since then it was the military power
that became the most important characteristic of RussiaHorde = the biblical Assyria (Syria) = Israel. Given that, in
the provinces of the Empire in Western Europe for
example, a particular attention was paid to the production
of 'consumer goods'. The products of this labour were
distributed throughout the entire Empire. Something or
other was supplied to Russia-Horde.
In that distant epoch there were no nations or ethnic
groups that exist in our time. They formed only in the XVIIXVIII cc. after the schism of the Empire. During its
existence the Empire created a number of 'sacred'
languages for both writing down Holy Scripture and for the
national documentation. They were the Egyptian
hieroglyphs = ancient 'Jewish' hieratical language of

priests; then Arabic; Mediaeval Greek; the Church

Slavonic. The 'ancient' Latin and 'ancient' Greek
languages were created later, in the epoch of the
dissolution of the Empire, based mainly on the Church
Slavonic language. The spoken languages in Russia were
Russian (i.e. the simplified Church Slavonic language) and
the Turkic (Tatar) languages. In the presence of a strong
autocratic power the fundamental idea of the 'Mongol'
Kingdom was the unity of the countries and nations which
were a part of it.
In the vast territories of the Empire in Egypt, Northern
Africa, Europe, America, Asia in the XIII-XVI cc. there
spread a megalithic style of gigantic structures, made of
synthetic stone. In particular - geopolymer concrete,
imitating natural granite, diorite and other igneous rocks.
This includes the colossal pyramids and temples of Egypt,
the enormous American Maya pyramids, grandiose
constructions and castles of the Middle East, imposing
structures like Stonehenge in England, France, etc. The
rapturous speculations of the historians about the
supposedly many thousands of slaves, who allegedly for
decades toiled at the erection of the Egyptian pyramids,
for example these are the fantasies of the XVII-XX cc.
The pyramids and many other enormous structures of
'antiquity' were made of concrete. Building them was
certainly not a simple matter, but it was carried out by a
comparatively small amount of qualified labourers in a
fairly short amount of time.

After the Trojan War of the XIII century, in the epoch of the
'first wave' of the great conquest the 'Mongols' = the great
ones create powerful fortification systems all over the
Empire. For example, a network of the famous castles of
'Qatar' = Scythian castles in Western Europe. In particular
a great number of them survive in France: fortress of
Montsegur, Carcassonne and many more. Similar
fortresses-castles were erected in the Middle East, in
particular on the territory of modern Syria. The historians
consider them to be the work of the Crusaders. On the
whole they are right. But it is necessary to clarify that they
are referring to the Horde-crusaders of the XIII-XIV cc.,
who came from Russia-Horde and who were spreading
the Christian faith in all directions. Among the Crusaders'
castles of the Middle East you can see some really
enormous constructions, like the famous castles Krak (des
Chevaliers) and Macabre, the might and the ingenious
engineering solution of which still impress today, despite
the fact, that in the epoch of the Ataman (Ottoman)
conquest, i.e. the 'second wave', many of these fortresses
were badly damaged. However, their main disintegration
fell in the times of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc,
when the raging rioters were wrecking crushing the Horde'Mongolian' castles in the provinces of the Empire which
had broken away from the metropolitan country.
In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. the network of fortifications
built throughout the entire Empire provided strict order.
The Cossack-Horde military camps (including cavalry)
were stationed within the castles, they controlled the vast
territories and collected taxes.

Many of the castles were built on the top of the hills,

mountains, rocky ridge for the visibility range and control
over the transport routs. The soldiers, who served in these
fortresses all over the Great Empire, began to be known
as the Greben Cossacks, which meant: those sitting on
the 'edge of the mountain'.
In the metropolitan country of the Empire, i.e. in RussiaHorde, a czar and the princes usually resided in the centre
of the city, among their fellow citizens. For themselves
personally the rulers would build a kremlin, surrounded
with a motte-and-bailey. Moscow is such an example.
There were no separate military castles built outside of the
Russian-Horde cities.
An entirely different story unfolded in various lands
colonized by the Horde. There the arriving Cossacks
found themselves among the local foreign population. To
control the vast territories the remote castles-fortresses
were built, i.e. situated outside of the settlements and
cities. In these mighty fortifications, usually on top of hills
and mountains, the Hordian military camps were situated
with their cavalry, ammunition, weaponry, etc. Hence the
Hordian governors ruled the occupied regions. Thus the
'Mongol' elite and military would initially settle, on the
whole, separately from the locals, not mixing with them. Of
course in the future they would integrate and the original
customs would be forgotten. So it was the necessity of the
control over the Imperial provinces which would explain
the presence of the considerable amount of the remote
castles in Western Europe, in Syria, etc. and the absence

of them in Russia, where the surrounding population was

native.
In the XIII-XIV cc. the ruling establishment of the Empire
professed the Royal, Hereditary Christianity. The regime
of the czars-khans was indisputable and absolute. There
were no rivals or competitors. The ruling class did not fear
anybody. Alongside the military style of the castlesfortresses an opulent architectural style blossomed, known
as the 'classical'. The massive circus-amphitheatres,
temples with tall colonnades, gigantic palatial complexes,
such as the legendary Palmyra and Apameia on the
territory of Syria. There public worship took place, to here
both the 'Mongol' czars-khans themselves and their
numerous governors with their courts would arrive for
celebrations.
In the XV century the Great Empire enveloped practically
the entire populated world of that time. This empire is
known to us from the Scaligerian history as the worldwide
Empire of Karol V, i.e. the Fifth King. For a reason it was
said in the old chronicles that 'the sun never sets on' his
Empire. The chroniclers were not mistaken here. Having
set on Asia and Europe, the sun would rise in America.
Some chronicles called the metropolitan country of the
Empire, i.e. Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. - Israel. A
czar-khan ruled over the kingdom from Vladimir and
Suzdal Russia. The other part of the Empire allied to
Russia, which appeared as a result of the conquest of the
XV century, was The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania.

Czar-Grad became its capital in 1453. The Ottoman

Empire-Ottomania was called Judaea. It was under these
names - Israel and Judaea that the two main parts of the
'Mongol' Empire are reflected in the pages of the Bible.
The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania was called Judaea also
because Czar-Grad = Biblical Jerusalem was its capital.
According to the Bible, Jerusalem was situated in Judaea
and was its capital.
Despite its vast territories, the 'Mongol' Empire for a long
time existed as a single state. Since the XIII century
Christianity was the doctrine of the Empire. However,
Christianity in its modern sense, i.e. - the Apostles'
Christianity was adopted as a state religion only after the
dramatic Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. In this battle the
Russian-Hordian prince Dmitriy Donskoy the Roman
Emperor Constantine I the Great defeated the followers of
the other Christian branch with khan Mamai, aka Ivan
Velyaminov of the Russian chronicles, at the head of it.
In the Apostles' monasteries in Russia gunpowder and
cannons were invented. The first cannons were wooden
and were made of the oak trunks. The inventor of cannons
is Holy Sergii Radonezhsky (the Western chroniclers
called him Berthold Schwarz). The invention of this new
incredible weapon was used intelligently by the Apostles'
Christians in their fight against the emperors-'heretics'. In
a critical moment the Battle of Kulikovo, the canons were
put at the disposal of Dmitriy Donskoy = Constantine the
Great, who acted in support of the Apostles' Christianity.
His opponents, the believers in the 'Royal' Christianity

united under the banners of khan Mamai = Ivan

Veliaminov. The main military forces of the Empire were
on their side. They didn't have a slightest doubt in their
victory. On Dmitriy's = Constantine the Great's side only
the militia assembled. But at the same time they had fire
arms cannons, which the enemy did not know about. It
was those cannons = the 'Christian weapon' which
decided the battle. They possibly not so much defeated as
inspired terror in the enemy. Dmitriy's victory was
perceived by his contemporaries as a miracle. Having
won, he made the Apostles' Christianity the state religion
of the entire Empire [4v1], ch.6.
As we have said earlier, the Battle of Kulikovo by no
means took place in the suburbs of the city of Tula, as
think the historians, but in the location of present day
Moscow, the future capital of the great Empire. In 1380
Moscow was still a small settlement. The field of Kulikovo
was situated near the Moscow River, between the rivers
Yauza and Neglinka, close to the present day
Slavyanskaya square. See our reconstruction of Dmitriy
Donskoy's (Constantine the Great) and Khan Mamai's
(Maxentius = Licinius = Ivan Velyaminov) troops'
movement in fig.26, fig.27.
The structure of the Christian Great Empire was very
flexible due to the lack of an efficient communications
infrastructure. The Hordian governors ruled in the
provinces. In particular their responsibilities included the
tax collection and prompt shipment of it to the metropolitan
country. The Hordian Cossack military camps were

stationed in the main cities and settlements and ensured

order and the smooth collection of tax. The steady trade
was running smoothly between various regions of the
Empire. That is why in the provinces there evolved
different areas of specialism some countries had better
developed agriculture (for example Southern and
Central Europe), some were good at ship building (for
example, England and Spain), in some - blossomed
medicine, literature and the arts on the whole (for
example, in Italy), and in other there emerged 'resort'
leisure zone (for example, in the South of France), etc.
However, the accomplishments of all the regions of the
Empire steadily contributed to the common 'Imperial piggy
bank'.
The Czar-khan Dmitriy Donskoy = the Emperor
Constantine the Great in the end of the XIV century moves
the capital of the Empire from Russia to the Bosporus, to
the suburbs of Czar-Grad = Biblical Jerusalem, where
Andronicus-Christ was crucified. A new city Constantinople - is being built here, and thus emerges the
second capital of the Great Russian Mediaeval Empire. A
part of the Royal court and a great number of people left
for the new place with the czar. This event is known from
the history text books as Constantine the Great moving
the capital from the 'Old Rome' in the IV century (i.e. from
Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, as we understand it now) to
the 'New Rome' in the Bosporus, to the city of Byzantium.
In Russia, in the first capital, there remained its own rulers.
In the beginning the relations between those who stayed
and those who left were peaceful. The main military forces

of the Empire as before were situated in Russia, known as

Israel. Czar-Grad became a new religious centre of the
Empire. The area around it was referred to as Judaea.
This prevailed for approximately 50-70 years. However,
soon a new occurrence presented itself, without
precedent. We will talk about it later.
8. FLORENCE, ROME, VATICAN.
In the end of the great Slavic conquest of the XIV century,
the Russian czars-khans established their domination over
Western Europe. In particular, Horde has occupied and
populated Italy. The Russians make Florence their capital
in Italy. Thus in the first half of the XIV century in Italy
there appear the Etruscan (the Russians). Among other
things, they laid a foundation of a small town in Italian
Lazio, which will later be called by the great name of
Rome. Incidentally, it is deemed that 'the name of the new
city itself 'Roma' is Etruscan in its origin [106], p.46. I.e.
Russian.
In the XIV century there were no popes in Italy yet. They
appeared there much later, in the middle of the XV century
[] Possibly, Ivan Kalita had his field headquarters at
the site of the future Italian Rome.
As the Slavic conquest of the XIV century took place as
early as in the epoch of the Royal Christianity, the rulers of
the Empire were deified. In particular, Ivan Kalita (Khalif),
aka the legendary Pop Ivan or Prester John, was a czargod. The czars-gods of that time were the supreme rulers

of the state and the church simultaneously. I.E. THEY

WERE KHALIFS or POPES. That is why the royal
headquarters were, among other things, of utmost
ecclesiastical importance. But when the czar was leaving
it, the quarters would lose its significance. Nevertheless, in
the place of the Royal quarters, as a rule, there would
emerge the significant cities, proud of their history. Thus it
was with the Italian Rome.
At first after the conquest of the early XIV century there
could be no dispute between Florence and future Italian
Rome. A small town left by the czar could not compete
with a large and wealthy capital Florence.
The situation took a twist in the middle of the XV century,
when after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 the Italian
Rome became a refuge for a part of the Constantinople's
nobility fleeing the Ottoman conquest. The boyars from the
immediate Royal entourage brought with them great
wealth and kept their heads down for a while waiting for a
right moment to begin their fight for the lost world
domination. Since they needed to have some kind of
plausible facade under which they could have existed for
the time being, they seized the Vatican episcopal see and
called their leaders popes. Though, up till the middle of the
XVI century those popes were purely military people. They
called the city where they settled Rome, as their old
homeland was The New Rome Constantinople.
However, the fortification which they built for themselves,
they called by the city's old name Vatican.

Thus in the middle of the XV century a new history of the

Italian Rome and Vatican began. In the XVI-XVII cc. the
popes overcame the opposition of the rest of the Italian
cities, including Florence. Rome became Italy's main city.
With the ascent of the popes in the XVI century in Italy
there ended the Etruscan epoch and commenced a NewRoman epoch. Later all of this was deliberately dated (on
paper) to deep antiquity. It was in the XVI-XVII cc. at the
popes' court that the false version of history started to be
created []
So, there were several 'foundations of Rome', and they
were all in different locations. As a reminder, the first is the
founding of the Old Rome circa X century in the African
Egypt in the Nile Delta. The second Rome was founded in
the Bosporus circa the XI century. The third kingdom of
Rome of Romulus and Remus (i.e. the famous 'ancient'
Royal Rome, described by Titus Livy) was founded by
Aeneas and his descendants in Russia-Horde of the XIII
century [] The Italian Rome was founded circa 1380.

9. TIN, COPPER, BRONZE.

It is well known that the manufacture of tin is more
complex than that of copper. That is why bronze, as alloy
of copper and tin, must have appeared LATER than the
invention of tin. In the Scaligerian history the situation is a
completely the reverse. At first, allegedly, there was the
invention of bronze. That is how the Bronze Age 'came

about'. And supposedly only later tin, which is much more

complex to produce, was invented. A contradiction
occurred in the Scaligerian history. As a result, the
'ancient' Greek heroes strike each other with bronze
swords, the production of which would require the 'yet to
be invented' tin. The present day chemists are certainly
surprised by such Scaligerian fantasies and are sincerely
trying to guess the reasons for such oddities. In fact, the
bronze century falls within the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc.,
when the production of tin was already invented. Certainly,
after copper [1v], ch.1.
10. WHY THE RECURRING NAMES APPEARED ON
THE MAPS OF THE XIV-XVI CC.
The 'Mongol' conquest of Eurasia transferred many
Russian-Turkic and Ataman (Ottoman) names of the
cities, rivers and regions in all kinds of directions. The
conquerors would arrive to the undeveloped lands, settle
there and often call the new places with the traditional
names, in memory of the homeland that they have left. For
example, the name Horde, which appeared in England, in
Spain and in many locations in Western Europe, Asia and
America, multiplied a number of times. The name of
COSSACKS also multiplied, turning into the names of
various regions, separated from each other by thousands
of kilometres. For example - in Spain and in Japan [4v].
The same thing happened to a name RUS' (RUSSIA):
there appeared P-Russia or Prussia, Persia, Paris, etc.
The names of TATARS and TIRKOMEN (TURKI) also
spread and gave birth to the name of the Francs in the

West, the Turks in Asia, and also such names as Thrace,

Africa, etc. []
The natural transfer of the names along the routes of
conquest in the XIV-XVI cc. overlapped later, in the XVIIXVIII cc. with another effect, which also led to the
proliferation of the geographical names. One of the main
results that we achieved is that the majority of the
surviving ancient chronicles are LAYERED, as in their final
form they were created or edited in the XVII-XVIII cc. The
original chronicle would be overlaid with its duplicates,
moreover, sometimes - with a chronological shift. It
resulted with an elongated layered chronicle. This could
recur several times. As a result, the events were doubled,
the geography shifted, the dates were changed.
Something similar was happening in the XVII-XVIII cc. with
the geographical descriptions.
# The first such descriptions were not the maps in the
modern sense of this word, but just brief LISTS OF
COUNTRIES AND NATIONS.
# Later the maps were depicted in the form of a circle
divided into three sectors Europe, Asia and Africa.
These sections were defined by the form of a Christian Tshaped cross. Inside each sector the corresponding
countries and nations were listed. This is exactly what the
old Scandinavian maps look like in the geographical tracts
[5v1], ch.11.

# With the development of the coastwise navigation, i.e.

along the coasts, the maps with the rough contours of the
countries appeared. The first navigators, constrained to
keep to the shore, represented the seas as long rivers. It
was as yet difficult for them to appreciate the scope of the
seas and the oceans due to lack of a mariner's compass
[1v], ch.5:11.
# Only later, with the beginning of the epoch of the Great
geographical discoveries of the XV-XVI cc, with the
invention of the compass, we see, that the countries and
the seas on the maps of the XVI-XVIII cc. started to
acquire much more credible contours and the
geographical descriptions became more detailed. In the
XIV-XVI cc. many geographical names multiplied, being
transferred by the Hordian conquerors to the various
regions of the world colonized by them.
# In the XVII-XVIII cc. a new Scaligerian history and a
'new geography' started being created and adopted. As
the original geographical maps had an appearance of
texts and lists of names, they unavoidably were subjected
to the 'Scaligerian duplication', in a similar way to the
chronicles.
In the XVII-XVIII cc. the historians began to wipe out the
Great Empire from the chronicles. Besides, many imperial
names were removed from the maps and replaced with
different ones. They could also be relocated. A number of
the geographical shifts-relocations were made. For
example, it was declared that the Biblical Jerusalem 'was
always situated' in present day Palestine, but it 'was never

situated' in the Bosporus. The Romanovs' historians

began to claim, that the chronicle history of Velikii
Novgorod unfolded on the swampy desolate banks of the
Volkhov River, but not at all on the banks of the Volga
River, in the famous Yaroslavl and around it. And so on
and so forth.
All the activities on the remaking of the geographical maps
were purely office work i.e. was carried out on paper.
Some famous 'Mongol' names were given to 'still vacant'
spots on Earth. Then, the imperial names, which were
transferred over there, were 'stuck' to the real nations, who
lived there, and embedded into their conscience, writing
system, geography and science along with the bits of the
former history of Russia-Horde and The Atamania
(Ottoman Empire), which were confiscated by force and
replanted into the new places. The events which took
place, for example, in Russia, were transferred - on paper
- to the territory of modern China.
The missionaries, already with the Scaligerian maps in
their hands, arrived, for instance, to Africa or China and
announced to the natives what their country and they
themselves were called in the 'ancient times'. And also
what deeds their ancestors committed. At first the natives
were baffled and shrugged their shoulders, but then
agreed contentedly.
Thus, the geographical names of the various regions of
the 'Mongol' Empire began to wander at first on paper, and
later across the world. This process concluded only in the
XVIII-XIX cc.

11. THE RIDDLE OF THE ETRUSCANS.

Let us look at the history of the Etruscans in more detail.
To recap, in the XIII century the Trojan War takes place,
as the result of which the GOTHS TATARS
TARQUINII 'MONGOLS' RUSSIANS seize CzarGrad. After a while the 'MONGOLS'= THE GREAT ONES,
aka the Tarquinii = the Tatar Khans invade the West. This
is at the very beginning of the XIV century.
Specifically they colonize Italy and are firmly established in
Florence. At the end of the XIV century the Etruscans (the
Russians) lay the foundation of a small fortification, calling
it Rome. The word ROME could have originated from a
Russian word RAMO = a shoulder, an arm, a part of an
arm up to an elbow. The plural - is RAMENA, in Russian.
This is an old form. Hence the word RAMA (meaning a
'frame' in Russian), as a space restricted by something.
The Russian word ARMIYA (meaning ARMY) and the
English ARMOUR, also originate from here. The Greek
ROMEA could have also come from here. The current
belief that ROME is an 'ancient', purely Latin word is a
consequence of inaccurate chronology.
The name Rome was also considered to be a reference to
THE ENTIRE STATE (denomination of the state as the
whole). The Latini used the word Urbis = City for Rome,
and Orbis world, universe. A corresponding Russian
word is MIR (meaning WORLD in Russian). Many times
we came across the backwards reading of names in the

multilingual chronicles. For example, the Arabs and the

Jews read from the right to the left; the Europeans read
from the left to the right. That is why the words MIR
(WORLD in Russian) and RIM (ROME in Russian) could
have turned into each other when read by the peoples of
different nationalities. Thus the MONGOLIAN WORLD
would turn into the GREAT ROME and vice versa.
There is as yet an unsolved puzzle in Scaligerian history.
Namely THE ETRUSCANS. The people, who allegedly,
even before the founding of Rome in the VIII century BC,
appeared in Italy, created a wonderful culture there and
then mysteriously vanished leaving behind numerous
artefacts covered with incomprehensible writings, which
are indecipherable to many generations of the scientists
despite their strenuous efforts.
In our concept the 'riddle of the Etruscans' is resolved. It
turns out that in the XIX century the scientists
A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky proposed their solution.
They discovered the method of decoding and reading the
Etruscan inscriptions. According to them THESE
INSCRIPTIONS WERE SLAVONIC. THEREFORE THE
ETRUSCANS WERE SLAVS. It became clear why the
Etruscans called themselves 'Rasenna', i.e. the Rasens,
the Russians [106], p.72.
However, the solution of the Etruscan riddle, put forward
by these scientists, despite the indisputable interpretation
of at least several Etruscan texts, conflicted with the spirit
of Scaligerian history entirely. This was enough TO
UNDERMINE BELIEF in A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky,

despite the fact that nobody could contest their theory. It

seems there was nothing to object to as A.D. Chertkov
and F.Volansky in fact had successfully read many
Etruscan inscriptions. Until today, for over a hundred
years, the Etruscologists kept quiet about the findings of
these scientists.
Furthermore, probably not being able to find other ways to
oppose A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky, some people
began to deliberately mock them by earnestly publishing
the 'research' with supposedly similar, but obviously
meaningless 'decoding' (for example S.Grinevich,
V.A.Chudinov). Substituting the opponents' arguments
with other meaningless arguments is a dishonest, but,
unfortunately, prevailing method of 'scientific warfare'.
This position is understandable. On one hand, what retort
can one have if many Etruscan inscriptions indeed as
A.D.Chertkov and F.Volansky show us can be read and
understood based on use of Slavonic languages. You
cannot really say that 'it is a coincidence'. On the other
hand it is impossible to concur with it. If the Et-ruscans
were Slavs, than it immediately follows, that they must
have been Russian!
So what does it mean then? Can it be that it was the
Russians who founded the Italian Etruria? the 'centre of
the most ancient civilization in Italy and the eternal
patroness and protector of religions' according to the
cardinal Egidio da Viterbo [106], p.4.

So what then? The Russians lived in Italy before the

founding of Rome. In Scaligerian history this would be
inconceivable. But in the new chronology all obstacles to
the acceptance of A.D. Chertkov and F.Volansky's results
are removed. Furthermore, it would be extremely odd if
the Russian-Turk conquest left no traces in the Italy of the
XIV-XVI cc. As it was Et-ruscan 'Mongols' = the Mighty
who arrived there in the XIII-XIV cc., prior to the founding
of Italian Rome in the XIV-XV cc.
Some scientists are trying to comprehend the obvious
traces of the wide spreading of the old Slavic objects and
inscriptions found all over Eurasia, and are doing their
best to find a place in Scaligerian chronology, where they
could insert all of this prolific Slavic material. But as all of
the Middle Ages 'was full up', they have to go into a distant
past and come up with theories of certain 'most ancient'
Proto-Slavic people. In our view all such findings relate not
to the Protoslavs (who, indeed existed at some point, but
about whom we know nothing of today), but to the
Mediaeval Slavs. It was they who in the XIV century
conquered Eurasia and North Africa, and in the XV
century America too.
For the first time the theory of the Etruscan language
being Slavonic was expressed not by Chertkov, but by the
Italian scientist Etruscan scholar Sebastiano Ciampi with
whom Chertkov was personally acquainted. It was Ciampi
who we can credit with the idea that the Etruscans were
Slavic. However, not meeting with any approval in the
scientific community, he did not follow through with his
research. Chertkov developed Ciampi's theory,

scientifically tested it and gave a definitive proof that the

language of the Etruscans is indeed Slavonic [5v2].
I would like to draw your attention to an interesting fact.
Here, for example, one of the Et-ruscan inscriptions, cited
by Volansky [5v2], ch.3. How did the 'Etruscan specialists'
manage to avoid reading this inscription?! IT WAS
WRITTEN WITH REGULAR SLAVONIC LETTERS. And,
moreover from left to right. What difficulties could prevent
them from reading this text? We think, that the explanation
is as follows. They consciously didn't want to. But why?
Here is the answer.
In the West all the traces of the fact, that the great
conquest of the XIV century and the conquest of the XVXVI cc. were in fact Slavic and Russian-Turkic, were being
destroyed. After the Reformation, in the XVII-XVIII cc.,
there arose an UNSPOKEN BAN ON ANY REFERENCE
TO THE FORMER RUSSIAN PRESENCE IN THE
WESTERN EUROPE. It found its expression in,
particularly, a virtual ban on even trying to use any
Slavonic languages to read so called 'illegible' inscriptions
from Western Europe.
A new perception of the Et-ruscan history leads to a new
approach to ancient Russian history of the XIV-XVI cc.
Since the XVI century it was persistently impressed upon
us that the Russian culture prior to the XVII century was of
a very low level compared to the Western-European
culture. And after the XVII century even more so. So,
without trying to touch upon all the aspects of Et-ruscan
life, i.e. a life of the Russians and Turks in Western

Europe, let us see what the Et-ruscans achieved in the

arts, medicine, etc. and how they did it. It becomes clear
that they were able to do quite a lot. Here, for instance,
are the words of the 'ancient' Diodorus Siculus (most likely
a XVI-XVII cc. author), informing us of the high
achievements of the Etruscans in science, culture and
military arts. Many 'ancient' authors tell us about it.
The 'Etruscans', notable for their energy from time
immemorial, conquered a vast territory and founded a
great many cities. They created a mighty fleet and were
the masters of the seas for a very long time improved on
the regulation of the army They introduced writing,
zealously studied the science of the Deities and mastered
the observation of lightening. That is why until now they
inspire awe in us ' Diodorus Siculus. XIV, 113. Quote
according to [574], the back cover.

12. ANCIENT EGYPT.

We have decoded a number of dates recorded on the
zodiacs of ancient Egypt. It was achieved by means of a
radically new method of a complete decoding of the
zodiacs developed by A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovskiy
[] [3v2].
Thanks to the resources available to us for the first time
and vast computer-generated astronomical calculations it
has become possible to determine dozens of dates
recorded on the ancient zodiacs. All of these dates fell into

the same epoch not earlier than the XI century. The

newly discovered astronomical findings proved to be
unique for the vast majority of the Egyptian zodiacs. The
complete decoding of the horoscopes on the Egyptian
zodiacs determined by A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovsky
included some partial decoding by N.A.Morozov and
T.N.Fomenko suggested earlier. However it differs from
them in some details.
Based on the received dater we can claim that the
'pharaohic' history of Egypt by no means unfolded over
hundreds and thousands of years BC, as it is commonly
thought, but in the epoch of the XI-XVI cc. AD.
The dates on the Egyptian wooden coffin-sarcophagi are
interesting. They can be found in the illustrated books on
Ancient Egypt and are considered to be 'very ancient'. But
now it has become possible to establish precisely their
true age in some instances. The fact is that on coffin lids
there are sometimes depicted zodiacs with the date of
death encoded in them. For example, the decoding of one
of them - the Brugsch zodiac - gave us the middle of the
XIX century! In other words, the 'ancient' Egyptians (aka,
possibly, mamelukes) even 150 years ago were making
such coffins and buried their dead in them. And now they
are exhibited in many museums as alleged artifacts of the
'most ancient' history. Let us turn our attention to the
history of Egypt in more detail.
# The history if Egypt gradually steps out of obscurity only
from the XI-XII cc.

# The Egyptian history from the XI to the XIII cc. is very

poorly covered in the documents which survive today.
# The history of Ancient Russia and the history of African
Egypt are closely intertwined. The written and
archaeological history of African 'Ancient' Egypt known to
us today is, essentially, its history as a part of the Horde
Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.
We certainly shouldn't think, that the 'mongols'= the
mighty, who invaded Egypt in the XIV century, left the
Russian-Turkic people unaltered over subsequent
centuries. They settled in the lands of Central and NorthAfrican, mixed with the local population and soon forgot
their origins. But they made a notable contribution to the
history and culture of Egypt.
# The famous 30 dynasties of the Egyptian pharaohs are
on the whole the phantom reflections of the dynasties of
the czar-khans of the XIII-XVI cc.
# The 'ancient' pharaohs of Egypt were the Russian-Turkic
czars-khans of Russia-Horde and The Atamania (Ottoman
Empire). They ruled the Empire. During their life time they
appeared in African Egypt very rarely. However after their
death they were undoubtedly brought here for their burial
in the Central 'Mongolian' cemetery. In particular, to Giza
and Luxor.
# The country of Egypt described in the Bible, is RussiaHorde of the XIV-XVI cc. [6v1], ch.4.

# The period from the first half of the XIV century to the
end of the XVI century contributed the most into the
history of 'Ancient' Egypt. Here many of the famous
Egyptian events were focused. In this respect the Egyptian
history is not an exception. In documents that survive
today the history of the other regions of the epoch of the
XIV-XVI cc. weighs heavily the history of the preceding
epochs.
This is the epoch of the Great Empire. The conquest of the
XIV century is reflected in the history of 'Ancient' Egypt as
the so called the 14th dynasty of pharaohs the Hyksos
(the Mamelukes). The Egyptologists erroneously dated
them to the years 1786-1570 BC. Incidentally, with
remarkable accuracy accurate, purportedly, to within one
year!
The Mamelukes formed an exclusive ruling military caste
in Egypt, similar to the samurai in Japan, for example.
They hardly ever mixed with the rest of the population and
were the Cossack-Hordian rulers of the Empire. They
guarded the central imperial cemetery and oversaw the
construction of the burial complexes. The social class of
the Mamelukes was annihilated in the XIX century, after
Napoleon. Later on the reign in Egypt was passed on to
the Europeans. The local population was indoctrinated
with the belief that their former rulers, the Mamelukes
were evil.
The events following the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV
century date to the 18th dynasty of the pharaohs. The

Egyptologists erroneously date it to the years 1570-1342

BC.
# The period of time from the end of the XVI century to
year 1798. At first - the ruling of the Atamans (Ottomans)
until 1585, followed by the second dynasty of the
Mamelukes. It concludes with Napoleon's invasion of
Egypt in 1798.
# Egypt was the religious and cultural centre of Romea of
the XI-XIII centuries, and then of the 'Mongol' Empire of
the XIV-XVI cc. Here were written the chronicles including
those on the stone monuments, describing not African
Egypt itself as such, but the entire Great Empire,
widespread over the vast territories. All the way to the Far
East and America. By no means are all the hieroglyphic
texts of 'Ancient' Egypt read and translated today [4v2],
ch.8:3.
The African-Egyptian priests recorded the deeds of the
distant Hordian czars-khans and Ottoman sultans. Later
after the creation of Scaligerian history it was cunningly
declared that the Egyptian chronicles exclusively describe
African Egypt and its surroundings. In doing so the
historians of the XVII-XIX cc. severely diminished the true
scale of the 'Egyptian' events. The history of the entire
vast 'Mongol' Empire was squeezed into small territorial
size, 'replanted' to Africa and sent back into the remote
past. So that it didn't interfere with the manufacture of the
Scaligerian myth.

There are many riddles in the history of Egypt. Now they

disappear. It becomes clear that Ancient Egypt, as in fact
the other ancient civilizations, is just a few hundred years
before us. In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. Egypt was only
a small part of the Great Empire, although it is possible
that it was Egypt which was the motherland of its czarist
dynasty. Here the necropolis of the royal family was
situated. That is precisely why nearly all the 'ancient'
Egyptian inscriptions describe exclusively the burial rites.
The Egyptian population was assigned the role of
labourers and guardians of this cemetery. The czarspharaohs didn't live themselves in Egypt. They were
brought here posthumously.
The Egyptians built and decorated the royal tombs,
temples and other burial constructions. All of this was
carried out not by local means, but based on the
resources of the entire Empire.
According to some scientists, the imposing Great Sphinx,
which is situated close to the pyramids, 'represented four
elements, in the form of a bull, an eagle, a lion and a
human'. See [5v2], ch.6. The Great Sphinx is considered
to be the most ancient structure in Egypt. The builders
constructed an enormous rock and covered it with stone
blocks in order to give it the form of a Sphinx. But the
symbols of a Bull, an Eagle, a Lion and a Man are
considered to be the symbols of the evangelists [936], v.1,
p.513.
It turns out that the Great Sphinx of Giza simply combines
these Christian symbols into one monumental sculpture.

So what is this symbol? It is a very familiar Christian

Cherubim. It is he who has the four faces of a lion, a man,
an eagle and a bull. That is what the ecclesiastical
legends tell us [5v2], ch.6. Therefore it is A CHRISTIAN
SYMBOL A CHERUBIM which overlooks the field of the
pyramids in Giza. Not far from it are situated numerous
other cherub-sphinxes. They form the Valley of the
Sphinxes.
The Circassians, i.e. the Cossacks, the Mamelukes, who
assumed power in Egypt purportedly in the middle of the
XIII century are those famous Hyksos of 'Ancient'
Egyptian history. The Hyksos invasion is one of the
reflections of the 'Mongol' invasion of the XIV century. It
was at that time when the Great Sphinx was erected by
the Hyksos-Cossacks in Christian Giza, i.e. Cossack
pyramid field in Giza as a Cherubic symbol. Here emerged
the central burial complex of the entire 'Mongol' Empire.

13. THE PYRAMIDS AND THE BURIAL MOUNDS.

The Great Pyramid was erected not earlier than the XIV
century, in the epoch of the Great Empire. There survive
some information about only one of the rulers, who built
the Great Pyramid. It is Khufu or Kun-Aten.
Herodotus tells us that while constructing the Great
Pyramid IRON TOOLS were used [163], p.119, book II
Euterpe, paragraph 125. For the XIV-XV cc. it is not only
unsurprising, but absolutely typical. It is clear why also a

STEEL chisel was found set within the masonry of the

Khufu Pyramid [1v], ch.1.
The Egyptian pyramids are just one form of the Scythian
mounds. In the modern Egyptology 'a question about the
origins of the word 'pyramid' remains unsolved. Many
people thinkthat the word 'PYRAMID' originates from the
Greek PYRAMIS (from PYROS) meaning 'A SWEET
CAKE MADE FROM HONEY AND WHEAT'. This cake
had a shape of a cone, and Greek pilgrims compared it
with a pyramid' [464], p.49.
Still in existence today is a well-known Christian Orthodox
symbol called PASKHA (meaning Easter cake). It has the
shape of a PYRAMID on the sides of which are usually
depicted an egg and some steps, Cyrillic letters XB =
Christ is Risen, i.e. the symbols of Christ's Resurrection.
Today the Easter cake is made out of curd, but earlier it
could have possibly been made as a cake, i.e. baked.
It is possible, that the Egyptian pyramid-mounds are the
depiction of the Christian Easter cake. And today on the
edges of the 'Easter' cake-pyramid there are depicted
Christian symbols. So what was carved out on the gigantic
stone edges of the Egyptian pyramids? Weren't they those
very symbols? Following the religious schism of the XVII
century all such Christian imagery was obliterated.
Our idea is directly supported by the 'ancient' Egyptian
customs and images. In 'Ancient' Egypt there were wide
spread pyramidia (plural form of pyramidion) small
pyramids varying in size from several centimetres to

several dozens of centimetres. They were used to

decorate buildings with. They prepared festive food for
holidays in the shape of small pyramids. The pyramidions
'were often painted WHITE' [1360], p.44 And furthermore:
'The pyramidions made of stone were regarded as the
objects in which the 'SUN GOD' lived [1360], p.45. But it
was Christ who was called the Sun! So here it is said
practically directly, that 'the 'ancient' Egyptians were
making the pyramid shaped Easter cakes (Easter
pyramidions) in honour of Christ.
The Great Pyramids naturally fit in the epoch of the
monumental constructions, which blossomed in the XIVXVI cc. all over the Empire. They are: 1) The Great Wall of
China, 2) the magnificent cathedrals of Western Europe,
3) the indomitable Kremlins and fortifications in RussiaHorde, 4) the massive Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, aka
(according to our reconstruction) The Temple of
Solomon in Jerusalem = Czar-Grad, 5) the Great Sphinx,
6) the Great Pyramids and temples of Egypt 7) the great
pyramids and temples of Central America, in particular
Mexico, 8) gigantic constructions of Baalbeck (Lebanon).
Fig. 28 shows an interesting image (from an old Japanese
book) of the pyramids with crosses on the top and statues
of angels on the side.
It is plausible that the three Egyptian pyramids depicted
the Christian Holy Trinity. It is possible that is exactly why
one of the three pyramids Khufu Pyramid = Got is
noticeably bigger than the other two. It represented the
Father. Pharaoh Khufu = Got in 'ancient times' was called

SAOFIS [5v2], ch.7. Could it be a distortion of

ZEBAOTH = The Father? The Great Pyramid and the
Great Sphinx in front of it were built probably as a symbol
of God 'bestriding' the Cherubim.
Alternatively there could also be another explanation. The
Great Pyramid symbolized The Holy Sepulchre, i.e.
Christ's coffin. The colossal scale of the monument
emphasized the might of the Horde Empire which created
it. This could only be within the power of a rich state. Only
a wealthy state could afford to make something like that.
The three large pyramids were hardly used for the burials.
There are no inscriptions or images on the sarcophagus in
the Great Pyramid of Cheops. It more likely resembles a
treasure chest. There could have been a lot of such
'chests' there before. Here a part of the Empire's treasury
was kept, as an 'emergency reserve stock'. A passage
inside the chamber was covered with an enormous stone
slab, which was propped up from underneath. After the
attendants left the chamber, the prop was kicked out, the
stone slab came crushing down the stone runners and
walled up the chamber. Sometime later it was opened and
the treasures were taken. The old texts say quite justly
that allegedly inside the pyramid a reservoir of embossed
gold coins was discovered; there were about 1000 denarii,
each weighing an ounce. Al Mamoun admired the purity of
this gold. Al Mamoun ordered to transfer it (the pool, Authors note) into his treasury [464], p.39.
It is generally thought that the Egyptian pyramids are
something unique. Purporting that at the very least there

are no pyramids and there never were any, neither in

Europe nor in Asia. But it is not so! Pyramids are well
known in Eurasia, particularly in Russia. THEY ARE
KURGANS. Besides it is evident that it is not the pyramids
that preceded the mounds, but the other way round. The
Great Egyptian Pyramids are in a certain sense the
pinnacle of the 'mound architecture'.
It is wrong to think that the mounds should always
automatically be burial mounds. The mounds were also
used as the civic buildings. For example they were used
as churches. An enormous 'Tsarsky Kurgan' (Royal
Mound) not far from the city of Kerch in Crimea, IN THE
MIDDLE AGES WAS A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. It is a wellknown fact, the explanation of which is given on the sign
at the entrance to the mound [5v2], ch.7.
Tsarsky Kurgan is built as a Christian church. There is an
altar with wonderful acoustics, Holy doors and a prayer
area for the congregation. Three steps lead up to the
amvon, to the altar, as befits a Christian church.
Moreover, the Kurgan structure was laid out in the form of
a church FROM THE OUTSET. It is impossible to rebuild it
without destroying the entire kurgan. Which means that we
are dealing here not with a burial site, which was robbed
and later adapted as a church, but with an original
Christian church. Kurgan or a pyramid is a stone structure
built without any binding solution. To protect from the rain
penetrating such a house-kurgan, it was covered up with
soil. The main difference between the Egyptian pyramids
and the kurgans is only in the fact that they are not

covered with soil. But this can be explained by the

particular qualities of the climate in Egypt. It hardly ever
rains there.
14. EGYPT THE LAND OF CROSSES.
The idea that the religion of 'Ancient' Egypt is not
connected with Christianity has been instilled in us.
However, when liberated from the trappings of Scaligerian
chronology, a different picture emerges. For example,
'Ancient' Egypt is considered to be a classic 'land of
crosses'. Many Egyptian deities featured on the drawings
and the bass-reliefs hold in their hands a mediaeval
symbol (anagram) for Christ a cross with a loop (the
Ankh Cross). For example, the gods Re-Herakhte, fig.29,
the goddess of moisture Tefnut, the sacred lions of Shu
and Tefnut, etc. [2v1], ch.1. On the backs of the thrones of
both Egyptian statues, known today as the Colossi of
Memnon, there survive enormous wide Orthodox crosses,
fig.30 [5v2], ch.7. Here is another example of an
impressive 'ancient' Egyptian sculpture of a pharaoh, on
the back of the throne of which an Orthodox Christian
cross is carved out, fig.31. It could not have been
otherwise, as Egypt of the Pharaohs was a Christian
country of the epoch of the XIII-XVI cc.
Similar Christian crosses often can be seen in 'ancient'
India, Mesopotamia and Persia. There is a simple
explanation to this. All over the 'Mongol' Empire in the XIIIXVI cc. Christianity was the state religion. At first Royal
Christianity, and then the Apostles' Christianity. That is

why people worshiped Christ and used a cross and the

other Christian symbols in the religious symbolism.
15. THE SARCOPHAGI AND THE RUSSIAN DOLLS.
We know that the Egyptian sarcophagi with mummies are
arranged in a remarkable manner. The coffins are
enclosed within each other in order of decreasing size.
Only the last one contained a mummy itself. Each coffin
represented a HOLLOW FIGURE OF A PERSON - with a
face, wearing the robes and a head-dress, and displaying
the symbols of authority. For example, the scheme of the
sarcophagus of Tutankhamun, See fig.32.
Does it remind you of anything familiar? Well, of course,
the famous Russian dolls (matryoshka)! Several
interleaved hollow figurines, resembling each other,
becoming progressively smaller, only the last of which is
solid. Each one of them is painted and represents a
person. As far as we know this symbol a doll - existed
only in Russia. And, as we can see, in 'Ancient' Egypt as
well!
It is probable that in the Russian folk art there survives a
memory of the ANCIENT RUSSIAN-HORDIAN CUSTOM
to bury the czars in coffins matryoshka. The Hordian
czars and sultans atamans (ottomans) of the XIV-XVI cc.
were buried in the Imperial cemetery in African Egypt
according to the Russian tradition.
Earlier, before the Romanovs, Christian burial methods
were prevalent in Russia, which was unusual from a

modern perspective. In particular, the

ANTHROPOMORPHIC SARCOPHAGI, i.e. tombs made
in the form of a human body [5v2], ch.7. Just like in
'Ancient' Egypt! These customs were especially significant
in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia.
Some scientists point out the correlation between these
Russian tombs, Byzantian and the 'ancient' Egyptian
tombs, but presume that the RUSSIAN
ANTHROPOMORPHIC SARCOPHAGI were adopted from
the Egyptian ones. However, most likely it was the other
way round, such a type of sarcophagus came to 'Ancient'
Egypt from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia together with the
'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century.
The anthropomorphic sarcophagi are constantly being
found in Moscow during excavations. For instance, in a
former Bogoyavlensky Monastery (Epiphany Monastery)
close to the Kremlin [62], p.79. These Russian sarcophagi
are made in the form of the human body, with a head and
shoulders.
In the Kremlin's Arckhangelsky Cathedral at least some of
the tombs of the Russian princes (most likely symbolic)
were made in the following way: a wooden coffin was
enclosed inside a stone sarcophagus. Thus the
'matryoska-like' burials were indubitably made in Russia.
Today's Russian doll souvenirs are reminiscent of this
custom from our ancient past. In [4v2], ch.2:6, we have
shown that between 1632 and 1636 the Romanovs
reformed the Church, in particular they dramatically

changed the burial customs in Russia. Then a wave of the

Romanov 'pogroms' swept through the Russian
cemeteries.
In the new chronology the history of ancient Egypt of the
XI-XVI cc. as before occupies the place of the most
ancient ones. But some of the 'most ancient' customs
survived until the middle of the XIX century.
16. TUTANKHAMUN AND CZAREVICH DMITRY.
By calling a young pharaoh Tutankhamun, we rely on the
reading of the hieroglyphs with which he is so named in
his tomb and, possibly, in some texts. In reality most likely,
he had a different name. As the royal cemetery of the
Horde Empire was situated in Egypt. Consequently
Tutankhamun was one of the czareviches (princes) of the
Empire. You will recall that HE DIED VERY YOUNG
[1366], p.24, 117.
It is hard to say who Tutankhamun actually was. However,
the fact that he was a CHILD, and there were DAGGERS
attached to the belt of his mummy (most likely there was a
particular importance placed on them), suggests that
Tutankhamun is czarevich Dmitry. Dmitry died in the end
of the XVI century in Uglich, allegedly by accidentally
stabbing himself with a dagger whilst playing a game. This
is one version of the story.
In this context the following fact acquires a particular tone.
On the left side of Tutankhamun's mummy there was
discovered a cut in an unusual place. Experts believe it to

be an embalming incision whilst acknowledging its

'unusual' location [1366], p.117. However, it is quite
possible that a cut in such an unusual place appeared not
during the embalming process, but whilst the czar was still
alive. Could it be the deadly cut of a knife with which
Czarevich Dmitry 'stabbed' himself? Therefore this wound
could have been used during the embalming.
Furthermore, a splinter was embedded in Tutankhamun's
skull, which is said to be a possible cause of his death
[1366], p.118. Here is the medical professionals' opinion:
'The fact, that the czar (Tutankhamun - author's note) was
murdered, however, appears increasingly plausible'
[1366], p.118. See [5v2], ch.7.
There were two daggers discovered on Tutankhamun's
mummy one iron, the other made of gold. It is possible
that the grieving relatives put them there as a sign of
czarevich Dmitry having been murdered by the blows of
several knives or daggers. The 'classical authors'
Suetonius and Flavius write about several swords, when
telling us about Caligula = Czarevich Dmitry []. A firsthand account survives to this today, that the relatives of
murdered czarevich Dmitry in fact did put the assassin's'
knife on him: 'There (in the church authors note) still
rested Dmitry's body stained with blood, and ON TOP OF
THE BODY THE ASSASSINS' KNIFE having seen
this angelic peaceful face, blood and the KNIFE, he
shuddered' [362], v.10, ch.2, column 80. So, it was like this
- with a dagger (or two) on his body Dmitry-TutankhamunCaligula was buried.

To conclude, it is plausible, that from the remote XVI

century the original mummy of czarevich Dmitry, aka the
'ancient' emperor Gaius Caligula, aka young pharaoh
Tutankhamun survives to this day. But 'czarevich Dmitry's
tomb', which today is situated in the Cathedral of the
Archangel in Moscow's Kremlin, is merely symbolic.
17. PHARAOHS' BOATSSTRUGI.
The 'Pharaohs of Egypt' were the czars-khans of the Great
Empire. They by no means lived on the territory of modern
Egypt, but far from Africa. After they died their bodies were
embalmed and transported to Africa by large boats-strugi.
By such oared boats (strugi) it was possibly to travel both
on rivers and by sea along the shore. According to
chronicles, the Russians went to sea by strugi as far as
Constantinople. Cossacks' strugi went to sea as early as
in the XVII century. The longer such boats were, the
easier they endured sea waves. It is possible that this
particular fact explains the large dimension of the two
'ancient' Egyptian pharaohs' boats approximately 40
metres long, found in the underground chambers close to
the Pyramid of Cheops in Egypt. Fig.33 shows the front
part of the pharaoh's shop in an assembled state. Below
you can see displayed the layout of the boat-strug's parts
in the underground storage chamber. The images of the
Russian strugi [5v2], ch.7 bear a close resemblance to the
pharaohs' boats, fig.2.

The 'Mongolian' burial strugi-boats transporting the body

of a czar-khan would arrive to the sea port of Alexandria at
the mouth of Nile, go up the Nile and reach Cairo with its
royal cemetery in Giza. After this the strugi-boats were
buried close to the pharaohs.
The pharaohs' boats were made of the long wooden
planks, fig.33. The edges of the planks were very smooth
and fitted together very well. The boards of the ship's body
curved and were also very well adjusted. The technology
of curving the boards is quite complex and indicates an
advanced level of ship building expertise. The 'ancient'
craftsmen evidently used saws. It would be difficult to build
such a boat with a common axe. Provided, that the saws
should be made of iron or steel. Most likely, in front of us
are the strugi-boats of the XIV-XVII cc. They can hardly be
four thousand six hundred years old. As we are lead to
believe that allegedly Ancient Egypt had no knowledge of
iron or steel saws. This is the exact reason why the iron
objects occasionally found in the pharaohs' tombs are
declared to be rare and unique, or 'by chance' placed
there during the later epochs.
Fig. 34 [] ch.6, presents the scenes from life in
'Ancient' Egypt on the Rekhmire tomb's frescos in the
Valley of the Kings in Luxor. At the top on the right and at
the bottom on the left we can see the builders sawing
wooden joists and planks with hack saws. You can see the
teeth of the blades very well. Therefore steel was used in
'Ancient' Egypt. It is impossible to make a hack saw out of
copper or bronze. Copper is too soft, and bronze is too

fragile. The teeth of the bronze hack saw would break

straight away.
18. CONCRETE AND THE PHILOSOPHERS STONE.
In [5v2], ch.7, we are, among other things, trying to deal
with the issue of the pyramids' construction. The
Egyptologists paint beautiful, but fantastical pictures on
this subject for us. And it is not just about the pyramids,
but also about other colossal constructions of Ancient
Egypt. We are told about vast crowds of 'ancient Egyptian
slaves' who allegedly cut blocks of stone weighting up to
200-500 tons in the mountains, moreover, supposedly with
copper hack saws (?!). Then these monstrous blocks were
allegedly dragged across the sand, in some mysterious
way ferried across the Nile, and eventually from them, like
from some little blocks, allegedly the pyramids were
assembled. This being said, the height of the Great
Pyramid of Cheops (Khufu) is approximately 140 metres.
Up until now they have come up with some fairy tale
notions how the enormous blocks were transported and
supposedly lifted. On paper they draw some ingenious
elevating machinery or gigantic sand ramps by which
allegedly large-tonnage blocks were dragged up to the
height of tens of metres. And to think that some of these
blocks weigh several hundred tons! See [464], p.189.
In fact there are no puzzles there. There is only one
puzzle: how could the Egyptologists 'not see', that the
great majority of the blocks of the big pyramids, apart from

the veneer and some internal constructions, WERE MADE

OF CONCRETE.
The problem of rock and ore fragmentation in antiquity
was solved after a sort of shattering of grain mortars,
attrition mills, grindstones. In the region of the gold Gebeit
minefield in the Red Sea mountains, Doctor of Geological
Science A.V.Razvaliaev examined dozens of grindstones
with a diameter of up to 50-60 cm for splitting gold ore.
The primary rock was ground with millstones and carried
to the river bank for tossing (the washing process). There
are smaller breaking devices known to us grating
machines, discovered in the Egyptian desert [5v2], ch.7.
This simple technology quickly resulted in the invention of
concrete. What is concrete? In order to make it you need
to grind down primary rocks into a dust-like powder. It's
easiest to use soft formations. For example limestone, the
sources of which are situated in the pyramids field in
Egypt. In order for the powder to turn into dry cement it is
necessary to thoroughly dry it or bake it in a fire for the
moisture to evaporate. But in Egypt's arid and hot
conditions, where rain falls sometimes only every five
years [5v2], ch.7, the special dehumidifying of the powder
was unnecessary. The thin dry powder is then sifted into a
kind of mould and then into an encasement. This is then
filled with water and mixed together. The solution solidifies
and turns into stone. I.e. into concrete. Sometimes powder
was mixed up with small finely broken stones. In this case
there were fine little stones embedded in the final block.

After some time it becomes difficult to distinguish such

concrete blocks apart from those carved out of the same
rock, as they disintegrate and take the form of the 'natural
stones'.
Many years ago a French chemistry professor of the
University of Bern Joseph Davidovits put forward an
interesting hypothesis [1092]. Analysing the chemical
make-up of the 'monoliths' of which the pyramids are
made of, he suggested that they were comprised of
concrete and determined 13 components of which it could
have been made. Just several crews of the 'ancient'
Egyptian concrete stone layers could have easily erected
a pyramid 100-150 metres high. And moreover, in a rather
short amount of time. In any case not dozens of years.
J.Davidovits founded a new branch of applied chemistry
called geopolymer chemistry. 'Any rock can be used in a
finely fragmented state, and geopolymer cement made of
it is practically indistinguishable from the natural stone.
Geologists who are unfamiliar with the possibilities of
geopolymer chemistry mistake geopolymer cement for
natural stone Neither high temperatures, nor high
pressure are required to produce such artificial stone.
Geopolymer concrete quickly sets under the room
temperature and turns into a beautiful artificial stone'
[1092], p.69.
To invent geopolymer cement the only thing necessary
was many years of observations and experiments. The
alchemists could have done this perfectly well. The
geopolymer cement of the pyramids, statues and obelisks

of Egypt was in fact invented by the alchemists, however

not 'ancient' alchemists, but mediaeval ones. In the Middle
Ages alchemy was one of the principal sciences.
So now the multiple riddles of the 'ancient' Egyptian stone
masonry can be explained. The puzzles appeared from
not understanding that in the majority of cases it was
geopolymer cement. The statues, mysterious vesselsamphoras, and also the pyramids' blocks were made of it.
In each case the master-builders selected a special
artificial stone. In some cases they made artificial
limestone, in other artificial granite, synthetic basalt or
synthetic diorite.
Here for example are numerous stone amphoras. They
are made of the hard type of stone, diorite. Some of them
are harder than iron. 'Diorite is considered to be one of the
hardest stones. Modern sculptors don't even try using
these types of stone.' [1092], p.8. So what do we see in
'Ancient' Egypt? THE DIORITE AMPHORAS HAVE
NARROW HIGH NECKS AND BECOME WIDER
TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. AT THAT THE WIDTH OF
VASE'S WALL IS PRACTICALLY THE SAME
EVERYWHERE. Archaeologists are trying to convince us
that the amphoras are supposedly carved out. The
question is how is it possible to carve out an amphora
from exceptionally hard diorite via a narrow neck so that
the width of its wall is the same all around? So that on the
inside surface of the wall no carving marks remained!
Egyptologists cannot explain this. [1092], p.119. In fact the
vessels are made of the artificial stone on a regular

potter's wheel. Still unset geopolymer cement was

processed like soft clay. The walls were made to be the
same width. It is easy to do on the potter's wheel. After the
setting the amphoras of the hardest diorite or quartzite
were produced as a result.
After the collapse of the Great Empire and the wars of the
XVII century some of the significant mediaeval
technologies were forgotten. As usual they were kept
secret. The secrets of the production of damask steel,
golden filigree work, granulation and the geopolymer
cement were not divulged. These were secrets of state
importance. In the atmosphere of chaos many things were
lost. It was extremely difficult to recover them. It would
have been necessary to conduct numerous experiments
all over again. After the arrival of the conquerors, in Egypt
for example, after the invasion of Napoleon, scientists and
artisans were either killed or didn't want to reveal their
secrets to the enemy. Today they try to reconstruct some
of these secrets with the aid of modern technology.
Sometimes successfully, sometime not very. As it
becomes clear now, the geopolymer cement is among
those lost secrets.
The main aim of alchemy, which by the way appeared in
Egypt (where the geopolymer cement was used the most)
was to produce THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE. I.e.
'scientific stone' as the word PHILOSOPHY earlier used to
mean science in general. Today the historians think that
the mysterious philosopher's stone purportedly was for
turning iron into gold. I.e. they are suggesting to us to think
that the alchemists were wasting their time in the pursuit of

nonsense. And only from time to time, at odd moments

they would stumble upon something useful.
But now we understand that 'scientific (philosopher's)
stone' is the geopolymer cement. It is most likely that
many 'mysterious' stone monoliths of incredible sizes in
England (Stonehenge), in Lebanon (Baalbeck) and in
other places are made of the geopolymer cement in the
epoch of the Horde Empire. When the Empire collapsed a
desire grew in rebellious Western Europe to uncover the
secret of the philosopher's stone. They failed. Hence
appeared the legend about eternal and fruitless attempts
to find the philosopher's stone. In the end the experiments
ceased and the words the 'philosopher's stone' became
magically endowed with fantastical meaning. Incidentally,
in the history of alchemy it is considered that 'THE
PHILOSOPHER'S STONE WAS KNOWN IN EGYPT, BUT
LATER THE SECRET OF ITS PRODUCTION WAS LOST
[5v2], ch.7.
19. BAALBEK.
Baalbek 'platform' in Lebanon is amazing. It consists of a
stack of enormous blocks. The weight of some of them
exceeds EIGHT HUNDRED tons [1065]. Nearby rests a
colossal block of weighing A THOUSAND TONS. Fig.35
shows a part of the Baalbek platform. You can see several
rows of the enormous blocks-parallelepipeds laid into the
foundation of the temple's complex. Above the tower are
the remains of the 'very ancient' temple of Jupiter. The
size of the blocks can be appreciated by considering a tiny

figure of a person bottom left. The above mentioned one

thousand ton block could have possibly chipped off some
structure during an earthquake or during a deliberate
demolition. Most likely it was blown up with gunpowder. It
is possible that to the side of Baalbek they started building
another temple, but ran out of time. One of the gigantic
cement blocks was still cast, but that was all [] ch.6:2.
Vague arguments that allegedly 'ancient' master-builders
could move such boulders at least by one centimetre are
absurd. To cast of cement possible. To move and
moreover to lift even by millimetre impossible.
Some historians possibly feel the embarrassment of the
situation in which they were put by the chronologists of the
XVI-XVII cc., making such megalithic constructions so
'ancient'. But profound speculations about the 'very
intelligent ancient' master-builders, who allegedly knew
how to do things, which the modern builders don't know,
convince very few.
In fact Baalbek was built in the 'ancient' epoch of the XVXVI cc. by the Horde craftsmen. Aka the 'ancient Roman'
master-builders. At that time all similar constructions were
erected by the 'Mongol' Empire. It was only within
capability of a mighty and wealthy kingdom to carry out
such megalithic construction. From Asia to Europe and
across the ocean to America.
On the territory of Palmyra in Syria also survive some
'means of the cement production'. Here and there (in year
2005) we came across some old grinder-mills with the

help of which the soft formations were grounded and

produced cement flour. Practically the same stone mills
were discovered in 'ancient' Pompeii in Italy, fig.36. You
can see how one of such mill-grinders worked. Circular
grind stones were put on a spindle. When rolling
hemispheric stones along the inside of a vessel, the rock
or grain could be milled [] ch.6.
20. WHERE AND WHEN ROMAN NUMERALS WERE
INVENTED.
It is considered that Roman numerals appeared long
before AD. In the times of the 'ancient Romans'. At which
time the numerals less than fifty were written with three
signs: I, V, X. Why precisely these and only these signs
were used for small numbers? At first people operated in
small values. Only later big numbers came into general
use hundreds, etc. At that time came the need for some
new signs like L, C, D, M. So the signs for the small
numbers were the original and the oldest.
We suggest the following hypothesis. When the
carpenters build using timber and then move it to a new
place, they mark the logs with their axes. The marks are
necessary in order to put the logs together in the same
order after moving them, as they have already been
adjusted to fit each other precisely. Nowadays the marks
are made with oil paint using Roman or Arabic numerals.
But before the carpenters' marks were made only with an
axe and only with Roman numerals. Indeed you cannot
cut the Arabic numerals with an axe. It is terribly awkward.
But Roman numerals seemed especially designed for

effortlessly inscribing with an axe on a round log. Let us

explain.
A carpenter marking a log with an axe has to do so with
dawks. It is easy to do it either against the grain of the
logs, or at a comparatively small angle to them. To cut a
dawk with the grain is very awkward.
It means that a carpenter has only three easily
distinguishable signs which he can make. They are: a
vertical cut, i.e. a Latin letter I. Then two interconnected
side cuts, i.e. a Latin letter V. An upside-down letter V
cannot be considered as a separate symbol, as a
carpenter could have approached the log from a different
side and a mix-up could occur. And lastly are two cuts
crossing each other, i.e. a Latin letter X. All the symbols
made by an axe should comprise of these signs. Or be
close to them.
So, the three main Roman numerals should have
appeared exactly so in the carpeting business. It appears
that the ancient Romans for some reason allegedly
invented the very same symbols, which should have come
about as a result of people who build a lot of wooden log
structures (notably with the steel axes). But in Italy the
main ancient building activity was from masonry and
bricks. Wooden log structures were a rarity there. There
are not so many forests there. Especially not of the timber
variety.
It's hard to believe that Russian carpenters, who in the old
days were largely uneducated, studied 'ancient', allegedly

Italian numerals. Nevertheless the carpenters in Russia

marked logs with the very same "Roman numerals'. But
with one provision. They did not share the rule, that the
numeral on the left is deducted from the numeral on the
right. As the carpenter did not employ such terms as 'right'
and 'left', as you can approach a log from either side. That
is why the numeral 9 was written as VIIII, and not as IX.
Most likely the Roman numerals originated in Russia, and
not among the scholarly circles, but among the builders.
They were doing a lot of construction in Russia, mainly of
timber. There were many carpenters, and this sphere of
activity was considered to be important.
Later when the Empire expanded to the West the 'Roman
joinery numerals' were brought there, to Italy in particular.
At first there were also some forests there, and timber
building started. But soon the Italian woods were cut down
to a large degree. As Italy is comparatively small. But
there was a large quantity of stone. As there is in the
South in general. And the Russian joinery numerals
transgressed to the sphere of scholars and were called
'ancient Greek'. And this is correct. They were invented by
the Russians who had colonized Europe. As from the view
point of the XVII century Western Europeans they were
those very ancient Romans who had founded the Roman
= Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. But in the XV-XVI cc.
The Ottoman Conquest commenced, which also
originated in Russia. The Western Europeans perceived it
as the collapse of Ancient Rome and stopped associating
Rome with Russia. A false theory has emerged that

Ancient Rome came into existence in the deep antiquity in

Italy. And 'consequently' it was Italy where allegedly
Roman numerals were invented.
Later, when they started to write Roman numerals down
on paper with a quill, of course the L, M, C and D signs,
which were necessary to denote large numbers,
appeared. By the way, if Roman numerals were written on
paper from the very beginning, then together with a 'five' =
V, most likely there should have also appeared a 'tick', i.e.
an 'upside down' V. These two symbols are easily told
apart, providing that the terms 'top' and 'bottom' are
determined.
21. THE MONASTERIES.
It is possible that the monasteries of the Empire were
created as places where the retired Cossack=Tatars were
sent to, i.e. the Hordians who had completed their service.
As we said before [4v1], ch.4:1., recruiting children for the
military service was a 'tagma'=blood-tribute, well-known in
Russia. It was recruiting for the army. The matter of
military conscription was decided in childhood, thereafter a
person would serve for the rest of his life. During this
period they didn't start a family. They dedicated
themselves completely to the Rat'(army)=Horde. In the
XIV-XVI cc. the troops would depart to destinations as far
as thousands of kilometres away, even to different
continents. Few would come back. The family ties would
be severed forever, home was just a dim memory.

Only the young men were able to serve in the Hordian

army. As soon as a Cossack-Tatar reached advanced
years military service became impossible. The czarskhans became aware of this problem where to place a
large number of still capable men. They may not be able
to fight any more, but former soldiers were not old yet. To
bring them back home? Except that after the decades that
passed by the notion of home itself had dissolved, became
a mere word. No wife, no children, no family. Not many
could build a family at this age. Then an intelligent solution
to this problem was found. All over the Horde Empire, - not
Just in Russia, but also in Europe, Africa, Asia, etc., male
monasteries were created where the retired Hordian
soldiers were sent to. They started to call them monks.
There they were occupied by civil activities and also, if
necessary, military activities familiar to them. To the best
of their ability they grew wheat and made bread, fished,
worked on the undeveloped land, amassed riches, wrote
and preserved books, built up the famous monastic
libraries, studied science and defended themselves
against the enemy.
The monasteries grew richer, turning into the centres
which the surrounding civil communities gravitated to. The
monasteries were well fortified. Behind their walls not only
the monks, but the local residents too could find security.
The word MONASTERY itself (MONASTERIUM in Latin)
probably originated from MONKS - TATARS and point to a
place where the retired MONGOLS=TATARS lived, where
there were MANY TATARS. It is also clear that convents
for women were created as well. The Empire engaged in

many wars, producing many widows. So they were

gathered together in nunneries. Originally only the elderly
widows, who were incapable of bearing children any
longer, were sent there. Thus the emergence of both
monasteries and nunneries was a result of the expansion
of the Empire and of the conquest and colonization of vast
territories. Later in the XVII-XIX cc., the original intended
purpose of the monasteries and nunneries was forgotten.
22. THE 'CLASSICAL' ABDUCTION OF SABINE
WOMEN.
A famous legend about the abduction of the Sabine
women is associated with the founding of 'ancient' Rome.
You will recall that after having founded Rome, Romulus
soon discovers that there are very few women in Rome. In
order to secure future generations, The Romans address
the neighbouring people, requesting that the Roman men
be allowed to take the foreign women in marriage. They
refuse. Then Romulus arranges a feast to which all the
neighbours are invited. They, not having suspected
anything wrong, arrive to the festival with their wives and
children. At a prearranged signal the Romans abduct
young Sabine girls and women. The Sabine men flee. Due
to the abduction of their women a war soon breaks out
between the Sabines and Royal Rome.
The question is: if 'Ancient' Royal Rome is a reflection of
the Horde Empire which emerged in the confluence of the
rivers Oka and Volga, i.e. is there any mention in the
Russian chronicles of the abduction of the Sabines? An
event frequently reflected in Western European art. The

Horde sources must be referring to a conflict caused by

the abduction of Cossack-wives in the capital of RussiaHorde. It turns out there is such a reference and it was a
focus of attention for a long time. More than that, the
historians have a problem in connection with that, which
they persistently 'are trying to solve', albeit unsuccessfully.
See the next paragraph.
We discovered that the abduction of the Sabine women in
'Ancient' Rome largely reflects the abduction of the wives
by the serfs in Russian Novgorod = Yaroslavl on the Volga
River. It's no coincidence that the well-known Kholopii
Gorod (the Town of Serfs) was situated near Yaroslavl. It
turns out that not only Titus Levy and Plutarch, but
Herodotus too tell us about the Novgorodian's War with
Serfs on the account of their wives. Furthermore it's
reflected in the famous 'Odyssey' by Homer and in works
by the 'ancient' historian Pompeius Trogus Therefore all
of them knew the history of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI
cc. quite well. Trojan War of the XIII c. also contributed to
the story about the abduction of the Sabines [] ch.1.
23. THE HISTORIANS' PROBLEM: WHY IS KHOLOPII
GOROD (THE TOWN OF SERFS) SITUATED NEAR
YAROSLAVL AND NOT NEAR VOLKHOVSKII
NOVGOROD ON THE SWAMPLAND?
As the original sources tell us, Kholopii Gorod (Town of
Serfs) was founded by the kholops-serfs not far from the
chronicles' Velikii Novgorod. However, there is no Kholopii
Gorod situated near a rundown Volkhovskii district
stockaded town, slyly called by the Romanovs 'that very

Velikii Novgorod'. When the Romanovs were moving on

paper the Yaroslavl events from Volga to the swampy
Volkhov, they didn't think of drawing on the map Kholopii
Gorod next to it. It's quite understandable you can't
remember everything. They drew 'Novgorod' but ignored
the other Volga cities associated with it. Neither did they
pay attention to a Novgorodian story in the chronicles
about the abduction of wives by the serfs. Here the
Romanov historians made a big mistake. They didn't take
into account that the story about the Novgorodian wives
and the serfs is very well known. Many ancient primary
sources tell us about it. So, of course, to make the forgery
precise, they should have moved on paper Kholopii
Gorod following the neighbouring Yaroslavl-Novorod.
Then of course the historians realised the mistake. But it
was too late. The 'ancient' chronicles were expurgated and
rewritten. The 'ancient' maps were edited and circulated
on a large scale. And they didn't want to start a new
alternative history. That is why they restricted themselves
to small falsifications, having tried to fix the historians'
mistake by correcting it post factum. For example they
pointed out one of the foggy gnat swamps of Volkhov and
unfoundedly declared it to be 'Kholopia gora' (Mount of
serfs). Purporting that there is no Kholopii gorod (town)
here, but instead here is Kholopia gora (mount) for you.
Having thought for a while they called one of small
monasteries near Volkhov 'Nogord' KLOPSKII Monastery,
i.e. Khlopskii (monastery). They happily started showing
'Khlopskii' to visiting foreigners. Among others they
showed it to N.Witsen too. He nodded approvingly and

neatly sketched it in his travel notes, to illustrate that it was

a famous historical place. It's true that it became wild and
desolate, but, as the story goes, 'extremely ancient'. As a
result the Romanovs' story acquired 'reputable validation'.
You see, the Dutchman drew the 'Klopskii' monastery near
Volkhov on a piece of paper. The learned Europeans
know best!
So where is on the old maps the real Kholopii Gorod
(Town of serfs) marked? AS IT HAPPENS ON VARIOUS
OLD MAPS KHOLOPII GOROD IS CLEARLY DEPICTED
AND IS SITUATED NEAR VOLGA CLOSE TO
YAROSLAVL [] ch.1. Where it is supposed to be
according to the Russian chronicles. It is considered that
'Kholopii gorod stood near the town of Mologa 80 km from
Uglitch, (at present it is the bottom of Rybinsk Reservoir')
[161], p.331, commentary 509. A significant part of the
former territory of the region today is submerged under the
Rybinsk Reservoir. So any kind of excavations in the place
of Kholopii Gorod are impossible.
Thus, the famous 'classical' legend of the Romans
abducting the Sabine women consists of the two layers.
The first the reflection of Trojan war of the XIII century,
i.e. the Crusade of 1204. The second the story of the
Kholopia war of the Novgorodians in Russia-Horde 'over
the Cossack-wives' in the late XIII - early XIV cc.
24. THE TWO BAPTISMS OF RUSSIA.
The first Baptism of Russia was given in the XII century by
Andronicus-Christ himself, aka the apostle Andrei the

First-called (Andrei Bogolyubskii). The approximate epoch

of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity (the second
Baptism of Russia) was under the Emperor Dmitry
Donskoy=Costantine I the Great (allegedly in the IV
century) we estimate at the turn of the XIV-XV cc. It
corresponds beautifully with the date of Christ's Birth as
calculated by us to the middle of the XII century []
Due to a centennial mistake of the chronologists, in
various documents the Nativity began to date as a
hundred years earlier in the middle of the XI century. If
the adoption of Christianity was circa 1400, then from the
middle of the XI century until that time 350 years passed,
and from the middle of the XII century approximately 250
years. Thus dating the adoption of Christianity as circa
1400 corresponds with an established tradition of dating
the adoption of Christianity to three hundred years after
than Nativity [].
25. ON THE OLD ICONS ON THE HALO OF JESUS
CHRIST THERE IS WRITTEN A DATE DENOTING
YEAR 1370 THE EPOCH OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
APOSTLES' CHRISTIANITY.
On the old Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian icons on the Halo
around Christ's head there was painted a cross and on it
three Church Slavonic letters. On the left end letter 'OT'
(it was spelled as Omega with letter T above it). At the top
end of the cross they painted letter 'OH' (ON) with the title
(OH=ON (H=N in Russian) was written in the form of
Russian letter 'O'), and on the right end the letters 'IZHE'
octuple which corresponds with modern Russian letter ''

(Latin 'E'), but which was spelled as modern Russian letter

'H' (Latin 'N'), see fig.37 [] ch.2.
On the later icons these letters started to disappear.
Sometimes all three letters or some of them remained
unchanged. But almost always and clearly not by
chance the title above 'O' disappeared. We will explain
further why it happened.
What did these Russian letters mean: OT, OH (with the
title) and IZHE on Christ's Halo? To a person familiar with
the Church Slavonic recording of numerals the answer is
obvious. It is number 878. Definitely. Firstly, ALL THE
THREE LETTERS HAVE A NUMERIC VALUE. We will
clarify that not all the letters in the Church Slavonic have
this property: there are only 9 of them x 3 = 27. And
overall there are 40 letters including yuses ('yus' is a name
of a letter originally representing nasal vowels in Old
Church Slavonic) in Cyrillic alphabet [155:1], p.17. But all
the three letters depicted on Christ's Halo have the
numeric value.
Secondly, ALL THE THREE LETTERS ON CHRIST'S
NIMBUS ARE CORRECTLY PLACED. To clarify, as there
is no zero in the Church Slavonic recording of numerals,
various letters are used for the units, tens and hundreds.
Thousands, tens of thousands, etc. are denoted with
specific signs situated next to the letters. Accordingly, a
composite of the three Church Slavonic letters-numerals

by no means denotes a number. It is necessary that the

first letter was of the hundreds category, the second
from the category of tens, and the third one from the
units category. Otherwise the record will be nonsensical or
erroneous. But on Christ's Halo the number is written
absolutely correctly, without any mistakes. Specifically, the
first letter 'OT' means 800. The second letter 'OH' means
70. And the third letter 'IZHE' octuple, means 8. It results
in number 878.
But this is not all. In the Church Slavonic language a
number is distinguishable from the rest of the text with a
title. Where if a number is a multi-digit, then the title is
placed above the letter-numeral second on the right
[155:1], p.22. For example, for a three digit numeral the
title will be positioned above the middle letter. This is
exactly what we see in Christ's Halo.
So, it is a number which is written on Christ's Halo. If
some abbreviations of words were meant, then the
probability of meeting all the requirements listed above is
infinitesimal. THEREFORE ON CHRIST'S HALO THERE
IS DEPICTED THE NUMBER 878.
What can it mean? There is no information in
ecclesiastical tradition, that number 878 is somehow
connected with Christ himself. On the other hand this
number strongly resembles a date. As we are talking
about the Russian icons, then it is only natural to read it

according to the Russian-Byzantine era from Adam. I.e.

according to the standard era of the Russian sources. In
the ecclesiastic Russian church documents the era of
Adam was universally used until the end of the XVII
century, and in some cases even later.
But then we have exactly two possible interpretations of
this date. It is apparent that the thousands in years are
omitted in it, which corresponds with the era in the
Russian documents of let's say the XVI-XVIII cc. The
millenniums as a rule were skipped [1v], [5v]. Therefore
before us is either year 6878 or year 5878 from Adam.
The first date when converted to the years AD gives us
year 1370 (you have to deduct 5508 from 6878). The
second date gives us year 370. All the other possibilities to
add the millenniums result either in the dating earlier than
BC, or to the time in the future, which is nonsensical.
If there was the year 370 depicted on Christ's Halo, it
would bear no sense not only in the new chronology, but
not in the Scaligerian chronology either. Besides, the date
was discovered by us specifically on the icons of the era of
the XV-XVI cc. Which points out the year 1370 as the
most plausible date. But it ideally fits the epoch calculated
by us of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity around
the year 1380. It is possible that the year 1370 signified
some important phase on the way to the adoption of
Christianity.

It is interesting to trace how the attitude towards these

letters was changing over the course of time. The old
icons turned darker and it was necessary to retouch them,
i.e. to paint over anew. Only in the XIX century they learnt
to 'uncover' icons, i.e. to remove the upper layers and to
reveal the earlier ones. That is why we ought to
understand that today we often see not the original, but
the uncovered layer, which could have been partially lost
and retouched by art restorers. If they didn't understand
something or something seemed wrong to them, they
could 'improve' the original. If we turn to the surviving
icons with the letters on Christ's Halo, we will see, that on
the overwhelming majority of the icons the title above the
letter O is missing. But if we refer to the old icons, then
sometimes there still remain traces of the title.
The matter is as follows. The three letters OT, OH
with the title, IZHE octuple to anyone familiar with the
Church Slavonic alphabet, will immediately suggest that
there is a numeral written there. Specifically 878. And it
not written just anywhere in a corner of an icon, but on
Christ's Halo. But then a question arises what did it
mean? In the XVII-XIX cc. the specialists no longer had
answers to this. We would highlight the fact that in the
XVIII-XIX cc. it was compulsory to study the Church
Slavonic language at school. Even those who graduated
only after three classes of the parochial school knew the
Church Slavonic language. That is why practically anyone
of that time having read on Christ's Halo the Church

Slavonic number 878 would immediately ask a question:

what does it mean? But there was no answer.
That is why it was decided to omit the title above O in the
new icons altogether, and when uncovering the old icons
they tried not to repaint it. And in some cases they would
even wipe it out to be sure.
So, Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great enthrones
in the year 6870 from Adam, i.e. in the year 1362. He
defeats khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov = Emperor
Maxentius or Maximinus seven years later in 1369 or
1370, after which in 1370 the Empire adopts Christianity.
That is why it is specifically the year 1370 depicted on
Christ's Halo. Recorded according to the era from Adam,
i.e. by the date of (6)878. Therefore The Battle of Kulikovo
took place most likely not in 1380, as it is generally
thought today, but approximately in 1370.
However, dating it by the year 1380 is probably a
reference to the victory of Constantine over Licinius, i.e. to
the final victory over the enemies. According to the
Lutheran Chronicle, Licinius was executed 17 years later
after the beginning of Dmitry Donskoy's reign in 1363. This
gives us year 1380 precisely the date of the Battle of
Kulikovo.
26. 'THE APPEARANCE OF THE CROSS' WHICH
BROUGHT VICTORY TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
AND DMITRY DONSKOY'S VICTORY 'WITH THE AID
OF THE CROSS'. CANNONS ARE 'THE SCHEMAS

WITH CROSSES' IN THE ARMY OF DMITRY

DONSKOY.
In the Battle of Kulikovo Dmitry Donskoy's army used
cannons [4v1], ch.6. It seems that in the army of Mamai
there were either no cannons or there were significantly
less of them. On some of the old Russian icons a range of
cannons were depicted in Dmitry's army firing at Khan
Mamai's troops, fig.38. Each cannon is depicted here as a
stretched forward arm with a nimbus enshrouded with
smoke. As we show in [] one of the symbols of the fire
arm was Constantine's Labarum. It is thought that
cannons appeared in the battle fields precisely in the
middle of the XIV century. This is the time when
gunpowder was invented.
There were no cannons in the army of Mamai depicted
in the icon. It is probable, that it is due to the advantage in
the artillery Dmitry was able to defeat Mamai. Mind you,
Mamai's army was a professional one, and Dmitry's troops
were more like a people's militia [4v1], ch.6. It is feasible
that cannons were used for the first time on such a large
scale in the Battle of Kulikovo [] [] ch.3.
Before the battle Sergiy Radonezhsky blessed Dmitry
and handed over some 'secret weapon', which in the later
sources was called 'THE SIGN OF THE SCHEMA
CROSS' (a special embassy cross paramand - part of
monastic robes schema translator's note). It is said:
'Sergiy presented him with a sign of the Schema cross and

said: 'HERE IS THE WEAPON IMPERISHABLE! LET IT

SERVE YOU INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS!' [362], v.5,
ch.1, column 36.
Nikonovskaya Letopis' (Chronicle) informs us : "The
Venerable Sergiy commanded them (Peresvet and
Oslyabya Author's note) to prepare for an imminent
battle HE GAVE THEM WEAPONS ("Behold a weapon
which faileth never!", CHRIST'S CROSS SOWN ONTO
SCHEMA (VESTMENTS), and commanded them
INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS to put those on their heads'
[586:1], v/11, p.53.
So, Sergiy Radonezhsky handed Peresvet and
Oslyabya some new weapon SCHEMA, instead of
conventional armour helmets, etc.
Commentators assure us that allegedly under the word
SCHEMA or SCHEME was meant a head-dress made of
fabric with a cross sown onto it. However, it is quite
possible that behind the editorial term SCHEMA or
SCHEME is concealed the word MUSKET (MASQUET) or
MUSHKA (MUZZLE-SIGHT or BEAD in Russian) read
backwards, as in Arabic: MUSHKA = MSHK --> SHKM =
SHKM = SKHIMA (SCHEMA), when SH turns into --> S.
See [6v1], ch.4:9.
Why is a word MUSKET usually derived from the word

MUKHA (a fly in Russian)? A direct link between a Latin

MUSCA and Slavonic MOSHKA (midge in Russian) is
noted by Max Vasmer [866], v.2, p.667. The word musca =
mukha ('fly' in Russian) most likely entered Latin from the
Russian language. Then everything falls into place. As the
Russian word MUSHKA means not only a fly, but also a
RIFLE SIGHT! It is not surprising that in Russia, where
there are so many midges, the aiming device was
compared to a midge (a fly) which came in sight). So they
called the aiming sight MUSHKA (A FLY). That is why a
new weapon with an aiming device (mushka) was called
MUSKET in Russian. The invented aim caught the
imagination of the warriors and gave name to the whole
gun itself. Incidentally the Russian writers of the XVIII
century called the musketeers MUSHKATERY, clearly
deriving it from the word MUSHKA [866], v.3, p.20.
The parchment passed on by Sergiy Radonnezhsky to
Dmitry Donskoy said: 'Help us with this HOLY WEAPON
to bring down our foe'. See the details in [] ch.3, p.20.
Let us turn to the 'Ancient' Roman history now. There is a
famous event in it the vision of the Cross to the Emperor
Constantine the Great on the eve of his battle with
Maxentius. Constantine wins with the help of the CROSS.
The 'Ancient Roman' story is a reflection of Dmitry's victory
over Mamai. Also 'with the help of the Cross'. Dmitry
Donskoy is described by the 'Ancient classics' as
Constantine I the Great, and khan Mamai as Maxentius,
Constantine's co-ruler.

What is said about Constantine's victory over

Maxentius with the help of the Cross? Though the
essence of the event was described by the different
authors similarly, however, there prevailed a strange
variety of opinions in the question of what was exactly 'The
Cross of Constantine'. At first Constantine beheld a
gleaming apparition in the sky, various authors are saying
different things about its shape. Constantine ordered to
make 'labarum', on which he placed the sign he saw in the
sky. The labarum with Chi Rho (the sign of the Cross)
helped him to achieve victory. Once again however, there
are various opinions on the question of what labarum was
made of and what was depicted on it and whether it was
a banner in the sense of a flag at all or it was something
else.
The story of Eusebius about Constantine reminds of the
famous Biblical story of Moses who made 'a serpent of
brass' and PUT IT ON THE POLE, by doing so he saved
his people from 'the venomous serpents' (Numbers 2:1, 89).
What else is said about the serpents in the Bible? It
turns out, 'in Numbers 21:6 the venomous snakes refers to
the 'serpents' attacking (those who fight for God) = the
Israelites in the desert Author's note) are called in
Hebrew SERAPHIM (NEKHUSTAN), THE FIERY ONE
[845], commentaries to 4 Kingdoms 18:1-8. And the

Biblical Encyclopaedia translates a word SERAPHIM, in

particular as FLAME, FIRE. In [6v1], ch.4:10-11, we
showed that here in the Bible we are given a description of
the firing cannons. There is an old Ataman (Ottoman)
banner of huge dimensions which survives today, on
which there is depicted a cannon firing cannon balls,
fig.39. This banner is kept in a museum in Vienna. It is not
impossible, that this Ataman (Ottoman) banner is made
following the design of the famous banner of Moses and
labarum of Constantine. It is possible that on Moses' and
Constantine's old banners there was depicted a cannon in
the form of a 'cross'.
27. WHY THE CHRONICLES MISTOOK A CANNON
FOR A CROSS.
It is likely, that the first cannons invented by Sergiy
Radonezhsky were wooden and not metallic. The
production of metallic cannons requires complex
procedures. On the other hand the inventors of the first
gunpowder hardly waited for the cannons' casting method
to be invented. Most likely they tried to make use of the
new invention for military purposes straight away. For that
a solid pipe closed-ended on one side was needed. Then
it is stuffed with gun powder and a closing plug applied
and then filled with stones. That's it, the weapon is ready.
But it was not easy to make such a pipe. Oak, being an
exceptionally strong type of wood, has a wonderful quality.
Its core approximately 10 centimetres in diameter under
certain conditions can separate itself from the rest of the

trunk. Several wooden layers surrounding the core rot and

turn into dust. The rest of the wood remains hard and
whole. The core begins to dangle around inside of the
developed wooden pipe, and it is not difficult to remove it
with a long chisel. Or to split and scorch it out. You will get
a strong oak pipe. If you bind it with iron rods like a barrel,
an oak mortar cannon like this can withstand several
shots. Particularly that the first gun-powder was far less
powerful than later on. Only with the refinement of the
gun-powder it was necessary to switch to the cast metallic
cannons.
Direct indications survive that in the XV century in
Russia they indeed used the wooden cannons []. It is
interesting that they were used until comparatively recent
time. Such a cannon is exhibited for example in the
Nuremburg museum [] ch.4.
How would the people perceive such new weapon when
they beheld the terrible 'firing logs' on the battle field for
the first time? Besides knowing that they were invented by
the Christians. The wooden cannons could have been
described for example like this: 'Christian trees which
brought victory to the Christian Czar'. But the Christian
cross is also often called 'a tree'. In the canonical sources
the expression 'tree of cross' means a cross on which
Christ was crucified.
That is why it is not surprising that the 'Christian tree

which brought victory to the Czar Constantine could have

turned under chroniclers' quill into 'the Christian tree of
cross which brought victory to the Czar Constantine'. I.e.
to the Russian Prince Dmitry.
The first Russian wooden cannons which provided
Russia-Horde the undeniable advantage in the epoch of
the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century, soon gave way
to the metallic ones. However, the wooden cannons had
one important quality, which ensured their long standing
inclusion in the armament. The simplicity in their
manufacture was very appealing. Besides, it was not
obligatory to carry them during the campaign. It was
sufficient to bring just the gun-powder. Having arrived at
the battle place they would find the oak trees and quickly
make the cannons and fire buckshot from them. Of
course, you cannot fire a lot of shots from wooden cannon.
But it is not necessary. If needed, they could always make
new ones. The main thing was to have gun-powder. After
the victory they left the wooden cannons on the battlefield
and moved on. It is clear why they almost entirely didn't
stand the test of time. After being thrown away they rotted.
That is why in the museums you can see only some rare
examples which have survived.
While the cannons were a new weapon, never-beforeseen by most, the effect of this gun on the enemy was
overwhelming. The 'Christian tree' spitting fire and bringing
death, inspired panic and fear. The cannons were

reflected in various 'ancient' myths and legends. Later,

when the concept of a cannon was adopted by many,
there began a competition in precision and range. The
wooden artillery gave way to a metallic one.
28. THE OUTSTANDING CZAR-KHAN CONSTANTINE I
= DMITRY IVANOVICH.
In the 'ancient' biography of Constantine-Dmitry there is
included another reflection of the Battle of Kulikoivo. It is
Constantine's second famous battle, this time with his coruler Licinius. Instead of adversaries, Constantine
Maxentius, here it concerns the pair of Constantine
Licinius. Constantine's battles with Maxentius and Licinius
are considered to be the two main military combats in his
biography.
Constantine's final victory over his co-rulers and
opponents is the execution of Licinius. He was
decapitated. In the Russian chronicles it is the execution
of Ivan Velyaminov, the son of tysiatsky (dux, Heerzog,
captain of the thousand - a military leader in Ancient Rus,
who commanded a people's volunteer army called
'tysyacha', or a thousand Translator's note) by Dmitry's
order. The tysiatskies were effectively the co-rulers of
Grand Princes. Having abolished this post, Dmitry became
the mogul. But to achieve this he had to dispose of the son
of the last tysiatsky Ivan Velyaminov. On the whole it is
the same picture as under Constantine the Great.
According to the old law there were several co-rulers
reigning in the Empire. In Rome there were several august

figures and Caesars ruling simultaneously. In Russia there

was a Grand Prince and tysiatskies. And then one of the
co-rulers removes the others, becomes the sole czar and
changes the political system. From that moment the
Czardom is controlled autocratically and the reign is
passed on to the son of a deceased czar. Prior to that it
was different. In both Rome and Russia. In the Roman
history before Constantine becoming the emperor was not
hereditary, and only after Constantine the succession to
the throne from father to son was established.
The primary sources unanimously stress the role of
victory of Constantine = khan Dmitry over 'paganism'. It
indeed concerned an enormous event the adoption of
the Apostolic Christianity throughout the entire 'Mongol'
Empire. The words by Eusebius of Caesarea in his
Ecclesiastical History on Constantine's victory are imbued
with a new meaning now.
'His enemy Licinius lay there prostrate, the mighty victor
Constantine won back their own Eastern provinces and
COMBINED THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO A SINGLE
WHOLE, as in former days. BRINGING IT ALL UNDER
THEIR PEACEFUL RULE, FROM THE RISING SUN TO
THE FARTHEST DUSK, IN A WIDE CIRCLE FROM
NORTH TO SOUTH. People now lost all fear of their
former oppressors'. Quotation from [140], p.120-121.
In honour of this event there were erected the

monumental constructions, paintings were created and

literary works were written. Some of them have survived.
For example, Constantine Arch in Italian Rome. To remind
you, Vatican (Batu-Khan) was the Western-European
mission of the Catholic 'Mongol' church in Italy. To this day
the Vatican memorialises the stormy religious events of
the late XIV century. For example, the frescos in the Hall
of Constantine in Vatican. The famous Raphael was
appointed to paint them.
29. THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL.
The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to New
Rome is an event of the late XIV century. The emperor
Constantine I, aka Russian-Horde czar-khan Dmitry
Donskoy after the victory in the Kulikovo Battle in 1380
arrived to Czar-Grad and proclaimed it the second capital
of the Empire. It became the second metropoly after the
main one in Vladimir and Suzdal Rus'. Having made the
Apostolic Christianity the religion of the entire Empire,
Constantine = Dmitry most likely decided to place the
spiritual and religious centre into the old Czar-Grad =
evangelical Yoros=Jerusalem, where in 1185 Christ was
crucified. Thus, not far from Yoros, a little to the South,
Constantinople emerged. The military and administrative
centre of Empire Constantine kept in Russia-Horde =
Israel. i.e. in the biblical Assyria-Syria (in Egypt).
Hence you can see that the chroniclers could confuse
OLD ROME and NEW ROME. As is shown in [1v], the
confusion reflected in several versions of transfer of the

Roman Empire capital. In some versions it was transferred

from Old Rome into New Rome. And other claim the
opposite transfer from New Rome to the Old one.
The comparison of the locations of Yoros-Jerusalem
and Istanbul-Constantinople, situated close to it, shows
that Constantinople is a later capital. Why didn't
Constantine = Dmitry transfer his capital unchanged to the
holy city of Yoros, but founded a new centre on the other
side of Bosporus 30 kilometres from Yoros? This is our
hypothesis.
Constantinople's location itself indicates that the city
was built quite late, when people have already invented
the cannons capable of firing long distances and learnt to
build large ships with the deep draught for open sea
navigation. Istanbul is located in the Bosporus' wide point,
by the Sea of Marmara. Being in such a location the
absence of cannons would have made it impossible to
control the Bosporus and to prevent foreign water crafts
pass through into the Black Sea and back. That is why in
the earlier times when there were no cannons it would
have been much better to position the city in the Bosporus'
narrow point, which would provide full control over the
strait. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE YOROS WAS
LOCATED.
A big advantage of the location of IstanbulConstantinople was The Golden Horn harbour-cleft,

capable of receiving large naval vessels with a deep

draught at its cliffy shores. But in the epoch if the XII-XIII
cc. there were yet no such ships. That is why there was no
need for such a harbour. Small ships of that time
navigated along the coast and had comparatively shallow
draught. It was quite possible to keep them immediately in
the Bosporus, in the harbour between Yoros and Beykoz.
The sea storms do not penetrate there. For the epoch of
the XII-XII cc. it was a fairly ample harbour.
So the location of the Yoros fortification evangelical
Jerusalem was ideal for the capital of the XII-XIII cc., but
in the end of the XIV century it no longer satisfied the
requirements of that time. That is why Constantine =
Dmitry founded New Rome, Constantinople not in the
place of Jerusalem, but approximately 30 kilometres from
it. However not very far. It is likely that he none the less
wanted to establish the capital as close as possible to holy
Jerusalem.
26. 'THE APPEARANCE OF THE CROSS' WHICH
BROUGHT VICTORY TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
AND DMITRY DONSKOY'S VICTORY 'WITH THE AID
OF THE CROSS'. CANNONS ARE 'THE SCHEMAS
WITH CROSSES' IN THE ARMY OF DMITRY
DONSKOY.
In the Battle of Kulikovo Dmitry Donskoy's army used
cannons [4v1], ch.6. It seems that in the army of Mamai
there were either no cannons or there were significantly
less of them. On some of the old Russian icons a range of

cannons were depicted in Dmitry's army firing at Khan

Mamai's troops, fig.38. Each cannon is depicted here as a
stretched forward arm with a nimbus enshrouded with
smoke. As we show in [] one of the symbols of the fire
arm was Constantine's Labarum. It is thought that
cannons appeared in the battle fields precisely in the
middle of the XIV century. This is the time when
gunpowder was invented.
There were no cannons in the army of Mamai depicted
in the icon. It is probable, that it is due to the advantage in
the artillery Dmitry was able to defeat Mamai. Mind you,
Mamai's army was a professional one, and Dmitry's troops
were more like a people's militia [4v1], ch.6. It is feasible
that cannons were used for the first time on such a large
scale in the Battle of Kulikovo [] [] ch.3.
Before the battle Sergiy Radonezhsky blessed Dmitry
and handed over some 'secret weapon', which in the later
sources was called 'THE SIGN OF THE SCHEMA
CROSS' (a special embassy cross paramand - part of
monastic robes schema translator's note). It is said:
'Sergiy presented him with a sign of the Schema cross and
said: 'HERE IS THE WEAPON IMPERISHABLE! LET IT
SERVE YOU INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS!' [362], v.5,
ch.1, column 36.
Nikonovskaya Letopis' (Chronicle) informs us : "The
Venerable Sergiy commanded them (Peresvet and

Oslyabya Author's note) to prepare for an imminent

battle HE GAVE THEM WEAPONS ("Behold a weapon
which faileth never!", CHRIST'S CROSS SOWN ONTO
SCHEMA (VESTMENTS), and commanded them
INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS to put those on their heads'
[586:1], v/11, p.53.
So, Sergiy Radonezhsky handed Peresvet and
Oslyabya some new weapon SCHEMA, instead of
conventional armour helmets, etc.
Commentators assure us that allegedly under the word
SCHEMA or SCHEME was meant a head-dress made of
fabric with a cross sown onto it. However, it is quite
possible that behind the editorial term SCHEMA or
SCHEME is concealed the word MUSKET (MASQUET) or
MUSHKA (MUZZLE-SIGHT or BEAD in Russian) read
backwards, as in Arabic: MUSHKA = MSHK --> SHKM =
SHKM = SKHIMA (SCHEMA), when SH turns into --> S.
See [6v1], ch.4:9.
Why is a word MUSKET usually derived from the word
MUKHA (a fly in Russian)? A direct link between a Latin
MUSCA and Slavonic MOSHKA (midge in Russian) is
noted by Max Vasmer [866], v.2, p.667. The word musca =
mukha ('fly' in Russian) most likely entered Latin from the
Russian language. Then everything falls into place. As the
Russian word MUSHKA means not only a fly, but also a
RIFLE SIGHT! It is not surprising that in Russia, where

there are so many midges, the aiming device was

compared to a midge (a fly) which came in sight). So they
called the aiming sight MUSHKA (A FLY). That is why a
new weapon with an aiming device (mushka) was called
MUSKET in Russian. The invented aim caught the
imagination of the warriors and gave name to the whole
gun itself. Incidentally the Russian writers of the XVIII
century called the musketeers MUSHKATERY, clearly
deriving it from the word MUSHKA [866], v.3, p.20.
The parchment passed on by Sergiy Radonnezhsky to
Dmitry Donskoy said: 'Help us with this HOLY WEAPON
to bring down our foe'. See the details in [] ch.3, p.20.
Let us turn to the 'Ancient' Roman history now. There is a
famous event in it the vision of the Cross to the Emperor
Constantine the Great on the eve of his battle with
Maxentius. Constantine wins with the help of the CROSS.
The 'Ancient Roman' story is a reflection of Dmitry's victory
over Mamai. Also 'with the help of the Cross'. Dmitry
Donskoy is described by the 'Ancient classics' as
Constantine I the Great, and khan Mamai as Maxentius,
Constantine's co-ruler.
What is said about Constantine's victory over
Maxentius with the help of the Cross? Though the
essence of the event was described by the different
authors similarly, however, there prevailed a strange
variety of opinions in the question of what was exactly 'The
Cross of Constantine'. At first Constantine beheld a

gleaming apparition in the sky, various authors are saying

different things about its shape. Constantine ordered to
make 'labarum', on which he placed the sign he saw in the
sky. The labarum with Chi Rho (the sign of the Cross)
helped him to achieve victory. Once again however, there
are various opinions on the question of what labarum was
made of and what was depicted on it and whether it was
a banner in the sense of a flag at all or it was something
else.
The story of Eusebius about Constantine reminds of the
famous Biblical story of Moses who made 'a serpent of
brass' and PUT IT ON THE POLE, by doing so he saved
his people from 'the venomous serpents' (Numbers 2:1, 89).
What else is said about the serpents in the Bible? It
turns out, 'in Numbers 21:6 the venomous snakes refers to
the 'serpents' attacking (those who fight for God) = the
Israelites in the desert Author's note) are called in
Hebrew SERAPHIM (NEKHUSTAN), THE FIERY ONE
[845], commentaries to 4 Kingdoms 18:1-8. And the
Biblical Encyclopaedia translates a word SERAPHIM, in
particular as FLAME, FIRE. In [6v1], ch.4:10-11, we
showed that here in the Bible we are given a description of
the firing cannons. There is an old Ataman (Ottoman)
banner of huge dimensions which survives today, on
which there is depicted a cannon firing cannon balls,
fig.39. This banner is kept in a museum in Vienna. It is not

impossible, that this Ataman (Ottoman) banner is made

following the design of the famous banner of Moses and
labarum of Constantine. It is possible that on Moses' and
Constantine's old banners there was depicted a cannon in
the form of a 'cross'.
27. WHY THE CHRONICLES MISTOOK A CANNON
FOR A CROSS.
It is likely, that the first cannons invented by Sergiy
Radonezhsky were wooden and not metallic. The
production of metallic cannons requires complex
procedures. On the other hand the inventors of the first
gunpowder hardly waited for the cannons' casting method
to be invented. Most likely they tried to make use of the
new invention for military purposes straight away. For that
a solid pipe closed-ended on one side was needed. Then
it is stuffed with gun powder and a closing plug applied
and then filled with stones. That's it, the weapon is ready.
But it was not easy to make such a pipe. Oak, being an
exceptionally strong type of wood, has a wonderful quality.
Its core approximately 10 centimetres in diameter under
certain conditions can separate itself from the rest of the
trunk. Several wooden layers surrounding the core rot and
turn into dust. The rest of the wood remains hard and
whole. The core begins to dangle around inside of the
developed wooden pipe, and it is not difficult to remove it
with a long chisel. Or to split and scorch it out. You will get
a strong oak pipe. If you bind it with iron rods like a barrel,
an oak mortar cannon like this can withstand several

shots. Particularly that the first gun-powder was far less

powerful than later on. Only with the refinement of the
gun-powder it was necessary to switch to the cast metallic
cannons.
Direct indications survive that in the XV century in
Russia they indeed used the wooden cannons []. It is
interesting that they were used until comparatively recent
time. Such a cannon is exhibited for example in the
Nuremburg museum [] ch.4.
How would the people perceive such new weapon when
they beheld the terrible 'firing logs' on the battle field for
the first time? Besides knowing that they were invented by
the Christians. The wooden cannons could have been
described for example like this: 'Christian trees which
brought victory to the Christian Czar'. But the Christian
cross is also often called 'a tree'. In the canonical sources
the expression 'tree of cross' means a cross on which
Christ was crucified.
That is why it is not surprising that the 'Christian tree
which brought victory to the Czar Constantine could have
turned under chroniclers' quill into 'the Christian tree of
cross which brought victory to the Czar Constantine'. I.e.
to the Russian Prince Dmitry.
The first Russian wooden cannons which provided

Russia-Horde the undeniable advantage in the epoch of

the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century, soon gave way
to the metallic ones. However, the wooden cannons had
one important quality, which ensured their long standing
inclusion in the armament. The simplicity in their
manufacture was very appealing. Besides, it was not
obligatory to carry them during the campaign. It was
sufficient to bring just the gun-powder. Having arrived at
the battle place they would find the oak trees and quickly
make the cannons and fire buckshot from them. Of
course, you cannot fire a lot of shots from wooden cannon.
But it is not necessary. If needed, they could always make
new ones. The main thing was to have gun-powder. After
the victory they left the wooden cannons on the battlefield
and moved on. It is clear why they almost entirely didn't
stand the test of time. After being thrown away they rotted.
That is why in the museums you can see only some rare
examples which have survived.
While the cannons were a new weapon, never-beforeseen by most, the effect of this gun on the enemy was
overwhelming. The 'Christian tree' spitting fire and bringing
death, inspired panic and fear. The cannons were
reflected in various 'ancient' myths and legends. Later,
when the concept of a cannon was adopted by many,
there began a competition in precision and range. The
wooden artillery gave way to a metallic one.
28. THE OUTSTANDING CZAR-KHAN CONSTANTINE I
= DMITRY IVANOVICH.

In the 'ancient' biography of Constantine-Dmitry there is

included another reflection of the Battle of Kulikoivo. It is
Constantine's second famous battle, this time with his coruler Licinius. Instead of adversaries, Constantine
Maxentius, here it concerns the pair of Constantine
Licinius. Constantine's battles with Maxentius and Licinius
are considered to be the two main military combats in his
biography.
Constantine's final victory over his co-rulers and
opponents is the execution of Licinius. He was
decapitated. In the Russian chronicles it is the execution
of Ivan Velyaminov, the son of tysiatsky (dux, Heerzog,
captain of the thousand - a military leader in Ancient Rus,
who commanded a people's volunteer army called
'tysyacha', or a thousand Translator's note) by Dmitry's
order. The tysiatskies were effectively the co-rulers of
Grand Princes. Having abolished this post, Dmitry became
the mogul. But to achieve this he had to dispose of the son
of the last tysiatsky Ivan Velyaminov. On the whole it is
the same picture as under Constantine the Great.
According to the old law there were several co-rulers
reigning in the Empire. In Rome there were several august
figures and Caesars ruling simultaneously. In Russia there
was a Grand Prince and tysiatskies. And then one of the
co-rulers removes the others, becomes the sole czar and
changes the political system. From that moment the
Czardom is controlled autocratically and the reign is
passed on to the son of a deceased czar. Prior to that it
was different. In both Rome and Russia. In the Roman

history before Constantine becoming the emperor was not

hereditary, and only after Constantine the succession to
the throne from father to son was established.
The primary sources unanimously stress the role of
victory of Constantine = khan Dmitry over 'paganism'. It
indeed concerned an enormous event the adoption of
the Apostolic Christianity throughout the entire 'Mongol'
Empire. The words by Eusebius of Caesarea in his
Ecclesiastical History on Constantine's victory are imbued
with a new meaning now.
'His enemy Licinius lay there prostrate, the mighty victor
Constantine won back their own Eastern provinces and
COMBINED THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO A SINGLE
WHOLE, as in former days. BRINGING IT ALL UNDER
THEIR PEACEFUL RULE, FROM THE RISING SUN TO
THE FARTHEST DUSK, IN A WIDE CIRCLE FROM
NORTH TO SOUTH. People now lost all fear of their
former oppressors'. Quotation from [140], p.120-121.
In honour of this event there were erected the
monumental constructions, paintings were created and
literary works were written. Some of them have survived.
For example, Constantine Arch in Italian Rome. To remind
you, Vatican (Batu-Khan) was the Western-European
mission of the Catholic 'Mongol' church in Italy. To this day
the Vatican memorialises the stormy religious events of
the late XIV century. For example, the frescos in the Hall

of Constantine in Vatican. The famous Raphael was

appointed to paint them.
29. THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL.
The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to New
Rome is an event of the late XIV century. The emperor
Constantine I, aka Russian-Horde czar-khan Dmitry
Donskoy after the victory in the Kulikovo Battle in 1380
arrived to Czar-Grad and proclaimed it the second capital
of the Empire. It became the second metropoly after the
main one in Vladimir and Suzdal Rus'. Having made the
Apostolic Christianity the religion of the entire Empire,
Constantine = Dmitry most likely decided to place the
spiritual and religious centre into the old Czar-Grad =
evangelical Yoros=Jerusalem, where in 1185 Christ was
crucified. Thus, not far from Yoros, a little to the South,
Constantinople emerged. The military and administrative
centre of Empire Constantine kept in Russia-Horde =
Israel. i.e. in the biblical Assyria-Syria (in Egypt).
Hence you can see that the chroniclers could confuse
OLD ROME and NEW ROME. As is shown in [1v], the
confusion reflected in several versions of transfer of the
Roman Empire capital. In some versions it was transferred
from Old Rome into New Rome. And other claim the
opposite transfer from New Rome to the Old one.
The comparison of the locations of Yoros-Jerusalem
and Istanbul-Constantinople, situated close to it, shows

that Constantinople is a later capital. Why didn't

Constantine = Dmitry transfer his capital unchanged to the
holy city of Yoros, but founded a new centre on the other
side of Bosporus 30 kilometres from Yoros? This is our
hypothesis.
Constantinople's location itself indicates that the city
was built quite late, when people have already invented
the cannons capable of firing long distances and learnt to
build large ships with the deep draught for open sea
navigation. Istanbul is located in the Bosporus' wide point,
by the Sea of Marmara. Being in such a location the
absence of cannons would have made it impossible to
control the Bosporus and to prevent foreign water crafts
pass through into the Black Sea and back. That is why in
the earlier times when there were no cannons it would
have been much better to position the city in the Bosporus'
narrow point, which would provide full control over the
strait. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE YOROS WAS
LOCATED.
A big advantage of the location of IstanbulConstantinople was The Golden Horn harbour-cleft,
capable of receiving large naval vessels with a deep
draught at its cliffy shores. But in the epoch if the XII-XIII
cc. there were yet no such ships. That is why there was no
need for such a harbour. Small ships of that time
navigated along the coast and had comparatively shallow
draught. It was quite possible to keep them immediately in

the Bosporus, in the harbour between Yoros and Beykoz.

The sea storms do not penetrate there. For the epoch of
the XII-XII cc. it was a fairly ample harbour.
So the location of the Yoros fortification evangelical
Jerusalem was ideal for the capital of the XII-XIII cc., but
in the end of the XIV century it no longer satisfied the
requirements of that time. That is why Constantine =
Dmitry founded New Rome, Constantinople not in the
place of Jerusalem, but approximately 30 kilometres from
it. However not very far. It is likely that he none the less
wanted to establish the capital as close as possible to holy
Jerusalem.
34. THE COSSACKS-ARYANS: FROM RUSSIA TO
INDIA. EPIC MAHABHARATA.
We have mentioned earlier the famous 'ancient' Indian
epic Mahabharata. Here is the summary of our research
results.
#The Epic largely relies on the Bible. It was created in
the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. and was finally completed
only in the XVII-XVIII cc.
# The central theme of the Epic is the great battle of the
people in the Kuru field. Here reflected is the colossal
Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. In the Mahabharata under the
name of Arjuna (= Horde-Khan) is described Dmitry
Donskoy. And under the name of Duryodhana (=Evil
Khan) appears Mamai, the adversary of Dmitry. The

authors sympathise with Arjuna = Dmitry Donskoy and are

ill-disposed towards Duryodhana = Mamai. Similar is the
point of view of the Russian chronicles: 'good Dmitry' and
'evil Mamai'.
When comparing Mahabharata to the Russian
chronicles, we restored many details of the Russian Horde
history preserved in the 'ancient' Aryan Epic, but lost in
Russia. They were either forgotten or cleansed by the
Romanovs' historians. For example, the downfall of
Duryodhana was described in the Mahabharata in great
detail. But the surviving Russian primary sources speak of
khan Mamai's blight very scantily. The reason is
understandable. Having declared the Cossacks=Tatars
the be 'evil people', the Romanovs' historians crossed out
from our history all the positive accounts about khan
Mamai and his fellows in arms. We were continuously
indoctrinated with the idea that the 'Russians' and the
'Tatars' are allegedly long-standing foes.
There is a 'Book of the Women' in Mahabharata. And in
it there is a big section 'Women's lament' [519], v.8, p.136176. It describes the wives lamenting their dead warriors
who fell in the field of the great battle. The Lament is one
of the emotional peaks of Mahabharata.
It is possible, that here is told a story of the mourning of
those who perished in the field of the Battle of Kulikovo. In
the Russian chronicles the lament was reflected very

poorly. In this way we emerge deeper into the events of

Hordian Moscow which followed the battle. The significant
part of the 'Lament' mourns the warriors of Duryodhana,
i.e of khan Mamai. It is even more interesting considering
that in the Romanovs' version Mamai is represented
negatively, and there are no details about his supporters.
# Mahabharata narrates about the 'Mongol' conquest of
the XV century. The famous Indian Aryans are
'Yuryievans' ('Yuiryievtsy') = Georgyievans (Georgyievtsy),
i.e. the Hordian troops of the Cossacks (aka the
chronicle 'Tatars' who have colonized the Hindustan
Peninsula and lands surrounding it. The word ARYA in
Sanskrit 'means both: the name of the people and 'kind',
'wise') [519], v.2, p.250. It is possible that in the name
ARYANS reflected the Russian word YARY (FIERCE),
YARO (FIERCELY). Which very well corresponds with the
essence of this name 'Yuryi'= Georgyievtsy the FIERCE
warriors of Yuryi (Georgyi - George) The Conqueror. Let's
also remember the name Yaroslav, i.e. Fierce Glory or
Aryan-Glory.
In the XIV-XV cc. the territory of modern India was
occupied and developed by the army of Russia Horde.
They were the 'Mongolian' army directed to the South and
to the East. According to the Byzantine chronicler John
Malalas, the colonization of the world of that time was
carried out generally in a peaceful way. Vast expanses of
Eurasia were yet little populated. In the majority of cases

there was no one to fight. In particular, MALALAS

DESCRIBES WESTERN EUROPE AS A HALF SAVAGE
COUNTRY WHERE THERE ARE EVEN NO CITIES
[338]. p.28.
The Hordians who stepped on the Hindustan Peninsula,
were not at all Muslim in the modern meaning of this word.
On the territories of the vigorously expanding 'Mongol'
Empire reigned the Apostolic Christianity rooted in the XII
century. Islam in the modern sense of this word appeared
only in the XVI-XVII cc., after the split of the Christianity
into Orthodox Christianity and Islam. The army of the
Horde of the XIV century was called 'Muslim' post factum,
in later history textbooks.
The Indian God KRISHNA (Buddha) is the image of
Jesus CHRIST, transformed on local grounds. The
researchers of the history of religions have already
cautiously spoken about it [2v1], ch.1. However, they
avoided making any conclusions for fear of casting doubt
over Scaligerian chronology. We, however, are articulating
this idea clearly and directly. At the heart of the 'ancient'
Indian Ramayana are the events of the XIV-XVI cc., when
the powerful 'ancient' Christian Rome, aka Russia Horde
together with The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania spreads its
rule over Eurasia, Oceania (Pacific Islands) and America.
Hence the Mediaeval population of Hindustan believed in
Christ. In India His name was expressed as Krishna.

The Horde army was followed by the migrants, women

and children. In their rows of carts they carried not only
weapons and armament, but also the documents, archives
and chronicles. After the founding of the 'Mongol' states in
the Hindustan Peninsula, which were controlled by the
Hordian governors, there also appeared the libraries,
where among other things, the Russian chronicles were
kept. Khan's clerks, civil servants, scribes and scientists
have arrived to India. The culture and the language of its
metropoly and provinces was ubiquitous.
B.L.Smirnov, the Fellow of the Academy of Sciences of
the Turkmen Soviet Republic wrote: 'Reference to the blue
eyed Aryans repeatedly occurs in 'Mahabharata'; this
anthropologic detail is curious enough for the matter of the
origin of the Aryans, which until present day didn't receive
a universally acknowledged admission' [519], v.4, p.560.
Today in historic literature it is not acceptable to say
'Aryan'. It is preferable to say 'arya' or 'airya'. We can
explain the 'blue-eyed' quality of the ariyas. In Russia, for
example, there were always quite a lot of blue-eyed
people.
In the result of the 'Mongol' conquest the Hordian
chronicles and events described in them were 'spreading'
over the entire Empire. The Hordians-Cossacks leaving for
campaigns, took with them mementos, chronicles,
documents and archives. Having settled in the distant
provinces, they tried to preserve the memory of their
motherland. But as time went by, their descendants began

to think that the old legends inherited by them from their

fathers and grandfathers, were a narrative about their life
'here', i.e. where they lived now. They began to sincerely
look for the very place where, for example, occurred the
battle of Kulikovo of their ancestors. They were mistakenly
looking 'nearby', close to where they lived at that point.
And of course they 'found' it. Here and there. Some would
begin to think that it is some kind of field on the Hindustan
Peninsula. 'It turned out' to be the field Kurukshetra. This
being said, it is not impossible that some other important
battles took place there, but they were 'local' battles. The
other descendants of the Hordians, who settled in the
West, would erroneously point at some field in Western
Europe. It would 'result' as a battlefield of Sempach [7v1],
ch.3. And so on. It is not impossible that the reflecting
glare of the battle on the Moscow field of Kulikovo shed its
light on the famous Kosovo field in Serbia.
The Romanovs' historians also contributed to the
obfuscation of true history. They moved (on paper) the
Kulikovo field from Moscow to outside of Tula [4v1], ch.6.
As we have shown in [], in the Battle of Kulikovo
cannons were used. On the pages of Mahabharata
(substantially edited in the XVIII-XIX cc.) there survive
many references to the fire arms pounding the Kuru field
(aka Kulikovo field) during the great battle between
Pandavas and Kauravas. It is likely that in the original text
of Mahabharata, dating back to the XVI century, the fire
arms were described more explicitly.

Even after editing the surviving 'fire arms fragments' from

Mahabharata are absolutely unambiguous. Only the
incorrect chronology prevents the historians admitting that
those are obvious descriptions of cannons. At the same
time the 'fire arm scenes' in the Epic are so colourful that
the historians had to come up with a theory of some kind
of 'divine heavenly fire' in order to substantiate the artificial
ageing of Mahabharata and to conceal from the readers
the cannon battles in 'ancient' Indian history. At first they
were concealing it under orders, but later they were doing
it mechanically, having forgotten the origin of the matter
[], ch.1.
Here is a list of the Biblical events of the XV-XVI cc.
comprising the essence of various chapters of
Mahabharata. 1) The flood and voyage of the patriarch
Noah-Manu (=Columbus) across the ocean in the XV
century. 2) The Exodus of Moses in the XV century. 3)
The story of Esther (Elena Voloshanka) of the XVI century.
4) The story of the biblical Susanna another reflection of
Esther. 5) The story of Esther is also described in the most
'ancient' Babylonian epic.
And here are the 'evangelical chapters' in the 'ancient'
Mahabharata. 1) Immaculate Conception, Virgin Mary. 2)
Indian God-Human Yudhisthira as the reflection of
Christ. 3) King Herod's schemes against Christ. The Holy
Family's flight to Egypt. 4) Christ's return to Jerusalem. 5)
The Flagellation of Christ. 6) Christ's Ascent of Golgotha.

The Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Apostles'

dream. 7) The Ascension of Christ. 8) Christ's descent into
Hell.
Having moved the Indian Epic (like the Epics of other
nations) to the deepest antiquity and having narrowed
down the geographical framework of the events described
in it, the historians of the XVII-XVIII cc. endeavoured to
hide the fact that Mahabharata in fact narrates about the
recent events of the XIV-XVI cc. It was edited with a
sprinkled patina of 'ancient dust'. As a result this
enormous material is perceived in an ambiguous way. On
one hand with a lot of respect, which is entirely fair. On
the other hand very few have read this Epic from the
beginning to the end. It seems boring. To be precise, it
was 'presented' to be boring.
However, it is clear now that we were intentionally
conditioned to have a 'disinterested' perception! We were
forced to think that Mahabharata itself is the sole source of
the thousands of events described within it. And as the
editors 'presented a fairy-tale' it is not surprising, that such
a lukewarm attitude arises towards it. Like, hazy myths,
unknown heroes, fire breathing dragons etc. Thousands of
obscure (at a first glance) names, a great number of
allegedly forgotten events Ask your friends whether
many of them have read at least one of the volumes of
Mahabharata. You will not find many of them. Very few.
Even amongst the admirers of 'ancient' Indian history. But
now, after the restoration of the correct chronology of this
Epic, the interest towards it rises sharply. Reading

Mahabharata becomes captivating. As soon as we begin

to understand that here unfold the events of the Great
Empire of the XIV-XVI cc., it is impossible to pry oneself
away from most of its pages. As it is from these pages that
arise the biblical events, from the history of Russia Horde,
The Battle of Kulikovo, etc.
Comparing different viewpoints Aryan-Indian (from
India, from the East), Russian (from the Empire
metropoly), Western-European (from the Western
countries) OF THE SAME EVENTS, captivates the
unbiased reader. Besides, the exposure of 'Scaligerian
trickery' is an investigation of a serious crime of the XVIIXVIII cc. in the face of science and mankind in general. It
turns out the reformers didn't cover up all their tracks. On
the whole, they did an excellent job. But they missed quite
a lot. They failed to notice everything. And today their alibi,
convincing on the surface, crumbles on closer inspection.

35. THIRTY REFLECTIONS OF THE BATTLE OF

KULIKOVO DISCOVERED BY US IN THE 'ANCIENT'
HISTORY.
We will list 30 reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo, which
we discovered on the pages of various chronicles both in
the 'antiquity' and in the Middle Ages. We also indicate in
our books, where these duplicates were presented and
studied.

So: the Battle of Kulikovo of the year 1380 [4v1], ch.6.

Considered to be just about the main military event of the
Mediaeval Russian history. Here are its phantom
reflections.
IN RUSSIAN HISTORY:
1) Khan Tokhtamysh = Dmitry Donskoy siege of
Moscow allegedly two years later, in 1382 [4v1], ch.6.
2) Crushing defeat of Khan Mamai by Khan
Tokhtamush Dmitry Donskoy in 1380 [4v1], ch.6.
3) The Battle on Kalka River allegedly in 1223, where
the 'Mongols' fought the allied forces of the Cumans
(Polovtsy) and the Russians [4v1], ch.6.
4) The Battle of Sergiy Radonezhsky with the 'devils in
the Lithuanian style hats', ended in the victory of the Holy
Man. Is described in the Life of Sergiy [], ch.3.
5) In the history of India: the famous 'battle on the Kuru
field '. The battle supposedly took place in the 'ancient'
India of allegedly the IV-III cc. BC or in the even more
ancient epoch. This battle is the central event of the
colossal 'ancient' Indian Epic 'Mahabharata' [], [].

6) In the history of the East: The Battle of Kulikovo was

described by the Venetian traveller Marco Polo, allegedly
the years 1254-1323 [4v1], ch.6:10 and [5v2], ch.2:12.8.
7) In the history of Europe: the Battle of Kulikovo was
known to the Western chroniclers, for example, to the
German chroniclers, as the great battle of Sempach
allegedly in 138. It supposedly took place in Western
Europe [7v1], ch.3:11.
8) In the history of the Balkans: the Battle in the Kosovo
field allegedly in 1389; it is considered to have taken place
in Serbia. The story of Sultan Murad = Dmitry Donskoy.
We will talk about it in our future publications.
9) In the history of Byzantine: the battle of the emperor
Heraclius and the Persian king Khosrau [], ch.1.

IN THE HISTORY OF 'ANCIENT' ROME:

10) The battle of the 'ancient' emperor Constantine I The

Great = Dmitry Donskoy with the emperor Maxentius or
Maximinus khan Mamai Ivan Velyaminov allegedly in
year 312 [].

11) The battle of the emperor Constantine (Dmitry

Donskoy) with Licinius allegedly in the year 323 []. Here
Licinius is the reflection of khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov.
12) The Gallic War allegedly of the year 361 BC. The
Romans fought with the Gauls, who invaded their country.
The outcome of the battle was decided in the fight of a
young military tribune Titus Manlius = Dmitry Donskoy with
a giant Gaul = Khan Mamai [], ch.4. See fig.42.
13) Another Gallic War allegedly of the year 348 BC, in
which Marcus Valerius Corvus won the fight with a mighty
Gaul [], ch.5 and fig.42.
14) The Second Latin War allegedly of the years 341-340
BC, in which both Titus Manlius-father and Titus Manliusson took part [], ch.6.
15) The first Latin War allegedly of the year 499 BC
[], ch.7.
16) The Battle of the dictator-ploughman (Lucius Quinctius
Cincinnatus) allegedly of the year 458 BC [], ch.7.
17) The Battle of the Romans of Sentinum and Clusium
allegedly of year 295 BC [], ch.6.

IN THE BIBLE, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT:

18) The famous battle between David and Goliath (1 Kings
17), allegedly in the epoch of 1015-1055 BC []. Here

David is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy and Goliath is a

reflection of Khan Mamai.
19) The battle between King Saul and the Philistines in
which Saul was killed (1 Kings 29-31) allegedly in the XI
century BC [].
20) David and Absalom story. Absalom dies in the battle
(2 Kings 18) allegedly in the middle of the XI century BC
[], ch.6.
21) The battle between David and the Philistines (2 Kings
5) allegedly of the XI century BC [], ch.6.
22) The rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri against David (2
Kings 20) allegedly in the XI century BC. [], ch.6.
Here David = Dmitry Donskoy and Sheba = Ivan
Veliyaminov or Veniyaminov.
23) The battle between the Judge Gideon and the
Midianites (Judges 6-8) allegedly circa 1245 BC [],
ch.7. Here Gideon is a reflection of Dmitry Donskoy.
------------------------------24) In the history of 'Ancient' Greece: the famous battle of
Marathon allegedly the year 490 BC [] ch.1.
25) In 'ancient' mythology: the famous 'most ancient'
victory of Zeus over the titans with the help of Cyclops, so
called Gigantomachy [] ch.2. Today this myth is dated
to the deepest history, identifying it as the very first and
the most significant 'Olympian myth of creation'. THE
WORLD BEGINS STARTING WITH THIS MYTH, the

universe is conceived. In those allegedly dark ages there

were supposedly no people yet. Only the mighty gods
were soaring in the nebulous celestial spheres, who
themselves only recently had emerged into the world and
were fiercely fighting each other. Poets and writers,
sculptors, painters and film directors, being inspired by
these powerful legends, have created hundreds of
wonderful works of art. Sincerely believing that with their
artistic intuition they penetrated many thousands of years
into the past, unveiling the mystery
We will slightly disappoint the poets. The 'most ancient
Olympian myth of creation' in fact tells us about the Battle
of Kulikovo in 1380. For some, it may be that such a
conclusion means the 'dilution of the pathos' of the
legends about the Creation of the World. But not for us. In
fact this fact enhances the value of the Battle of Kulikovo
in the history of mankind. The 'ancient' tradition raised this
event to a high pedestal, establishing it as the basis of the
entire history. That is why the 'poetic frisson' remains.
Only the dating changes. The important event becomes
significantly closer to our times, appearing to be at the end
of the XIV century. Zeus defeated the Titans with the help
of the mighty Cyclops (i.e. cannons!) 'only' approximately
six hundred and twenty years ago. In the New Chronology
this event is exceptionally ancient. As the written history of
mankind on the whole goes back not more than a
thousand years. And emerges from the darkness only at
the beginning of the X-XI cc.

We have repeatedly came across the fact that the

famous 'ancient' TARTAR is a reflection of TARTARIA =
TATARIA, i.e. Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc., on the
pages of the 'ancient' classics. Russia-Horde inspired both
respect and fear in some Western-Europeans. That is why
in the epoch of the Reformation the distant Tartar was
painted in sombre tones. Purporting that it is situated
somewhere far away. It is difficult to reach. Tartar is a
gloomy underworld, situated at the same distance from the
earth as the earth is from the skies. Tartar is surrounded
by the tall brass walls and a ring of fire. There the storms
are raging permanently. Even the gods are scared of
Tartar. The entrance to Tartar is guarded by ruthless
monsters, the sinister hellhound Cerberus = Kerberos.
And so on. Many shock and 'horror stories' about
Russia-Horde started to circulate in the Western Europe of
the late XVI XVII cc. Tartar-Tartaria was described as an
'infernal' place, threatening everything that is progressive
and cultured in humankind. Purporting that it is the empire
of evil. The prison of nations. This tradition of fear firmly
took root and from time to time emerges under all kinds of
circumstances.
26) In the history of 'ancient' Greece: the famous
Sicilian battle allegedly of 415-413 BC [] ch.3. It
appears that in the 'ancient' description of the Sicilian War
the two layers have become closely intertwined. The first

from the XII century and consists of the events connected

with the Emperor Andronicus-Christ. The second is the
Battle of Kulikovo of 1380. The reason for the confusion
between the XII and XIV centuries (cc) is clear. The
chroniclers confused the two Baptisms of Russia. The first
by Andronicus-Christ himself in the end of the XII
century. The Second Baptism at the end of the XIV
century by Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great the
Biblical Judge Gideon the Biblical King David. The
chroniclers confused these two baptisms and the events
connected to them. That is why the Biblical image of David
absorbed the data of Andronicus-Christ []
27) In the history of 'ancient' Greece: Decelean War
allegedly the end of the year 413 BC. It is considered that
it took place immediately after the Sicilian Battle [] ch.3.
28) In the history of Conquista America's conquests
allegedly in the beginning of the XVI century: the battle of
the Spanish with allegedly Indian king Cotubanam []
ch.9.
29) In the ancient history of Iran (Persia): the battle of the
king Takhmurup with the 'demonic hordes' [], ch.2.
30) In the ancient history of Iran (Persia): the battle of the
king Fereydun with the king Zahhak [], ch.3.
Hence it can be seen what a strong impression the
Battle of Kulikovo made on the nations of the Great
Empire. It was written about, talked about, the legends

were made about it, the songs were sung, the heroic epic
ballads were passed on to the future generations.
The duplicates of the Battle of Kulikovo see. Fig.43. In
Fig.44. the same list is depicted in a different way. It
shows which epochs the phantom reflections of the Battle
of Kulikovo were erroneously dated to. To reconstruct the
correct history it is necessary to 'lift' all the duplicates
found by us up the timeline and identify them with the
battle of 1380. As a result the number of various stories in
the written history substantially decreases, but the
illumination of the events noticeably increases. We get an
opportunity to look at the Battle of Kulikovo through the
eyes of 30 various chroniclers. Each of them
communicates something peculiarly their own, sometimes
unnoticed by the others. As a result the story of the battle
between Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai becomes
noticeably richer.
36. TWENTY FIVE REFLECTIONS OF DMITRY
DONSKOY.
1) KARL IV HABSBURG 'Western-European' emperor
(1347-1378) is the reflection of both DMITRY
SUZDALSKY (1359-1363 according to [362] or 13601363) and DMITRY IVANOVICH DONSKOY (1363-1389
according to [362]). The chroniclers could have combined
them into one ruler as they had the same name: DMITRY.
Some of the facts of Dmitry Donskoy's biography found
their way into the story of WENCESLAS Habsburg, who
followed Karl IV [2v1], [7v1].
2) SVYATOSLAV IGOREVICH, allegedly 945-972, a

Russian Prince [1v].

3) DMITRY OF PERESLAVL, a Russian Prince, allegedly
the XIII century.
4) KHAN TOKHTA, allegedly the XIII century.
5) KHAN TOKHTAMYSH, the XIV century.
6) CONSTANTINE I THE GREAT, the famous 'ancient'
Roman emperor, who defeated Licinius and Maxentius
(these are the two reflections of khan Mamai = Ivan
Velyaminov or Venyaminov, allegedly the IV century
[] [].
7) DAVID (partial), the famous biblical king, who defeated
the giant Goliath and Saul (both are the reflections of khan
Mamai) [] [].
8) PERSEUS, the 'ancient' hero who cut off Medusa
Gorgon's head [], ch.3.
9) MURAD I (partial) the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire
who died in 1389 in the battle of Kosovo Field [], ch.3.
10) ARJUNA the 'ancient' Indian demigod, who defeated
in the battle the demigod Duryodhana = (Evil Khan) (the
duplicate of khan Mamai). He is described in the Indian
epic Mahabharata [], ch.1.
11) ROMULUS (partial) the first 'ancient' Roman king.
Some chroniclers confused the epoch of AndronicusChrist (the XII century) and the epoch of Dmitry Donskoy
(the XIV century) [].
12) JEROBOAM I (partial) the 'ancient' biblical king [1v],
[2v].
13) HERACLIUS (partial) Byzantine Emperor, who
defeated the Persian Shah Khosrau (the duplicate of khan
Mamai) [], ch.1.
14) TITUS MANLIUS TORQUATUS - the 'ancient' Roman

who defeated the mighty Gaul (= Golaith = khan Mamai).

He was described, in particular, by Titus Levy [],
ch.4.
15) MARCUS VALERIUS CORVINUS the 'ancient'
Roman, who defeated the mighty Gaul (khan Mamai) in
battle. Was described by Titus Levy [], ch.5.
16) TITUS MANLIUS-SON the 'ancient' Roman who
struck the Latin khan Mamai during the Second RomanLatin War [], ch.6.
17) QUINTUS FABIUS the 'ancient' Roman council, who
lead the Romans in the Battle of Clusium and Sentinum,
allegedly in the III century BC [], ch.6.
18) GIDEON the Old Testament commander, leading
the army of Israelites in the war against the Midianites. He
is described in the Book of Judges [], ch.7.
19) TITUS QUINCTIUS, THE FARMER-DICTATOR
(PLOW-MAN) the 'ancient' Roman hero, the victor in the
war with the Sabines [], ch.7
20) MILTIADES (partial) the 'ancient' supreme
commander of the Athenian army in the Battle of Marathon
[] ch.1.
21) HERMOCRATES, the son of Hermon the 'ancient'
Sicilian commander in the Sicilian Battle (Syracusan
general during the Athenians' Sicilian Expedition) of
allegedly the V century BC [] ch.3.
22) JUAN DE ESQUIVEL a Spanish chief-conquistador,
winning the battle of the early XVI century allegedly during
the conquest of America. Described by Bartolom de las
Casas [] ch.9.
23) ARTHUR (partial) the English king, who defeated a
'fierce giant', and also a Roman tribune Frollo (khan

Mamai) [], ch.7.

24) TAKHMOURES an 'ancient' Iranian shah, who
destroyed the 'demons' in a fierce battle [], ch.1.
25) FEREYDUN (partial) 'ancient'-Iranian shah,
defeating the evil Zahhak [], ch.2, 3.
37. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
1. (Years 1308 or 1071 or 1189) CONCISE ZODIAC KZ.
Stone bas-relief on the ceiling of the temple in the city of
Erment. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the
first variant: 15-16 May 1071; the second variant: 30-31
May 1189; the third variant: 6-8 May 1308 []
2. (Years 1325 or 1146) ZODIAC RC FROM THE TOMB
OF PHARAOH RAMESSES IV (also written Ramses or
Rameses). An image on the ceiling of the burial chamber.
'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, Valley of the Kings, allegedly
'antiquity'. In reality the first variant: 15-16 April 1146; the
second variant: 10-17 April 1325 []
3. (Years 1345 or 1285) 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 []
4. (Year 1394) ZODIAC EB FROM THE BIG TEMPLE OF
ESNA. Depicted on the stone slabs, on the temple's
ceiling, bas-relief. 'Ancient' Egypt, Esna, allegedly
'antiquity'. In fact: 31st March 3rd April 1394 []

5. Here is an important result of the New Chronology. The

star catalogue of the famous Almagest of Claudius
Ptolemy (containing 1025 stars) was created, as it
happens, in the interval between the years 600 and 1300.
Thereby the Scaligerian dating of the 'Almagest' catalogue
as of the II century appears to be a serious error [3v2].
Chapter 5.
THE EPOCH OF THE XV CENTURY
1. THE GOLDEN AGE OF THE EMPIRE.
In the XV century the expansion of the 'Mongol' Empire
and the development of new lands started by RussiaHorde in the XIV century were continued on a new level.
In the Bible it is described as the beginning of the
conquest of the Promised Land by the Prophet Moses'
army. His troops came out of Russia-Horde, i.e. the
Biblical 'Egypt'. In the Ostrog Bible, for instance, there are
many 'Northern traces' (frost, snow, ice) in the
description of Moses' journey. In the later edition of the
Bible the 'Northern traces' were erased more thoroughly.
The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt is the beginning of
the second wave of the Russian-Horde world conquest. In
this instance the Bible replaced the name of Russia-Horde
of the XIV-XVI cc. with the name 'Egypt'. Incidentally the
word ISRAELITE can be translated as a FIGHTER FOR
GOD, and JUDEAN is ONE WHO PRAISES GOD [544].
These are not the names of the people as we believe
today, but positive epithets. The ISRAELITESFIGHTERS
FOR GOD essentially means the same as CRUSADERS
'cross baring warriors', warriors for God.

In the XV century the troops of Russia-Horde = Israel and

its allies The Ottoman Empire = Judaea cross the
Atlantic ocean in large ships, appear in America and
reclaim large swathes of the continent. This epic
expedition is reflected in the chronicles as the discovery of
the America, the famous voyage of Columbus, the great
exodus of the Israelites from Spain at the end of the XV
century, and in the pages of the Bible as the patriarch
Noah's voyage across the 'great waters'.
The other Russian-Horde troops arrived to North America
from Siberia and Far East via Alaska, crossing the Bering
Strait. As a result, on the continent of America in the XIVXVI cc. there emerges the Hordian civilizations of Maya,
Aztecs and Inca. Mistakenly dated today as deep
antiquity. In the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. the famous
American cities, temples and pyramids are being erected.
2. THE RISE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. THE
OTTOMANS, I.E. COSSACK ATAMANS.
(or HETMANS military rank in Cossack regiment).
The Ottoman Empire is sometimes called the Ottoman
Empire, however we stick with its old name The Ataman
Empire. In the Russian documents of the XV-XVI cc. the
first sultan the empire was named after - was called
OTOMAN or ATAMAN. The historian of the XVII century
Andrey Lyzlov, the author of the 'History of the Scythians',
when talking about the Ottoman Empire in detail, uses the
term ATAMAN or OTOMAN. He writes 'ATAMAN FOREBEAR - FATHER OF THE TURKIC SULTANS'
[497], p.283. Ataman is a widely known name for the

Cossack chiefs. As it says in the mediaeval 'Notes of

janissary', the Turkic sultan was called a 'son of hetmans'
[424], p.115. Thus it is directly pointed out that the name
of the forebear of the Turkic sultans Ataman (Ottoman)
meant nothing else but Hetman, i.e. the Cossack Ataman.
The words Hetman and Ataman just slightly differ in the
pronunciation.
3. THE UNION OF THE TWO STATES: RUSSIA-HORDE
AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE=ATAMANIA.
THE BIBLICAL CONQUEST OF THE PROMISED LAND
IS THE HORDE-ATAMAN CONQUEST OF THE XV
CENTURY
Approximately a hundred years into the Russian-Horde
Empire's existence, its rulers fell victim to the
unprecedented consequences of their own excellent and
far reaching communications routes. As a result of the fast
development of the road networks spanning the vast
territories, the epidemics which from time to time broke out
in the south of the Empire would now easily spread over
the entire Eurasia. The deadly diseases plague, cholera
and others became an inevitable price for the unification
under the sole rule of Europe, Asia and Africa. But the
wider the area ravaged by the disease, the more rampant
and rife it became. It was necessary to seek a solution.
It was found by way of the introduction of administrative
borders between the North and South regions of the
Empire. As a result, besides Veliky Novgorod in RussiaHorde there emerges a second centre Czar-Grad on the
Bosphorus. The ancient city has again become a capital,

this time of the southern regions of the Empire. So the

authorities made an emergency resolution about the
compulsory decontamination of those provinces where
infection was raging. Many territories of Western and
Southern Europe turn out to be as such. These were the
regions where the Horde army = Cossacks headed for
with the merciless order to annihilate the infected
population. And then to repopulate the lands. This is the
famous Ataman (Ottoman) conquest of the XV century,
Fig.45. See [6v1], ch.4-5.
Thus in the XV century Russia-Horde = Israel was
compelled 'for the second time' to send their army to the
South and to the West. They were conquering the
territories which had already been conquered before.
Where, since the beginning of the XIV century, the Horde's
rulers-governors already had their armed forces. They of
course didn't want to be annihilated. However, the
cleansing was carried out rather meticulously. The new
governors were placed in the territories of Europe and
Asia conquered for the second time. In Russian history the
mark of these events remained as an extensive
distribution of the 'Novorod's territories' to the boyars,
boyars' children, noblemen and the best serfs. [6v1],
ch.5:10.
So, in the place of Ancient Romea in the year 1453
emerged the Empire allied to Russia-Horde The
Ottoman Empire=Atamania = Judaea, Fig.46. These
events were described in the Biblical Books: Exodus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, The Book of Joshua. The
Israelites' march under the leadership of Moses and
Joshua Ben Nun is Russia-Horde's and The Ottoman

Empire=Atamania's invasion of Europe and Eurasia in

general. The cleansing of many territories is described as
the annihilation of the local population by the Israelite
army during the conquest of the Promised Land. The
Israelites (the fighters for God) of the epoch of the Old
Testament are the huge armies of Russia-Horde and The
Ottoman Empire-Atamania. The Judaeans (the ones who
praise God) are the priests and the chroniclers amongst
the troops, a social strata of people, who, so to say,
looked after the ideological sphere. Czar-Grad, the city
where Andronicus-Christ was crucified, became the centre
of Judaea.
'Ancient Hellas' is also the reflection of the Great Empire.
The name of Hellas itself is a version of the word HORDE,
as letters L and R often interchanged: Horde or Olda --->
Hellas.
4. WESTERN EUROPE UNDER THE RULE OF RUSSIAHORDE AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE-=ATAMANIA.
In the XV century Western Europe continues to be a part
of the Empire. Europe is divided between Veliky Novgorod
and Constantinople. The Imperial taxes are being
collected all over Europe, Africa and Eurasia. Recent
historians called it 'sultan's tax'. In every province there
was a Hordian governor-king or governor-duke. They all
were the subjects of the metropoly of the 'Mongol' Empire,
possibly to varying degrees. I.e. subjects of the Emperor.
Thus the Western European would call the great czarkhan of Russia-Horde, seated in the distant Veliky
Novgorod. There was one Empire, and there was one

Emperor. We will repeat, that the name Novgorod was

perceived by the Europeans as HAB-S-BURG. I.e. the
Habsburgs before Karl V were the Hordian czars of Veliky
Novgorod as viewed by the Europeans. They were paid
taxes to by the conquered countries. And the
Novgorodians split them with the Ataman (Ottoman)
sultan. I.e. the taxes collected from the Western Europe,
Northern Africa, Asia and America were distributed
between the two capitals. It is possible that from the
Southern Europe and Northern Africa taxes went mainly to
Constantinople.
5. THE BEGINNING OF THE RELIGIOUS SCHISM.
In the XV-XVI cc. there was a visible religious schism in
the formerly unified Christianity which split into several
large branches: Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Catholicism,
Buddhism and Judaism. But these names they would
acquire later, only in the XVII-XVIII cc.
All the main religions known today originated from the
same root from the Royal (and later from the Apostolic)
Christianity of the XII-XIII cc. This explains the conclusions
made by the school of scientists of the XIX century,
working in the field of the Comparative Religion. Having
processed a vast amount of material they discovered a lot
in common between the aforementioned religions. But
being constrained by the incorrect chronology, they
decided, that the Christianity had absorbed in itself
allegedly earlier cults. This is incorrect. On the contrary,
the unified Christianity of the XII-XV cc. branched out into
several religions. Each of them inherited a considerable

part of the former cult, having modified it. The previously

universal symbolism was also divided. A broad cross
began to be used by the Orthodox Church; a narrow cross
by the Catholic Church; a six-pointed star also another
form of the cross by Judaism; a crescent with a star
also another form of the cross by Islam. So in the XVXVI cc. the following branches-religions began to
differentiate.
1) THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY, probably the closest
to the original religion of the XII-XIV cc., spiritually chaste
and austere. Ancient Russia becomes the centre of the
Orthodox Christianity. The Orthodox Christianity prevails
in the Balkans and in the East. In the past it was called
Capholic or Catholic. Thus the term 'Catholic' changed its
meaning in the XVI-XVII cc. From the term meaning one
whole Christianity it has narrowed to meaning only the
Western-European Catholicism, separated only in the XVIXVII cc.
2) ISLAM OR THE MUSLIM FAITH in the East, originally
very close to Christianity. Also a very strict and ascetic
religion.
3) CATHOLICISM predominantly in the West. It moved
away from the original reserved religion. In the XV-XVI cc.
Catholicism existed in the form of the 'ancient' Greek and
Roman pantheon of the gods with bacchanalian and
orgiastic elements. As a consequence of such practices
spreading, diseases occurred in some of the countries of

Western Europe, which were called venereal diseases

after Venus the goddess of love [544], v.5, [2v1], ch.1:3.
To eliminate such undesirable social consequences a
reform of the Western-European religion was required. In
some countries the vicarious rulers of the Great Empire
introduced the Inquisition [5v1], ch.12:9.4. After the church
reforms and successful machinations of the inquisition, the
Catholic branch of Christianity acquired the modern form
familiar to us today, also very reserved. [5v1], ch.12:10.
4) Another variant of Christianity is Buddhism in the East.
India, China, etc.
5) JUDASIM both in the West and in the East (the
Karaims). Originally it was a form of the Royal Christianity.
Over time Judaism underwent a profound evolution.
6) The rest religions that were not so widespread. They
'split off' from the ones mentioned above only in the XVII
century, Fig.47.
The Gospels were written at the end of the XII the
beginning of the XIII cc. However in the XIV-XV cc. they
were substantially edited. The rest of the Books of the
Bible, of both the New and the Old Testaments, were
written not earlier than the early XIII century. The editions
of the Gospels and the Books of Psalms that exist today
date back to the XIV century. The rest of the books of the
Old Testament were edited in some instances up to and
including the XVII century [6v].

6. THE EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE = THE

RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE XV CENTURY.
&& VASILY I.
Vasily I Dmitriyevich 1389-1425 according to [362], [36],
[145]. In the Western chronicles he is reflected as
'Wenceslaus' Habsburg 1378-1400 according to [76]. The
name WENCESLAUS could have meant CROWNING
GLORY (VENETS SLAVY in Russian) or GLORIOUS
CROWN (WREATH), or it could have originated from the
Slavs the WENDS, i.e. WENS THE GLORIOUS (WENDY
SLAVNYIE in Russian). Hence it is probably the name of
the city VENICE.
Under Vassily I the Great Schism erupts in the Universal
Church, accompanied by the internecine wars. During the
Church Schism in 1415 the Khan supported the
Christianity in Russia. From this point onward under
Vassily I and under his son Vassily II Vasiliyevich Tyomniy
(the Dark or Blind) Christianity becomes more
consolidated in Russia. The Famous chronicle Baptism of
Russia by Vladimir the Holy (Vladimir the Great) is dated
to this epoch. Vassily I is canonized under the name of the
Holy Grand Prince Vladimir, baptized Vassily (on the 15
July according to the Julian Calendar).
He is also known in history under the names of: a)
Vladimir the Holy (Vladimir Svyatoslavovich) erroneously
dated to the X century; b) Vytautas the Grand Duke of
Lithuania.

There is a dynastic duplication in Russian history, the shift

of approximately 410 years in dates. The early history of
Russia is a phantom reflection of its actual history from
1350 to 1600.
&& YURI DMITRIEVICH
He ruled in 1425-1434 according to [362], or 1425-1435
according to [36]. In the Western chronicles he is reflected
under the name of 'Robert' Habsburg Palatine or 'Ruprecht
of Palatine' 1400-1410 according to [76]. The name
'PALATINE' possibly originates from the Slavic word
PALATY meaning Royal Chambers, a palace.
Yuri Dmitrievich, co-ruler and the rival of Vassily II
Vassilievich the Dark in the battle for the throne of the
Empire. He is known in history also under the names of: a)
Svyatopolk, the murderer of Boris and Gleb, erroneously
dated to the XI century; b) Sigismund of Lithuania.
Yuri Dmitrievich is constantly fighting his successor
Vassily II. This leads to the revolt connected to the
succession to the throne act [361], v.5, ch.3, columns 150154. The confrontation results in Yuri's sudden death,
whilst being the Grand Prince and occupying the throne at
the time [362], v.5, column 154.
&& VASSILY THE CROSS-EYED.
Ruled in 1434, notably only for one month [362], v.5,
column 154; [832], part 3, v.5, p.240. The Western
European chroniclers called him the following: Jobst or
Jodocus Habsburg or Jodokus, Margrave of Moravia (or

Jobst von Mhren) and dated his rule to the year 1410
[940], list 340, reverse side. After his enthronement he
was almost immediately dethroned. Deposition was
peaceful, without any war.
&& VASSILY II.
Vassily II Vasilievich Tyomny 'The Dark' (or Blind) 14251462 (?) according to [36], [362]. According to [145] and
[362] ruled from 1450 until 1462. In the Western chronicles
reflected as 'Sigismund Habsburg' 1410-1438 according to
[76].
The rule of Vassily II is the time of revolts and civil discord.
Antagonisms between the various branches of the
formerly united church increase, which leads to the
internecine religious wars. The attempts to unite the
churches at the Council of Florence in Italy in 1438 fail.
The Russian Church and the Grand Prince Vassily
Vassilievich do not recognize the union. The relations
between Veliky Novgorod (Russia) and Constantinople
break down. A dreadful plague epidemic breaks out and
rages for a long time in the Empire. Its origin the
Southern regions of the Empire. Along the created
caravan tracks the disease spreads over vast territories of
Eurasia, engulfing the entire Empire.
In Russia they are preparing for the second conquest of
Czar-Grad and the South Europe, which starts to break
away from the metropoly of the Empire in the religious
sense, and besides, became the epicenter of the
epidemics. The Ataman (Ottoman) conquest begins. It is

successful. In 1453 Constantinople is taken by storm and

renamed Istanbul or, to be precise, Stan-Bul, i.e. Stan
(CAMP or camping-ground in Russian- Translator's note)
of Bulgars or Stan of Babylon.
Vassily II is known in history under the name of Yaroslav
the Wise (Mudry), erroneously dated to the XI century. In
the Bible the epoch of The Ottoman Conquest is described
as the continuation of the conquest of the Promised Land,
but now under the leadership of Joshua Ben Nun.
&& DMITRY SHEMYAKA
Dmitry Shemyaka 1446-1450 according to [362], [36].
According to [145] ruled in 1445-1450. In the Western
chronicles he is reflected as 'Albert of Austria' 1438-1440
according to [76]. He was as the rival of Vassily II in their
battle for the throne of the Empire. Temporarily prevailed
and occupied the throne in 1446-150.
On the subject of the title AUSTRIAN see [5v2], ch.9. This
is what THE EASTERN KINGDOM was called, i.e.
OST+RICKS or OST+REICH = the Eastern state. The
name ALBERT may have originated from ALBA = WHITE.
In this case Albert of Austria is simply the White Eastern
Kingdom.
&& IVAN III.
Ivan III (another name Timofey) Vasilyevich the Great
'Grozny' (the Terrible) 1462-1505 according to [362].
Karamzin notes that Ivan III was called the Terrible [362],

v.6, column 215. Ivan III is a phantom reflection of Ivan IV

'The Terrible' of the XVI century with a hundred years
chronological shift [6v], ch.5. In the Western Chronicles he
was called Habsburg (i.e. Novgorodian) 'Frederick III'
1440-1493 according to [76]. In the Bible Ivan 'the Terrible'
reflected as king Nebuchadnezzar.
He came to power as a result of an inter-dynastic battle. In
the battle, the Great 'Stand' on Ugra river, he defeated the
preceding Grand Prince = khan and occupied the throne of
Veliky Novgorod. At that point the metropoly of the Empire
is divided into two parts the Southern
Ottomania=Atamania = Judaea, and the Northern RussiaHorde = Israel. The recently conquered Czar-Grad was
turned into the second capital of the Empire. The Southern
regions of Europe, Africa and Middle East were brought
under its subjection. The Northern and Central Europe,
Siberia and Asia remained in direct subordination to Veliky
Novgorod = Yaroslavl, the throne of which is occupied by
Ivan III Vasilyevich.
Ivan III is also known in history under the names of: a)
Vsevolod Yaroslavich, erroneously dated to the XI century;
b) Casimir of Lithuania.
Ivan III, aka Fredrick III, aka Tamerlane, aka (partial)
Mehmed II the Conqueror, who conquered
Constantinople, was the Hordian czar-khan [6v]. He
conquered many lands in Southern and Western Europe
during the Ottoman conquest. The intense antipathy of the
Western chroniclers towards Mehmed II is very well

known. At a later stage, while creating a 'new history of

Europe according to Scaliger', they have multiplied on
paper one czar-king into 'several rulers'.
7. THE 'MONGOL' EMPIRE AND THE FAMOUS
CHRISTIAN KINGDOM OF PRESTER JOHN.
The legendary Kingdom of Prester John is considered to
be one of the exciting puzzles in Scaligerian history. The
core of the matter is as follows. Mediaeval Western
Europe was for some reason strongly convinced in the
existence in the East of a vast Kingdom of a certain
Christian ruler 'Prester John', THE DESCENDANTS OF
WHOM WERE ALLEGEDLY THE GREAT KHANS OF
THE 'MONGOL' EMPIRE. The legends of the mysterious
Kingdom were spread allegedly since the XII century and
particularly blossomed in Europe of the XIII-XV cc. [5v1],
ch.8.
The modern historians consider this information to be a
fabulous myth of the deluded Europeans. Purporting that
there was never such a Kingdom of Prester John.
However, this Kingdom is a historical reality: none other
but the Russian-Horde Empire. Prester John, i.e. IVAN is
IVAN Danilovich Kalita, aka Khan Batuy.
The 'Tatar and Mongol invasion' began with the unification
of Russia under the power of the Novgorodian = Yaroslav
dynasty of Georgiy (Russian George) the Victorious
(Pobedonosets) Genghis Khan followed by his brother
Yaroslav = Khan Batuy = Ivan Kalita-Khalif [4v]. As a

result of the chronological shift Ivan Kalita moved down a

couple of centuries and turned into allegedly mysterious
Prester John. That is why, mixing up the brothersHordians, the English chronicles called Genghis Khan
PRESTER JOHN [517], p.185; [4v2], ch.6:16.
Why were the historians perplexed by this 'myth'? The
reason is that the Mediaeval Europeans as it happens
considered the Kingdom of Prester John to be
CHRISTIAN. But today it is generally thought that the
'mongols' were Muslim. That is why it is claimed: the
'Mongol' KHANS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN the
descendants of the Christians. In fact, Ivan Danilovicj
Kalita-Khalif, of course, was a Christian. As the whole of
Russia was Christian in his time.
The Mediaeval legends about the Kingdom of Prester
John emphasize its fantastical wealth and undisputed
political superiority over the Western rulers [5v1], ch.8.
8. THE GREAT TRANSMIGRATION OF PEOPLES.
INDIA.
In the Scandinavian chronicles' narration, for example,
about colonization and conquest of Europe by the
descendants of the 'Mongols', Goths, Turks and Tatars, is
reflected the colonization of then sparsely populated
Europe during the great invasion of the XIV century [5v]. It
was also called the SCYTHIAN invasion. The
Scandinavian geographic tractates and the Bible talk
about it as populating of the world by the descendants of
JAPHETH.

This colonization was not completely forgotten by Western

Europeans of the XVII-XVIII cc. In the process of the
artificial shift downwards approximately by a thousand
years due to an error in the date of Nativity of Jesus
Christ, it moved to the 'early Middle Ages'. And is reflected
there in the form of the Gothic Hunnic Slavic conquest
of Europe allegedly of the V-VI cc. well-known in the
Scaligerian history. Later it was declared 'savage, barbaric
invasion'. Altogether evil.
The colonization of the undeveloped territories of Eurasia,
allegedly of the V-VI cc. was called the 'GREAT migration
of peoples'. When reading the word 'great' in Greek we
find 'megalion', i.e. the MONGOL migration. It is all
correct. What is meant here is the invasion of Eurasia in
the XIV century.
As the Mediaeval sources say [5v2], ch.9, in INDIA, i.e. in
the DISTANT country lived Gog and Magog. We have
already talked about where they lived in reality, The Goths
and the Mongols, i.e. Cossacks, and the Russians and the
Tatars in general lived in the metropoly of the Great
Empire. So, once again it turns out that Mediaeval INDIA
is Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc.
Generally INDIA is an old Russian word. It originated from
a now forgotten dialect INDE, meaning 'in another place',
'from the other side', 'in some places, 'somewhere' [786],
p.235. That is why INDIA is simply a FAR OFF
COUNTRY, OVERSEAS. Then a Russian word INDE
transgressed into Latin which was created in the XV-XVI

cc. without even changing its form. In the Latin dictionary

you will find: INDE therefrom, from that place'.
So, the Western Europeans in their late 'learned language'
Latin would call THE FAR OFF COUNTRIES - INDIA. That
is why when the chronicler writes 'about India' you ought
not think that he necessarily means modern India. In the
XVII century the name 'India' was taken from RussiaHorde and kept only a small part of it previously belonging
to the former Great Empire.
9. THE BACCHANALIAN CULT IN THE MEDIAEVAL
WESTERN EUROPE
'Classical Antiquity', the Dionysian bacchanalian cult was
widespread in Western Europe not in 'deep antiquity', but
in the XIII-XVI cc. It was one of the forms of the Royal
Christianity. Ceremonial prostitution was an integral part of
Western Christian liturgy. Another example is the cult of
love in some Indian temples on the Hindustan peninsula.
The necessity to restrain the orgiastic cult inspired the
establishment of the Imperial Inquisition and the
enactment of rigorous reforms both in the church and
social life of Europe in the XV-XVI cc. In the Eastern
Orthodox Church and, in particular, in Russia,
bacchanalian practices have never proliferated. That is
why there was no Inquisition in the Orthodox Church. It
was due to the pressure of the negative implications of the
bacchanalian religious ceremonies that the Western
Church was compelled to ban the Dionysian orgies and to

change over to a more moderate form of the cult [1v],

[2v1], ch.1.
The famous descriptions of the 'diabolical Sabbaths' in
Western Europe tell us about the same Christian 'agape'Bacchanalias, but already declared by the reformers of the
Western Church to be the 'work of the devil'. One of the
main characteristics of the agape-Sabbaths, as the
Scaligerian history tells us, were the orgiastic Bacchanalia.
Naturally, the new Western 'Renovated Church' put the
onus for the agape-Bacchanalia on the 'devil' in order to
smother any recollections among the congregation of their
quite recent bacchic-Christian past. It was ruthlessly cut
off and accredited to a 'different religion'. And under a term
'classical antiquity' banished it to the deep past.
A XIX century scientist Champfleury wrote: 'Time after
time when I explored the old cathedrals in an attempt to
uncover the mysterious truth behind their beguiling
indecent ornamentation, all of my explanations seemed to
me to be a commentary on a book written in some
language which was entirely foreign to me What is one
to think, for example, of a strange sculpture placed in a
shadow of a column of a subterranean hall in a Mediaeval
Cathedral in Bourges?' Quoted according to [544], v.5,
p.661. The human buttocks in an indecent pose and
analogous imagery are being depicted [2v1], ch.1.
All such imagery and sculptures are not the mockery of
the church, but have the same purely invitational meaning
as an image of the jugs of beer spewing froth above the
doors of the German beerhouses. Of course, all of this

meant something only prior to the unfolding repressions of

the new evangelical church and Imperial Inquisition of the
XV-XVI cc. against the Western Christian Bacchanalian
cult.
In a close connection with the Christian pornographic
imagery are also the analogous 'ancient' monuments, for
example, in 'ancient' Pompeii. However, falsely perceived
'coyness' prevents the scientific community from studying
these most interesting materials.
V.Klassovsky tells us about the excavations in Pompeii:
'Those of the paintings which represent some acutely
erotic and indecorous scenes so loved by the ancients,
are kept locked in the house of the loose women
SOMEONE DURING THE NIGHT SCRAPED OFF THE
INDECOROUS FRESCOES WITH A KNIFE Lately all
the Pompeii paintings and sculptures which are not
compatible with the modern notions of decency, are being
kept in the SECRET DEPARTMENT of the Bourbon
museum, where only those, who present a special permit
from the top authorities, are allowed access. To obtain
such a permit in a lawful manner is not easy'[389], p.7576.
In Pompeii some houses were discovered where above
the entrances stone phalluses were attached. The
connection between a phallus and the Christian cult can
be seen not only in the Western-European temples. 'In
Hierapolis there were carved out of granite phalluses of an
enormous size, 180 feet high and higher; they were placed
in the threshold of a temple [389], p.122. V. Klassovsky

naively thought that these enormous phalluses served as

a 'moral instruction' to 'those who were praying' (?) [389],
p.122. But most likely it was a conventional symbol, like a
signboard. Like the analogous stone phallic depictions of
Indian Shiva Lingam murti [2v1].
Let us go back to the eruption of Vesuvius which
destroyed Pompeii, Stabiae and Herculaneum. Their
destruction in the XVI or even in the XVII century (year
1631) reflected in the Old Testament as the downfall of
Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Bible this is described as the
punishment of the inhabitants of those cities for their
lecherous sexual behavior. So what do we see in the
excavated Pompeii? Take a walk down the streets of
Pompeii. You will see brothels, many indecent frescos with
graphic scenes of sexual nature. In this part of the city in
the XV-XVI cc. there were organized mass orgies. The
authors of the Old Testament, more chaste Christians,
were outraged by this debauchery, which reflected in their
account of the ruin of Sodom (Stabiae) and Gomorrah
(Herculaneum).
Today it is considered that practically all the Mediaeval
Roman Christian churches are built allegedly 'on top of the
ruins of the pagan temples' [2v], ch.1. Where these
'preceding ancient monuments' were for some reason
approximately of the same purpose and even having the
same name as the Christian temples [196]. For example,
St. Dionysius Church was built allegedly in place of the
'ancient pagan temple of Dionysus, etc. The picture is
clear. Having declared its recent bacchanalian past

'unsound', - under the pressure of some or other external

factors, - the Eastern Christian Church having
transgressed to the reformist phase of the XV-XVI cc.
simply RENAMED its pagan-bacchanal temples and
announced the former Christian-Bacchanal gods to be the
new Evangelical Saints. Sometimes even preserving their
names. And the congregation got used to them.
10. THE INQUISITION IN THE PAGES OF THE BIBLE.
The Old Testament speaks a lot about the abominations
and vile customs of the local inhabitants of the land of
Canaan, whom the Israelites = fighters for God
annihilated. It is interesting to see what exactly those
'abominations' were. Their description corresponds
surprisingly well
with a list of crimes which were subjected to persecution
by the Inquisition. The 'new inquisition' was introduced at
the end of the XV century in some isolated countries in the
West, and by 1542 it embraced all of Western Europe
[5v1], ch.12. All of the Bible's testimonies about the
Inquisition wonderfully correspond with our reconstruction,
since the end of the XV the beginning of the XVI cc. is
precisely the epoch of the greatest sweep of the second
Ottoman conquest of Europe. The previous wave of the
Inquisition, usually dated the XIII century, is most likely
just a phantom reflection of the XV-XVI cc. Inquisition
[5v1], ch.12:10.
So, the specifications of the XV-XVI cc. Inquisition are

sufficiently reflected in the Pentateuch, which narrates

mainly about the events of this exact epoch.
11. THE ASTONISHING SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS IN
POMPEII.
Fig. 48 and fig.49 show the incredible 'ancient' surgical
instruments of allegedly I century, discovered during the
excavation in Pompeii. The quality and the high
technological level are astounding. In fig.48, on the top
dental extracting forceps and foreign body probe. Below speculum ani, speculum uteris used by the gynecologists.
Take notice of the METALIC SHAFT WITH THE MOST
PRECISE THREAD! See fig.49. We can see screws
inserted in the apertures, and rivets. But for that one
needed to know how to drill metal. It means that the metal
drills were already popular. So in front of us we see the
manufactured articles of not earlier than the XVI century
[NOR], ch.6.
The historians write, that when these most 'ancient'
objects were found, 'it was the XVIII century, and this set
of tools, VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE USED UNTIL NOW
(FOR EXAMPLE, THE GYNICOLOGICAL SPECULUM)
CREATED A GREAT IMPRESSION, it showed the high
development level of the ancient surgery' [674:1], p.218.
And further: 'This speculum uteris, used by the
gynecologists, shows the highest level of the development
of medicine already reached at that time' [674:1], p.149.
12. THE 'ANTIQUE' STATUES WITH THE RIPPLING

MUSCLES WERE CREATED NOT EARLIER THAN THE

XVI CENTURY.
Let us turn our attention towards the excellent knowledge
of the position of human muscles by many 'ancient'
sculptors. But such knowledge the sculptors and painters
acquired only when the medics began to dig out dead
bodies, dissect them and study the anatomy. Even
according to the Scaligerian history this didn't start earlier
than the XV-XVI cc. From the history of the anatomy it is
known that the first realistic and detailed description of
human body appeared only in 1534. It was a book by the
surgeon Andreas Vesalius [NOR], ch.6. The earlier
authors had a good knowledge of human skeletal frame.
But their knowledge of muscle position was poor. That is
why in the really old images of the XII-XV cc. the people's
bodies were depicted with smooth skin without
representation of the muscles.
The grave-robbers were always subjected to persecution
by both the authorities and ordinary people, who tried to
protect the graves of their relatives. The church strongly
opposed the grave-robbing. The first grave-robbers often
died as they didn't yet know about the ptomaine (postmortem poison). The grave-robbing on a large scale
became possible only in the epoch of the Revolt in the late
XVI early XVII cc (they were looking for treasure). And
only later, having studied the anatomy and having
understood their disposition under the skin, the painters
and the sculptors began to depict the human body in a

realistic way. But it probably occurred not earlier than in

the end of the XVI century.
Now let us turn to the excavations in Pompeii. It turns out
that there were discovered some sculptures and wall
frescos with wonderful depictions of the human body
muscles, fig.50. Such lavish statues, drawings, frescos
and paintings could not have appeared earlier than the
XVI century. And most likely, they occurred in the XVII
century, during the 'grave-robbing epoch'. Consequently,
'ancient' Pompeii was submerged by the volcanic eruption
as late as in the XVI or even XVII cc. [NOR], ch.6.
At the same time on some of the frescos in Pompeii
human bodies were depicted without representation of the
muscles. Such images could have appeared earlier in the
epoch of the XVI-XVII cc., when the anatomical knowledge
has not yet been developed. However, the 'smooth bodied'
images may date to the XVI-XVII cc., as far from all the
Pompeii sculptors had mastered the art of muscular
representation which was new for the XVI-XVII cc.
Progressive artists began to paint in a new way, but a
number of painters still adhered to the old methods,
disregarding anatomy.
13. MOSES BEGINS THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST IN
THE XV CENTURY.
'PASSAGE OVER THE SEA' IS THE PASSAGE OVER
THE RIVER ICE.
As it has already been said, in the XIV-XV cc. due to the
expansion of the Empire it was necessary to create

extended roads covering a significant part of Eurasia.

Infectious diseases began to spread along the roads on a
bigger scale than before. If earlier, in the pre-imperial
epoch, the epidemics having broken out in one place
would die away there, then now the disease could
speedily spread over the vast territories. As a result there
mass epidemics were breaking out in the Empire.
In face of an absence of medical advances at that time,
the Horde authorities were unable to find a medical
solution to combat the epidemics. Immunizations and
vaccinations in use today were yet to be discovered. In
order to stop the catastrophic spreading of the diseases,
the 'Mongol' khans sent the army to the South and to the
West with an absolute order to exterminate, without
exception, the population of the infected regions, to
conduct 'cleansing' among the descendants of the first
wave of the conquerors, i.e. in essence, their own
brothers. In the Bible this major military operation of the
XV century was described as the conquest of the
'Promised Land' by Moses, and later by Joshua Ben Nun.
Aka Suleiman the Magnificent, a sultan of the XVI century,
aka 'ancient' Alexander the Great. It was the 'second
wave' of the great conquest of the world. See the Books of
the Old Testament Exodus, Joshua, Leviticus.
The Biblical Egypt of the Exodus epoch is Russia-Horde of
the XV century. The Biblical 'plague of Egypt' is the
reflection of the infamous period of the epidemics and
natural disasters in Russia of the first half of the XV
century. The Bible effectively contains the dating of the

Exodus of Moses - circa the year 1430 [6v1], ch.4.

Immediately before the Exodus, the plague of Egypt
descends onto the Biblical Egypt = Russia-Horde. The
Russian descriptions correspond incredibly well with the
analogous stories from the Old Testament.
A new reading of the Bible clarifies a lot of things. Here,
for example, is the famous scene of Moses crossing over
with the Israelites the 'waters of the Black Sea which
moved apart', where the pharaoh's army which was
following them sank when the waves surged. The referral
to the famous Ostrog Bible, for example, allows us to
reconstruct the truth [6v1], ch.4.
The Ostrog Bible unequivocally describes the crossing
over the ICE-GLAZED RIVER! It is said very clearly that
the WAVES THICKENED, that LIQUID FROZE, TURNED
INTO A WALL, that the fighters for God (the Israelites)
WALKED ACROSS THE SEA AS IF ON DRY GROUND,
IN THE MIDST OF THE SEA ON DRY GROUND. Notably
walked ACROSS THE SEA, and not ON THE SEAFLOOR. The later editors, either not understanding or
purposefully eliminating the descriptions of the icy waters,
taught us a fantastical idea that purportedly the waters
parted and the fighters for God passed between them like
between two walls. Today you can see it in films. We have
a choice. We can either consider this picture a fairy tale, or
to see a true event in it the crossing of the army across
the frozen river. The ice is 'the waters being a wall to them'
because of cold. Then the element of a miracle reflected in
the Bible can be easily explained. The army crossed the

river over the already thin spring ice probably at night,

when the ice became slightly thicker. In the morning there
could have been an ice drift, turning into an obstruction in
the way of the pursuers. They could have stepped out
onto the thinning ice and fallen through into the water:
'FELL FULL FATHOMS UNDER' and perished. Such luck
the fugitives perceived as a miraculous deliverance. Ice
drifting begins abruptly, sometimes unexpectedly. At such
a moment, without modern bridges equipped with ice
breakers, any contact between the two river banks would
be completely lost. It is impossible to cross a major river
by boats during an ice drift. If it was, a large river like
Volga, for example.
It emerged, that the synodic 'translators' of the Bible edited
the ancient text, thoroughly eradicating all the 'traces of
the North', snow, ice and frost [6v1], ch.4.
So, Moses 'crossing the sea as on dry ground' is the
crossing over of a large river frozen over with ice.
This event produced such a deep impression on the
contemporaries, that it was described once more in the
Old Testament's Book of Joshua. This time it was
presented as the Israelites' army miraculously crossing the
river Jordan 'as on dry land'. The narration in this instance
is much more detailed as its duplicate in the Book of
Exodus, i.e. the story of Moses [PRRK], ch.2.
It emerged that the 'ancient' conquest by Alexander the
Great is the reflection of the Ottoman Conquest of the XV
century. There appeared a partial overlapping of

Alexander over Biblical Joshua Ben Nun. And, as a matter

of fact, Joshua Ben Nun is a direct successor of Moses in
the conquest of the Promised Land. This is the same
epoch. That is why such a dramatic event as the warriors
crossing water over the thin ice, was reflected not only in
the Book of Exodus, but also in Alexander's 'ancient'
biography. Both texts basically narrate the same thing
[6v1], ch.4.
In the Bible and in 'Alexandria' (life story of Alexander the
Great) the army crossing over ice is intertwined with some
battle, either close to a river, or directly on the river ice.
The reason, why a number of the pursuers drowned when
the ice cracked. There is some indirect evidence that the
events took place exactly on the Volga river = Ra (the old
name for the Volga river Translator's note).
So in the Scaligerian history there are at least two famous
episodes, when the victory in some battle was won not
without the help of the BREAKING ICE. But that's not all.
Anyone familiar with the Russian history will immediately
remember another story the famous BATTLE ON THE
ICE (or THE BATTLE OF THE LAKE PEIPUS), allegedly
in 1241, when the Russian Prince ALEXANDER NEVSKY
defeated the Livonians (Germans) on the ice of the
Chudskoye ozero (the lake Peipus). The Russian sources
give various locations of where the battle took place.
Some of them point out Chudskoye ozero, i.e. Pskov
region. The other - lake Ladoga (Ladozhskoye ozero)
[145], p.165. These two lakes are situated far from each
other approximately 200 kilometers. Thus even the

location of the battle raises some questions. During the

battle many Livonians drowned in the lake. Possibly as a
result of the cracked ice.
Most likely all three of the mentioned above battles are the
reflections of the real event in Russia of the XV century.
The narration of the 'ancient' Titus Livy about death of the
king Alexander II of Epirus also reflected the famous Battle
on the Ice, however in a rather distorted way.
Altogether in the 'History' by T.Livy there emerged three
phantom reflections of Battle on the Ice i.e. Alexander
Nevsky's Battle = Moses = Alexander the Great which took
place in Russia-Horde, fig.51. More specifically: 1) The
Battle of Histria of allegedly 178-174 BC 2) The
destruction of the Basternei army on a river due to the
cracked ice, allegedly in 175 BC. 3) Death of the king
Alexander II of Epirus on a river, allegedly in 326 BC.
We have collected in Fig.52 the main parallels discovered
by us between the 'History' by Livy and the history of
Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVI cc. There were many of such
matches. Respectively, Titus Livy was a chronicler of the
'Mongol' Empire = Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVI cc.
[TsRIM], ch.8.
14. THE OTTOMAN CONQUEST AND AUSTERE
ANICONISM
(In religion, opposition to the use of icons or visual
images to depict living creatures or religious figures
Translator's note)

In the XV century between the Empire's two capitals,

between the Horde-Ottoman (or Ataman) authorities of
Russia-Horde and the heirs of Constantine the Great =
Dmitry Donskoy in Czar-Grad there occurred some
tension. The Russia-Hordian khans gazed with discontent
upon their Southern co-rulers, blaming them for the woes
descending upon the Empire. The Hordians and the
Ottomans (Atamans) were not very fond of the 'ancient
classic' culture, considering their 'ancient classical'
brothers to be wrapped in cotton wool, hedonistically
wallowing in pleasure. Russia regarded the descendants
of Constantine = Dmitry to be the outcasts. Divisions in
faith appeared. The relations between the Old Rome =
Russia and the New Rome = Czar-Grad tensed. But the
main thing was of course metropoly's fear of the epidemics
approaching from the South and the West.
In the middle of the XV century the army of Russia-Horde
= Israel moved on Constantinople and conquered it in
1453. In the modern textbooks this is the famous military
assault of Czar-Grad by the Atamans (Ottomans) lead by
Mehmed (or Mahomet) the Conqueror. Having captured
the capital, the Ottomanian 'wave' descended upon the
Southern and Western provinces of the Empire.
The revolt, which broke out in the Western epicenters of
epidemics, was mercilessly crushed. But a dear price had
to be paid for it. A great amount of people were
exterminated. Including the healthy ones, as in the course
of the war the Horde-warriors (Israelites) could hardly
succeed in separating the sick from the healthy. The tragic

feelings of the people who suffered this disaster, is

reflected in the Biblical book Apocalypse, the first version
of which was created in 1486, but later was supplemented
and reworked up until the XVI century, see below.
The Ottoman Conquest the 'second wave' carried an
entirely different ideology from the 'first wave'. If the
'Mongols'= the magnificent ones of the XIII-XIV cc. created
the 'antique classicism', then the 'Mongols'-Ottomans
(Atamans) of the second wave of the XV century were
destroying it. They considered that it was the liberal
behavior of the Europeans of the XIII-XIV cc. which lead to
the mass infectious diseases. Including venereal ones, as
the bacchanalian festivities emerged and flourished during
the 'antique classicism'. The Ataman (Ottoman) spirit of
Cossacks once again, for the second time, emerging from
Russia-Horde was more ascetic and austere. Eventually
the ideology of the modern Islam grew out of it. Extremely
severe and chaste.
In the XV-XVI cc. the aniconism ran across the entire
Empire. In Russia the aniconism didn't take hold, but in
The Ottoman Empire on the contrary it was highly
developed up to its modern manifestation. In the Western
Europe in many Catholic cathedrals you can see the
traces of the aniconism to the present day: there are
practically no icons there. Though there are no formal
restrictions to depict people or animals in the Catholic
Church today.

Bible mentions polygamy several times. Biblical patriarchs

had several wives at a time. Old Testament Solomon, for
example, is described as having an entire HAREM in. This
fact also brings together Biblical customs of Pentateuch
with the Muslim ones. The Muslims were allowed
polygamy, and wealthy people kept the harems. All the
sultans had the harems. The concept of polygamy has
probably originated in the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest.
Many men were marching off and the amount of men in
the metropoly was decreasing. One of the ways of
ensuring reproduction of the population was as follows
to allow a man to have several wives. Thus facilitating the
birth of more children.
15. IRON CHARIOTS, HORNETS AND THE BRAZEN
SERPENT IN THE BIBLE ARE CANNONS.
When describing the wars of the fighters for God = the
Israelites, the Bible pays particular attention to the
presence and quantity of the IRON CHARIOTS in the
army. Therein worked an interesting and simple rule:
those, who had more iron chariots would win the battle.
The question is, if the iron chariots were some ordinary
iron wagons or carts, why then would they lend such
remarkable strength to the army? As we show in [6v1],
ch.4, Biblical 'iron chariots' are the firearms, the cannons.
Furthermore, the Bible describes some 'hornets', i.e.
something FLYING IN FRONT OF THE ARMY AND
STINGING, participating in the battle and defeating the
enemy. Notably, better than a sword or a bow. It seems
like this is the description of the buck shot which was used

to fire from the cannons. The analysis of the ancient Bibles

shows, that the Old Testament describes the muskets or
the musketoons which the fighters for God = the Israelites
= the Cossacks were equipped with. 'Serpents' and
'stinging asps' (including the 'brazen serpent' made by
Moses) which are often mentioned in the Bible, are also
the firearms, muskets and cannons [6v1], ch.4.
The 'brazen serpent' of Moses is most likely a large
cannon made by the Atamans (Ottomans) to repel the
enemy, who also had the cannons=serpents at their
disposal. As referred to in [533], v.2, p.131, the Biblical
expression 'venomous snakes' meant literally 'fiery'. The
later depictions of a 'Serpent of brass' made by Moses in
the form of a high pole, with a snake wrapped around it,
are the distorted interpretation of a gun barrel, on which
sometimes the images of snakes and some other
dangerous beasts were cast. In [KAZ], ch.1 we cite some
images of the Russian cannons of the XVI-XVII cc. from
the Nesvizh Castle. In one of them there is depicted a
serpent-dragon. Hence this gave rise to images of
'venomous snakes', 'fiery aspens' and 'brazen serpent' so
colorfully described in the Bible.
So, the Bible often mentions cannons and firearms in
general. But the editors of the XVII-XVIII cc. blurred these
references, and in today's version of the Holy Scriptures
the 'firearm topic' is significantly obscured. However, some
thing or the other happily slipped the editors' attention.

fig.53, fig.54. The Israelites are painted as mediaeval

warriors in a mediaeval city. And they carry a cannon on a
carriage with them! See [6v1], ch.4.
16. THE MEDIAEVAL GEOGRAPHY IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
In the Book of Exodus there are vivid traces of Mediaeval
Western-European geographical names: KNUN Genoa,
the river PRT Pruth, the descendants of Lot - the Latini,
the stream of ARNN the river Arno, VASSAN - the city of
Bassano in Italy, RAVVA the Italian Ravenna, RAMAH
Rome, etc. The matter is that the Ottoman (Ataman)
conquest, aka the biblical conquest of the fighters for God
of the land of Canaan, rolled out all over Western Europe
too. It covered the vast territories and could not be carried
out solely by efforts of a single monolithic army. Various
military divisions set off in different directions. In the Book
of Joshua it is mentioned, as a rule, that the battles were
fought not by all of the Israelites against their enemies, but
just about several tribes-factions.
N.A.Morozov in [544], v.2, pointed out, that it is possible to
read the unvowelized text of many excerpts of the Book of
Exodus, taking into account the location of the Sinai
mountain = Horeb = Zion in Italy. The Biblical descriptions
of Sinai clearly indicate that it was an active volcano. Most
likely it was meant to be the Italian Vesuvius [1v], ch.1:11.
The Biblical geographical names have appeared in
modern Palestine quite recently, after Palestine was
incorrectly identified with the Biblical Promised Land. In
the Middle Ages there were no such names there.

17. MOSES AND JOSHUA BEN NUN.

Moses was a czar-khan of the Ottomans (Atamans). In the
Middle Ages they were often called the Saracens. This
word is probably a variant of the word CZARIST. It turns
out that there existed some Russian sources which
directly called the Biblical Moses the czar of the
SARACENS, i.e. the czar of the ATAMANS
(OTTOMANS). This astonishing fact from the point of view
of the Scaligarien history was brought across to us by the
annotations to the mediaeval indexes of the 'erroneous
books'.
Here we encounter the traces of the defunct mediaeval
tradition which communicated the Biblical story in a
dramatically different fashion to the way it is being painted
for us by modern editions of the Bible. Many old books,
which were denounced as false, were destroyed. So today
we can judge their content only by such brief sketches.
The Biblical books in the XVI-XVII were changing,
branching into various editions, while at the same time
preserving the same name. For example, Exodus. But
today only one version of it remains. Many think that THIS
WAS ALWAYS THE ONE AND ONLY VERSION. It is not
so. In the XVI-XVII cc. many biblical books were re-written,
having changed the dating and the geography. At the
same time the events in Russia-Horde were removed and
shaded over. The old authentic scrolls were destroyed.
Controversy arose around such practices. The
repercussions of these controversies are still felt by us
now. For instance: 'The heretics put together Exodus of

Moses crookedly', - writes an author of the late XVI

century [937], p.359. Meaning that: 'The Exodus of Moses
was represented incorrectly by the Heretics'. And, as we
can appreciate it now, his indignation is justified.
The following rulers are the duplicates, the reflections of
the same reality of the XV-XVI cc. One should not think
that the Russian and Ataman (Ottoman) sources are
perfectly accurate. Given that the Russian history was
heavily distorted, [4v1], ch.1. The same sort of thing was
happening in Turkey in the XVII-XIX cc. and even the XX
century. That is why the 'phantom epochs' may contain
mistakes in the dating and confusion amongst the rulers.
1) The Biblical epoch of Moses is the time of the
Ottoman Conquest in the first half of the XV century.
The character of Moses comprises: the Golden Horde
Khan of the first half of the XV century Olugh Mokhammad
(of Kazan) or Ulug Mehmed (the Great Mahomet or
Muhammad) the founder of Kazan (=Medina?); the
Ataman (Ottoman) sultan Mehmed I (1402-1421); the
Ataman (Ottoman) sultan Murad II (1421-1451); the
Ataman (Ottoman) sultan Mohamed II the
Conqueror(1451-1481).
This very epoch is the same 'ancient classical' epoch of
the wars of the Macedonian King Phillip II the Conqueror.
It is at the same time the epoch of Kham Olugh-Mehmet in
Russian History, circa 1420-1450.

2) The Biblical epoch of Joshua Ben Nun, who succeeded

Moses, is the time of the Ottoman conquest, beginning
with seizure of Czar-Grad in 1453 by Mohamed II, and
culminating in the peak of the golden age under Suleiman
the Magnificent (1520-1566). Suleiman was known as ALQANUNI [336], .5, .148-149. It means the GREAT
KHAN, as QANUNI AND KHAN only slightly differ in
pronunciation.
This epoch is also the epoch of Alexander the Great of
Macedonia who continued the conquest of Phillip II. The
figure of Alexander is multi-layered. He embodied both the
events of the XV century (Olugh-Mohamed I, Mohamed II
the Conqueror and also of the XVI century. Including
events from the life description of Andronicus-Christ of the
XII century.
In Russian history it is also the epoch of Suleiman the
Magnificent (1520-1566). And partially it is the epoch of
his contemporary Ivan IV 'Grozny' (Ivan the 'Terrible').
The following picture of the disposition of the military
columns, = 'tribes of Israel' of Joshua Ben Nun, takes
shape fig.55. Six Cossack camps were situated in
Bulgaria, and six other were scattered along the cost of
Turkey. The Bible (Numbers 2:17) says that among those
12 camps there should be one camp of the Levitical
priests, the guardians of the Tabernacle of Testimony, not
included in their number (Numbers 1:48 and further).
That's exactly what we see! Czar-Grad (Yeros) =
Jerusalem, the holy place is situated practically in the
centre. The columns located in Bulgaria defend it from the

direction of Europe, and the columns situated in Turkey

cover the Mediterranean coast of Asia Minor [6v1], ch.5.
The famous siege and conquest of Biblical Jericho by
Joshua's (Ben Nun's) army is the famous seizure of CzarGrad by Sultan Mohamed II in 1453. The entire description
of the siege of Jericho revolves around its walls.
Effectively the mighty triple belt of Constantinople's walls
was considered a miracle the art of fortification. The Bible
says that Jericho's walls were destroyed by the besiegers
in some unusual way. Purportedly, using a 'loud noise'
produced by some jubilee trumpets' (Joshua Ben Nun
6:3). It turns out the Old Testament 'jubilee trumpets' are
simply the cannons. And a 'loud sound' is simply the
cannonade'. The walls were destroyed by the heavy siege
cannons [6v1], ch.5.
The Ottoman conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua
Ben Nun is also described in the European sources as the
conquest by Apostle Jacob (Ya'aqov (Ya akov) = James
(Hebrew origin meaning Jacob Translator's note). It is
considered that the apostle St.James is buried in the
Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Spain. The
famous Way of St.James is the later version of this map
which was compiled in 1648, has survived until today as a
military map of the conquest routes by St.James = Joshua
Ben Nun in the XV-XVI cc. [6v1], ch.5.
The Ottoman conquest was rolling on from the East to the
West. Joshua Ben Nun's army marched out from RussiaHorde and The Ottoman Empire-Ottomania (Atamania).
That is why on the map of 1648 there are no 'ways of

pilgrimage' marked on the Eastern territories. The Horde

military field maps were intended for the conquest of
exactly Western Europe, Africa and generally the
territories to the West and to the South of Russia-Horde.
The randomness of the routes also becomes clear. The
'Mongol' troops moved according to the requirements of
the colonization-war. But the general direction was to the
West, in particular, towards Spain.
The conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua Ben Nun
was not only the dispersal of the Christian faith, but also
the military invasion. They were trying to convince not just
by the word but also by the sword. And in the case of
resistance by the massive howitzer weapon, mortarguns and cavalry encased in armour. In a sense the
Scaligerian interpretation of the 'ways of pilgrimage' as the
ways of 'James' conquests' is reasonable. The only thing
which has to be adjusted is the very meaning of the events
of the XV-XVI cc. itself. It concerns the Ottoman conquest
by Joshua Ben Nun = St. James (Jacob) [6v1], ch.5.
Soon the entire world was conquered. The Cossack =
Israelite army reached the Atlantic. But their progress
didn't stop there. The Horde navy soon left the ports of the
Western Europe, which set off further across the ocean to
America in order to conquer the unknown lands 'the other
side of the sea'.
18. CONQUEST OF AMERICA BY RUSSIA-HORDE
AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE-ATAMANIA IN THE XV

CENTURY. BIBLICAL PATRIARCH NOAH IS

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS.
In the XV century the second phase of the conquest
began. The military navy of Russia-Horde = Israel and The
Ottoman Empire-Ottomania(Atamania) = Judea crossed
the Atlantic and disembarked in America. This event is
known to us as the voyage of 'Christopher Columbus'. In
the Bible all of this is described as the voyage of patriarch
Noah crossing the 'mighty waters'. The other armies of
Russia-Horde entered the American continent via the
Bering Strait and colonized the Western coast of America
and the North. Then they advanced to South America. In
America the Horde and Ataman (Ottoman) colonizers
have created cultures known to us today as the Indian
civilisations of Maya, Aztec, Inca, Toltec and others (etc.)
[6v2], ch.6.
In Spanish the discoverer of America was called Cristbal
Coln [797], p.603. It is not a name in a sense
conventional today, but a nickname like Crusader Coln
(Colonizer). The historians themselves recognise that the
name Cristbal originates from the word Christ, or
Christian, or Crusader, and the word COLON meant: a
colony, a colonizer, colonization. Today we do not know
the actual name of this man. Only his nickname
Crusader Colonizer. I.e. a person under the banner of
Christ, who discovered a new continent and started its
colonization. It was as a Crusader that Columbus was
depicted on some of the old prints [6v2], ch.6.

In the Middle Ages there prevailed some legends (which

perfectly support our reconstruction) that America was
discovered and populated by the TRIBES OF ISRAEL,
who arrived there by sea. This is in the spirit of a biblical
description: a patriarch Noah crosses some vast ocean
and his descendants populate the New Land, the New
World.
19. THE BOOK OF MORMON ABOUT THE CONQUEST
OF AMERICA BY NOAH-COLUMBUS.
The Mormons is a religious movement of American origin.
Besides the conventional Bible they revere equally or
possibly to a greater extent the Book Of Mormon (The
Mormon Bible).
The Mormons claim that their Bible is the authentic ancient
document. Many don't believe that, as up until the XIX
century it was out of sight of the Biblical Studies. When
analysing the Mormon Bible [6v2], ch.6, we discovered
that the Mormons are in the right here. This text could not
have been invented in the XIX century. If it was true, then
the historical records included in the book would have
been obtained from the Scaligerian textbooks of that time.
However, VARIOUS PASSAGES FROM THE MORMON
BIBLE COMPLETELY DON'T COMPLY WITH THE
SCALIGERIAN VERSION AND CORRESPOND WELL
WITH THE NEW CHRONOLOGY.
The Book of Mormon is, most likely, one of the versions of
the Bible, but it differs greatly from the European version.
The main body of the Book of Mormon narrates of the

events which are not reflected in the conventional Bible.

The Mormon tradition claims that the Book of Mormon
describes the events in connection with the American
continent. It also tells a lot about the past of the Mormons
prior to their relocation to America. These parts resonate
with the conventional Bible. The chronology of the events
described in the Book of Mormons which are recognised
today, i.e. namely from the year 600 BC to the year 421
AD relies entirely on the Scaligerian version. That is why
it is incorrect. It turns out that this book tells us about the
actual events of the XII-XVII cc. I.e. of the epoch which is
also reflected in the conventional Bible.
The Book of Mormon describes the voyage of Nephi-Noah
and his relatives in the Ark across the great waters, known
to us from the European Book of Genesis. On the other
hand the commentators of the Book of Mormon insist,
moreover, in a plain language! - that this is a 'prophesy' of
the 'foreseen' DISCOVERY OF AMERICA. Even in the
Book of Mormon itself, in the subhead of The First Book of
Nephi, ch.13, is clearly says: THE VISION OF
DISCOVERY (AND COLONIZING) OF AMERICA'.
Indeed, it is difficult to disagree that here is the account of
the first or one among the first voyages across the
Atlantic. This was the voyage of Columbus at the end of
the XV century.
Of course, the commentators of the Book of Mormon talk
only about the PROPHECY of the discovery of America.
Contrary to the clarity of the picture, they cannot say
directly, that here is described the discovery of America in

the XV century. Bound by the erroneous chronology, they

shift the events into deep antiquity, allegedly 592-590 BC.
See One Nephi, comments to chapters 16-18. This error
has to be corrected and date it to the XV century. The shift
of the dates upwards would comprise approximately 2100
years [6v2], ch.6.
When describing the voyage of Nephi-Noah (Columbus)
the Book of Mormon refers to a compass, a globe, iron
crossbows, firearms (described in a somewhat veiled way
cannons, muskets and other objects of the XV-XVI cc.
epoch.
The Book of Mormon proclaims that the voyage of NephiNoah (Columbus) and Jared-Horde was the voyage of one
of the Twelve Tribes of the children of Israel who left the
land of Egypt or the land of Jerusalem. It is all correct. The
Twelve Tribes of Israel are the armies of the hetmans
(Cossack chieftains, attamans), who marched from
Russia-Horde in different directions to conquer the
Promised Land in the XIV-XV cc. KOLENO (BRANCH or
LINE) meant KOLONNA (military COLUMN or military
LINE), i.e. a military detachment (unit). Russia-Horde =
Israel set off for the conquest of Europe and faraway
America.
Is Columbus' voyage connected with the Exodus of the
Twelve Tribes of Israel, notably from Spain? IT IS
THOUGHT THAT THE VOYAGE OF COLUMBUS
STARTED AT THE MOMENT OF THE EXODUS OF THE
JEWS FROM SPAIN.

It is all correct. They referred not to the expulsion of Jews

from Spain, but to the next stage in the advancement of
the tribes = columns of Israel, i.e. the Russian-Horde
(Hordian) and Ottoman (Ataman) armies. One of the
Cossack detachments arrived to Spain. It paused there for
some time as they were building a fleet. Maybe, for
several years, as the Book of Mormons claims. And
moved further to the West across the ocean. Such a major
event in Spain of the XV century was interpreted by the
recent historians as allegedly the 'expulsion of Jews from
Spain'. The fact, that actually did take place, was given an
entirely different meaning, fogging and obscuring the true
meaning. The distortion was manufactured when creating
the Scaligerian history.
Thus, the 'moors' or the 'arabs' were 'driven out' from
Spain not at all by the indigenous population of the Iberian
Peninsula. The Imperial army forced the people out further
to the West. The lines-columns arrived to Spain under the
order of the khan of the 'Mongol' Empire originally for the
quarantine cleansing of the infected territories, and then,
further down the line to organise the relocation across
the Ocean. The 'moors' or the 'arabs' who lived in Spain,
were the descendants of the first great conquest of the
XIV century. The new wave of the XV century was the
second one.
Subsequently it turns out that the 'most ancient Babylonian
and Sumerian documents call the Biblical Noah by the
name of ZIUSUDRA (Zi-ud-sura or Xisuthros), i.e.

Cristopher, and effectively describe him as Cristopher

Coloumbus of the XV century [6v2], ch.6.
Presumably, in some of the regions of the 'Mongol'
Empire, for example in the Middle East and Asia, they
used to write on the clay tablets up until the XVII-XIII cc.
Maybe there was very little paper and expensive
parchment there. That is why the fragments of the Bible,
which during that epoch was only just taking shape, were
written down by the local scribes and priests onto the clay
tablets. Later, when the writing paper was delivered to
those regions, the clumsy tablets grew out of use and
were soon forgotten. They were discovered in the ground
200-300 years later by the archaeologists of the XIX-XX
cc. Brought up on the erroneous chronology, they
declared their discovery to be the 'most ancient Sumerian'
testimonies dating allegedly thousands of years BC.
Furthermore, we learnt that the 'most ancient' holy book
Popol Vuh of the American Mayan people is another
version of the Bible, which narrates about the events of
the XIV-XVI cc.
20. THE 'ANCIENT' BOOK POPOL VUH' ABOUT THE
COLONIZATION OF AMERICA IN THE XV-XVI
CENTURIES.
Popol Vuh is a holy book of the American Indians MayaK'iche. They were a powerful people inhabiting Central
America. It is thought that the Mayan civilization
blossomed in the XI century and was destroyed in the XVXVI cc. during the invasion of the Europeans the

Spanish conquistadors. But this hypothesis of the

historians is incorrect. It turns out that the epoch of
Columbus is not only reflected in Popol Vuh, but the book
itself begins with its description. Even Columbus' name is
mentioned. Relocation from the Old World to the New
World is one of the central themes of the book. All of this
was taking place in the XIV-XVI cc. [6v2], ch.6.
The historians are convinced that the 'very ancient' Popol
Vuh reflects only the local American history and 'by no
means'; could have described the Biblical and Christian
events in the Old World. As, they said, the regular
contacts with Europe started only in the late XV century.
Consequently, the historians reason, all the obvious
parallels of the 'ancient' Popol Vuh with the 'ancient' Old
Testament can be attributed to this. Purportedly, in the XVI
century some scribes of the American book inserted into it
Christian and Biblical motives, brought into America only
in the XV-XVI cc. I.e., they say, they falsified the text
[1348], p.18.
Any thought of Popol Vuh being written as a Christian
book in the XV-XVI cc. from the very beginning cannot
cross a modern historian's mind as it would contradict the
Scaligerian chronology.
A continuously expressed statement in Popol Vuh claiming
the community alliance of the settlers in America is
absolutely correct. Russia-Horde, which created the
Empire, expanded in various directions from the collective
center. Our point of view differs from the traditional one in
that, that the historians refer the words of the American

Bible Popol Vuh exclusively to the history of Central

America. We, on the other hand, claim that here is
presented a grandiose view of the resettlement of the
peoples of Russia-Horde throughout the world at that time.
One of the final countries of resettlement was Central
America. But it was not the only one [5v], [6v2].
Having arrived in America, the people of Maya-K'iche
'found many cities' [1348], p.193. As Popol Vuh informs
us, soon the question of the New Kingdom's establishment
and Benediction came up. It was required to send back to
the East across the ocean the embassy of Maya-K'iche to
the great Quetzalcoatl to obtain the authority to govern
[1348], p.206-210. This section of Popol Vuh is extremely
interesting.
As soon as the suspension of the Scaligerian chronology
lifted, in the name of the Mexican god Quetzalcoatl we
recognise Caesar-Catholic. The sounds L and R could
cross over: QuetzalCoatl = Caesar-Coatl = CaesarCatholic. This immediately carries us over to Europe,
where the Russian Christian church is still called the
Orthodox CAPHOLIC, and in some countries the
CATHOLIC faith is wide-spread.
Thus the embassy of Maya-K'iche from a faraway
America, having crossed the ocean, appeared in front of
the great Capholic (Catholic) King and received the
powers and authority to rule over the territories discovered
in America. This event reflected in the European sources
as the return to Europe of the confederates of Columbus

to receive from the king the authority to rule the

discovered American lands. It is clear that such authority
could have been given only by the emperor of the 'Mongol'
Empire. Furthermore, it is possible, that QuetzalCoatl in
the Indian texts is the Emperor Charles V. Whom the
famous conquistador admiral Cortes did in fact report
about the conquest of America [6v2], ch.6. In which case,
QuetzalCoatl is known to us also as the AssyrianBabylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Aka khan Ivan
Vasilyevich IV Grozny (The Terrible).
The entire story with the respectful embassy of MayaK'iche from America to the Eastern Czar-Capholic shows,
that in the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. the hierarchical power
structure in the Great Empire was clear. To come into the
ownership rights of the discovered territories was possible
only via the magnanimity of the Khan of Russia-Horde. He
listened graciously and gave his permission. The
members of the embassy breathed a sigh of relief. In
Central America the civilizations of Maya and Toltec
flourished.
There are strongly pronounced Evangelical storylines
present in Popol Vuh. In particular, the appearance of the
Star of Bethlehem in the sky, as on omen of the arrival of
Christ and the Christophany (appearance of Christ) itself.
It would be more correct to call the Indian civilisations of
Central America Maya, Aztec, etc. the HORDE-Indian.
They appeared as a result of the Hordian-Ottoman
(Ataman) conquest of America in the XIV-XV cc.

21. THE CLOSE TIES BETWEEN 'ANCIENT' AMERICA

AND 'ANCIENT' EURASIA ARE WELL-KNOWN.
BUT THEY BEGAN ONLY IN THE XIV-XV CC.
Today a great number of impressive testimonies of the
close ties between 'ancient' Maya and 'ancient' cultures of
Europe and Asia have been amassed. [6v2], ch.6.
However the historians and archeologists shift these ties
back into the 'distant past'. The result they arrive at is, that
long before the voyage of Columbus there was continuous
relations between America and Eurasia, the level and
intensity of which was so high, that corresponded to the
state of the civilization only starting with the XV-XVI cc.
For the historians there is an insuperable chronological
contradiction at the bottom of it. That is why on one hand
they are compelled to acknowledge the 'ancient', close
and regular relations between America and Europe. And
on the other hand, they constantly make stipulations that
purportedly the connections were occasional and rare.
And in general, they say, don't pay any attention to them.
The main thing is, don't ask us any questions about the
chronology.
These authors, being under the influence of the erroneous
chronology, were compelled to concoct some artificial
theories to explain the close 'ancient' connections between
America and Eurasia. It is clear now, that there is no need
in them. It is sufficient to say plain and clear: Yes, in fact
the regular communications did exist. However, it was not
at all in the 'deepest past', but only starting with the XIVXV cc. As a result of the colonisation of America by Russia

and The Ottoman Empire. After that all the baffling

questions accrued by the commentators become irrelevant
per se.
22. MYSTERIOUS CENTRE WHICH THE WAVES OF
THE GLOBAL MIGRATIONS WERE SPREADING
FROM.
Let us get back to the close ties between America and
Eurasia in allegedly 'pre-Columbus' time'. 'A multitude of
very specific parallels, - says Gordon Ekholm, - guards
against any possibility of a random coincidence' [210],
p.33.
And further: <<A famous Mexican ethnologist and art critic
Miguel Covarrubias suggests that 'the great traditions of
the Teotihuacan culture were brought to the Mexican
Valley by some MYSTERIOUS FOREIGN ELITE,
WHOSE MOTHERLAND WAS SITUATED SOMEWHERE
IN THE EAST Having mastered the more primitive local
tribes, the strangers, according to him, STOOD AT THE
TOP OF THE NEW CIVILIZED SOCIETY, FORMED ON
THE BASIS OF THE CULTURAL FUSION OF THE TWO
CULTURAL STREAMS: LOCAL AND FOREIGN'>> [210],
p.77.
And yet more: 'But, perhaps, the most extreme position in
the debate about the origin of the Teotihuacan civilization
was adopted by the Swiss explorer Sigvald Linne, who for
many years conducted excavations on the territory of the
city. He was arguing that the LOCAL POPULATION

WAS ALTOGETHER DRIVEN OUT FROM THE BENIGN

VALLEY BY SOME UNKNOWN ALIEN PEOPLE, WHO
OVER TIME CREATED A BRILLIANT CIVILIZATION OF
THE CLASSIC ERA. Thus, the majority of the experts on
the Teotihuacan civilization, who worked for a long time at
the town's site and were familiar with its culture better than
anyone, concurred that the local civilization was imported
either from the East, the West or the South, anything but
originating in Teotihuacan itself' [210], p.78.
And also: <<Even in the late XIX early XX cc. the
scientists- Americanologists Leonard Adam, Carl Gentze
( ), Paul Rivet, Hoze Imbellione (
) and the others drew to attention the
ASIAN-AMERICAN PARALLELS IN ART. The
substantiatial works by L.Adam and C.Gentze pointed out
some interesting similarities in the motives, ornamentation
and stylized design of various articles of merchandise of
the people of Eastern Asia on one hand, and North-West
coast of America and Mexico on the other... The course of
ancient history looked primitively simple according to this
concept: 'THE GIVING' EAST AND 'THE RECEIVING'
PROVINCES, WICH INCLUDED NEARLY ALL OF OUR
PLANET In this respect a considerable part was played
by the works of German and Austrian ethnologists, the
creators of the theory of The Kulturkreis ('culture circles' or
'cultural field')- F.Graebner, W.Schmidt, B.Ankerman,
V.Coppers and the others, who tried to prove that THE
CULTURES OF ALL THE PEOPLES IN THE WORLD
ORIGINATE FROM SEVEN OR EIGHT WAVES OF
CONSECUTIVE MIGRATIONS OF A GIGANTIC SCALE,

EMANATING FROM A CERTAIN MYSTERIOUS

CENTRE, WHICH SHOULD BE LOOKED FOR
SOMWHERE IN THE SOUTH-EAST ASIA and regions of
Oceania adjacent to it >> [210], p.20-21.
The mysterious centre was sought for a long time. But
they failed to find it. We can point it out. The scientists, not
knowing it themselves, discovered the outcomes of the
Horde-Ottomania's (Atamania's) conquest-resettlement
which was expanding in every direction, resulting in the
birth of the Great Empire. Hindered by an incorrect
chronology, the historians looked for the centre in the
'distant' past'. They didn't find it there. Because it is in
Russia and The Ottoman Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.
It was the erroneous chronology which literally at every
step of the way was preventing the historians to arrive at
our conclusion. They write this way: <<Unfortunately,
nearly all the parallels presented here are of a purely
superficial nature, AND THE CHRONOLOGICAL GAP
BETWEEN THEM SPANS EVERY TIME OVER A GREAT
MANY CENTURIES. If, let's say, the lotus relief from
Amaravati (India) date to the II century AD, then their
Mexican 'doubles' from Chichen Itza were created at best
circa the XII century AD. In Cambodia the step pyramids
for the first time appear only in the X century AD, whereas
in Mesoamerica in the early I century BC >>[210], p.30.
Take away the wrong dates from here, lift all these
parallels into the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc., and everything
will fall into place. The mysterious mass parallels will

transform into a bright picture of intercommunication

between CONCURRENT civilizations of the XIV-XVI cc.
23. THE COLOSSAL DIVISION OF THE WORLD
BETWEEN 'CASTILE' AND 'PORTUGAL'.
There is an incredible fact well-known in the XV century
history. Castile, as a part of Spain, and Portugal divided
the world between themselves! One of the major
documents consolidating the division of the world is called
quite openly: The Treaty of Tordesillas between the Kings
of Spain and Castile REGARDING THE DIVISION OF
THE WORLD. 7 June 1494." [707], p.375. This very
division of the world is ratified in the papal bull of the 4
May 1493 [707], p.240. Also the papal bulls of 1452, 1455
and 1481 speak of the distribution of the spheres of
influence worldwide between Castile and Portugal [707],
p.246-247.
The crux of the matter is as follows. Castile and Portugal
divided the world between themselves by drawing a line of
demarcation along the meridian in the Atlantic from North
to South, fig.56. A part of the world to the East of the line
was granted to Portugal. The rest of the world to the West
of the meridian was granted to Castile. The division was
accompanied by the debates: the division line would shift
one way or the other. In fig.56 can be seen the
demarcation lines of the years 1481, 1493 and 1494 [707],
p.248. The main border of the division of the world was the
meridian passing through the Atlantic [6v2], ch.6.

It is reported: <<That is how appeared the famous papal

bulls of Pope Alexander VI placing the kings of Castile
INTO POSSESSION OF THE MASSIVE BODIES OF
WATER AND LAND TERRITORIES It is believed that
Alexander VI was the conciliator in the Castile-Portugal
dispute and that he, wishing to reconcile the litigant sides',
'divided the world' between both of the Iberian powers>>
[707], p.247-248.
So in the late XV early XVI cc. the entire world was
divided between Castile and Portugal. Notably with much
clat and on a large scale. A straight division line was
drawn rather simply along a meridian across the Atlantic.
The seas and the lands to the right of the meridian would
belong to Portugal. Those to the left to Castile [707],
p.248-249, 376.
Today this treaty is perceived by the historians as
something 'rather strange'. They could not have failed
noticing a surprising inconsistency between a massive
scale of the affair and an apparent insignificance of the
two 'rival countries' Castile and Portugal. Have a look at
the map. Find a small country which is called Portugal
today. Then find a small region in Spain called Castile.
The population of both of these countries is numerically
insignificant. These countries were not particular wealthy
or rich in natural resources in the Middle Ages. The
historians themselves write: 'WEEK, TORN BY THE
FEUDAL WARS, UNSUCCESSFULY TRIED to compete
with Portugal in the waters of the Atlantic ocean. THE
CASTILIAN PEOPLE WITH GREAT EFFORT MANAGED

TO KEEP POSESSION OF THE CANARY ISLANDS'

[707], P.245. In regards to Portugal's status up until the
end of the XIV century they write: 'IT WAS ONLY A
REMOTE EUROPEAN BACKWOODS' [707], P.244.
So, 'week Castile' and 'remote European backwoods'
Portugal allegedly divide the world between themselves.
And what is most surprising, they do not encounter any
opposition. They had disputes only between themselves.
And only in regards to where to draw the demarcation line.
And the Roman pope approves of this division! It is
strange
isn't it?
The role of the pope also surprises the historians: 'It is
relevant to pose a question, on which grounds did the
pope take charge of the seas and lands which did not
belong to him and what could these privileges mean?'
[707], p.245.
But all the oddities appear because the historians look
through the prism of the Scaligerian history. Our
reconstruction puts everything in its place.
In the late XV early XVI cc. the only two mighty
superpowers of that time Russia-Horde (Castile) and
The Ottoman Empire=Ottomania (Atamania) (Potugal)
come to an agreement about the division of the world.
Both of these states were a part of the 'Mongol' Empire.
That is why they agreed quickly and with no particular
problems. The purpose of the agreement is clear. To
regulate the actions of the Russian and Ottomanian

administration in the vast territories colonized by the

Empire in the XV-XVI cc. I.e. they have divided between
themselves the Biblical Promised Land. This way it was
easier to control the distant provinces and to organize
normal life there. It is difficult to do so from one centre in
view of the sheer size of the Empire which has expanded
incredibly.
The reason, why it is Porte-Head, i.e. 'Portugal' ('gal' =
'golova' = 'glavny' meaning Head or Main in Russian
. ) (The Ottoman Empire), that a part of
the world east of the Atlantic meridian went to, is clear.
The fact is that during that epoch the Ataman (Ottoman)
navy ruled exactly in the Mediterranean and in the Eastern
part of the Atlantic. And Russia-Horde colonized a
significant part of the North-Asian continent situated to the
West of the demarcation line, fig.56. Russia-Horde was
advancing into America not only with the Ataman
(Ottoman) fleet, but also from Siberia, via the Bering Strait
and then across Alaska into inland America.
The pope's role in the division of the world also becomes
clear. A treaty of such importance should be sanctioned by
the spiritual authority of the Great Empire. I.e. the Pope.
As was done.
The treaty between Russia and Ottomania (Atamania)
remained in force up until the XVII century. Only after the
victory of the rebellious Reformation and the breakup of
the 'Mongol' Empire the Treaty became a subject of attack
from the reformists. 'By the XVII century, when the
initiative of the colonial expansion passes to England,

France and Holland, and Spain (in fact Russia-Horde

Author's note) and Portugal (in fact The Ottoman
Empire=Ottomania (Atamania) Author's note) lose the
significant part of their West-Indian and East-Indian
domain in the crippling battle, the clauses of the Treaty in
Tordesillas sound like an anachronism. However UP
UNTIL THE END OF THE XVIII CENTURY The Treaty of
Tordesillas preserved its legal validity in resolving the
boundary disputes in the South-American domains of
Spain and Portugal' [707], p.379.
In fact, PORTUGAL is PORTE-GALIA, i.e. Porte-Glava
(porte=gates, glava=head) or Porte Glavnaya
(glavnaya=main). Or Porte Helios, i.e. Porte Sunny or
Porte Sublime. We would like to remind you that
'PORTE (Ottoman Porte, High Porte, SUBLIME Porte)
are the names of the domains of the Ottoman Empire
recognised in the European documents and
literature'[797], p.1038. Thus, Portu-Gal was one of the
names of the Ottoman Empire.
So what is CASTILE of the XV-XVI cc.? It is possible that
CASTILLA originates from the word CASTLE, i.e. a tower,
a fortified manor-place or a city. It is quite possible that
Cas-Tile is a distorted Cazy-Itil, i.e. meaning Cossacks
from Volga. We would like to remind you that in the Middle
Ages Volga river was called Itil (Or Atil). In other words,
Cas-Tile could have been one of the old names for
Russia-Horde or the Volga Cossacks.
In the XVII-XVIII cc. the history was re-written. The famous
names of Cas-Tile and Portu-Gal survived in the Iberian

Peninsula only as the names of the two small regions

which were a part of the Great Empire. And today we were
taught to think that these two names always referred just
to contemporary Castile in Spain and to contemporary
Portugal. Which is wrong.
24. HOW AND WHEN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA
WAS FALSIFIED
To falsify the history of the discovery and colonization of
America is far easier than to falsify the European History.
The history of Europe needed a lot of work. It was
necessary to break down the strong-minded resistance of
the entire social strata of European society, who still
remembered its recent history well. It was hard work to
introduce the Scaligerian version [5v2]. Predominantly it
was done by the military force. On the other hand the
events in distant America troubled the Europeans far less.
They were separated from America by the Atlantic. The
scant information about America would reach Europe only
with the ships which occasionally crossed the ocean.
The chronicle writing of America was in the hands of just a
small number of Europeans. It was easy to negotiate. It
was quickly explained to them what they should write,
and what they shouldn't. While the authentic HordianIndian chronicles were burning on fires. Having ruthlessly
destroyed heaps of American manuscripts, the cynics like
Diego de Landa, would then pick up a quill and write the
'correct history of the Native Americans'), shedding
crocodile tears [6v2], ch.6.

The 'Spanish Conquista' of the early XVI century was, in

fact, one of the waves of the Hordian conquest which
reached America. The first wave is the conquest by
Columbus of the late XV century, and the second wave of
the early XVI century is known to us as the Spanish
Conquista (La Conquista). See our book <<
-
"" >>. ('The conquest of America
by Yermak-Cortes and the Reformation revolt through the
eyes (as seen, viewed by) the 'Ancient' Greeks'.)
But then a question arises. Is it correct that the destruction
of the flourishing Hordian-Indian civilizations of America by
the Europeans dates exactly to the early XVI century? Did
it not take place later, in the XVII-XVIII cc.? In the epoch of
the Reformation in Europe. When the victorious rebels,
having split from Horde-Ottomania (Atamania), with fire
and sword spread their 'reformist ideas' into Central
America as well. In the XVII century the troops of the West
European Reformists finally made an incursion on the
territory of America. In a grueling fight they broke down the
culture of Maya, Aztek and Toltecs, which had developed
over the preceeding 150-200 years. The wars were
bloody. The sovereign rulers of Central America remained
at most true to the idea of the 'Mongol' Empire. They
warded off the attacks of the navy of the rebellious
Western European governors for a long time. But in the
very end the American Hordians were defeated.
After the victory of the Reformation it was decided to rewrite the American history and to offload all the horrors of

the XVII-XVIII cc. war onto the Hordian-Ottoman (Ataman)

colonization of America of the XV-XVI cc. They killed two
birds with one stone. Firstly, the Reformists white washed
themselves. Secondly, in the face of Spain, they blamed
the weakened Horde-Ottomania(Atamania) for their own
atrocities on the territory of America. They said, they had
split open the skulls of the Indian babies, etc.
Similar propaganda, blaming the Spanish conquistadors,
allegedly of the XV-XVI cc., of the atrocities, spread over
West Europe starting in the XVII cc. It is hardly accidental,
that practically all the prints in the book of Bartolom de
las Casas were executed in the spirit of the 'information
war'. Here are just a few of the gravures' engravings'
names: 'The conquistadors setting the dogs on the
Indians', 'Roasting over a slow fire', 'Mass torture of the
Indians by the Spanish', etc. [6v2], ch.6.
This is the competent and enduring way that the history of
America was falsified.
25. THE DISTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS.
The majority of the North American Indians were
mercilessly annihilated during the US wars as well as
those Native Americans killed in the epoch of the XVIII
century. It is considered that Holland, France, England
and then the USA, in severe battles and in violent disputes
among themselves, were seizing the former 'Spanish
territories' in America [336], v.2. In fact, the conquered
lands were the vast American domains of Russia-Horde
and Atamania (Ottoman Empire) which suddenly 'became

no one's' after Moscow Tartaria fell apart circa 1775 [4v1],

ch.11. The founding of the USA in 1776 was accompanied
by other distinguished events, which are now becoming
clear. For example: 'In 1774 there was announced the
freedom of the trade exchange between the colonial
provinces In 1778 a FULL REFORM OF THE CROSSATLANTIC TRADE took place'[336], v.2, p.417
'Even Washington for a long time had to lead the wars with
the Native Americans, in which the success was reached
only by the merciless use of power and was connected
with multiple heavy losses' [336], v.2, p.484.
A small number of Native Americans who survived, were
forced into reservations where they, on the whole, remain
until present day. A myth was created and forcefully
introduced into the mass consciousness, alleging that the
'Indians are themselves to be blamed'. Purportedly, the
well-mannered European settlers in America of the XVIIXVIII cc. were forced to defend themselves from the
attacks of the proud Native Americans, who for some
reason were protecting their lands. In the end the
Europeans' patience came to an end and they had to
shoot all the Native Americans with the cannons. In order
to save the remaining ones from hunger and cold, they
were honourably and altruistically provided with infected
blankets. Many, for some reason, died. The surviving ones
were freely inebriated with alcohol. They were
recommended not to step outside the gates of the
reservation. However they were savage, uneducated, not
suited to a new life. So on the whole everything ended for

them quite well. Now the descendants of the Native

Americans, which are few and far between, are invited to
share, as they say, in the fruits of European civilization.
Thus was the story of the employees of the Museum of
Ethnography at the University of British Columbia in the
Canadian city of Vancouver and the Vancouver Centre of
the Native American Culture, heard by A.T.Fomenko and
T.N.Fomenko in 1991.
It is interesting that on the maps of the West and North
West of America of the XVI-XVII cc. there was an
enormous 'white spot' [6v2], ch.6. As we have
demonstrated, these territories even then were under the
rule of Moscow Tartaria. The Europeans were not allowed
there. In any case, up until 1775. Only from this moment,
after the defeat of 'Pugachev', Moscow Tartaria started to
fall apart, and the USA emerged. It is curious to see when
exactly the USA populated, for example, the territories of
San Francisco, one of the most fruitful regions of the West
Coast of America. These territories to the North of the
Californian Peninsula, constituted the 'white spot' on the
maps up until the second half of the XVIII century. Here
are the three images, two of which are very rare.
The first is an engraving with a view of San Francisco in
1848, fig.57. Its coastline is practically empty. There are
only four ships docked in the bay. There are just a few
small houses in the valley. There are surrounding thick
woods on the hillsides. There is obviously very few people
there. The region is not developed yet. Everything is clear.
The USA came here comparatively recently. The old

Hordian-Indian settlements are already destroyed, and the

new city has not yet been built.
The second image was made only ten years later, in 1858,
fig.58. It is astounding that in ten years a big city had time
to grow!
The bay is literally clogged with vessels. Young San
Francisco has grown rapidly on the territories which were
recently seized from the the Hordians-Indians.
The last image is a photograph of the end of the XIX
century. There is already a big city depicted on it.
26. THE KORAN AND THE BIBLE.
Over the course of time Islam underwent great change
and only recently assumed its current form.
The Western commentators' of the XIX century's attitude
towards the Koran and Muhammad (still not completely
overcome to this day) was on the whole very sceptical.
Purporting that it is a derivative recent text, largely based
on the Old Testament Bible, on the Judaic and Christian
works. Originally, they say, recorded either on the bones,
papyrus, palm tree leaves, pebbles, or preserved in
memory
Now we understand the reasons for such a negative
attitude. The fact is that the chronologists of the XVI-XVIII
cc. brutally distorted the past. The Bible and the 'ancient
classic' texts, which in reality were created in the XIII-XVII
cc., were dated to the deepest antiquity and declared
venerated works embedded in the foundation of the entire

civilization. The Koran, written approximately in the same

epoch, was shifted to a not so remote past and the first
year of The Hijra era was professed to be 622. As a result,
the Koran, purportedly turned out to be 'much younger'
than the Bible and the 'ancient classics'.
Moreover, as a result the Koran and the Bible turned out
to be the holy books of different religious movements,
seceding from the previously united Christianity of the XIIIXVI cc. This made a strong impression on the
representatives of various spiritual schools which emerged
in the XVII-XVIII cc. which was reflected in their appraisal
of the holy books.
The new chronology fundamentally changes this
psychological picture. It becomes clear that the Koran is
one of the versions of the holy books which were created
in the XIII-XVII cc. that is to say simultaneously to the
Bible. This is why many testaments in the Koran are not
the 'quotations from the canonised Bible', but often
independent and original. Even when they describe the
same events as the Bible, the interpretation is different.
What the bewildered commentators declare to be
'incorrect citation' of the Bible and the other sources
known to us today is just a different perspective on the
mediaeval events contemporary to the authors of the
Koran.
That is why the Koran is a vitally important and fascinating
book, and in regards to us, we read the Koran with an
immense interest from the beginning to the end. It turns
out that it conveys to us important information lost or
cleaned out in the other religious movements.
After the split of the Great Empire the attitude in the

Romanovs' Russia towards the Koran and Muhammad

became complicated. The emerged religious schism
further aggravated tension between the Romanovs and
the rulers of Turkey. Nevertheless in the Russian scientific
community, unlike in Western Europe, the attitude towards
the Koran on the whole remained respectful. It was
published and translated in our country as a major work
which merited serious study. Even the wars of the proWestern Romanovs with Turkey didn't influence the
respectful attitude towards the Koran in Russia. Despite
the attempts of the Romanovs to drive a wedge between
the Russians (the Orthodox Christians) and the 'Mongol'
Tatars (the Muslims), it didn't succeed.
The Western torrent of 'scientific criticism' at some point
descended not just on the Koran, but also on the Book of
Mormon [6v]. The accusations against it were in many
respects similar to those towards the Koran. Generally the
Book of Mormon is often declared to have been 'made up'
in the XIX century. The reasons for this 'criticism' are the
same. As it turned out the Book of Mormon which surfaced
in the XIX century has conveyed to us an old version of
history which substantially differs from the Scaligerian one.
Subsequently this book was immediately condemned and
categorised as 'illegitimate'.
The XVII century author Andrey Lyzlov annotated the
Koran and captured a great deal accurately. But as a XVII
century Christian, already having been brought up with a
sceptical attitude towards Islam, he thought that the Koran
(and Islam on the whole) despite, allegedly, being in
conflict with the Christians, nevertheless borrowed
important ideas from 'earlier' Christianity, Judaism and

'Paganism'. It is not entirely true. All these movements

emerged from the whole Royal (and later the Apostolic)
Christianity of the XII-XVI cc. That is why they retained so
much in common.
At the same time the opinion voiced by Lyzlov has its
reasons. As we understand now, the Koran was created in
the XV first half of the XVII cc. as some kind of specific
'ecumenical Book' intended to rectify the rupture, which
emerged in the Empire and in the religion. The Islamic
leaders sincerely desired to restore the former unity. At
least for the significant part of the former Empire (Western
Europe was not considered 'their own' any longer). To
achieve that they incorporated into the Koran ideas close
to the representatives of different religious branches. Their
intention was to attract them under their banner. To a
great extent it succeeded. Islam has united a great
number of people.
The Koran's structure also becomes clear. It is a highly
poetic work filled with allegories, and also ideas close to
the Christians, the Jews and the 'Pagans'. The poetic
language has attracted many. The idea of the restoration
of the former unity struck a chord.
27. MEHMED II THE CONQUEROR AND THE PROPHET
MUHAMMAD.
YAROSLAVL METEOR OF 1421.
We have discovered that the life description of Prophet
Muhammad includes some accounts of Andronicus-Christ
from the XII century [PRRK]. In particular the following
storylines are present: the Annunciation and the

Immaculate Conception; caesarean section; the Star of

Bethlehem; reference to John the Baptist; the entry of
Jesus into Jerusalem; Jesus driving the tradesmen out of
the temple; the destruction of the temple and its rebuilding
in three days; the judgement of the whore; Descent into
Hell; the ascension of Jesus to heaven; Resurrection from
the dead and the Last Judgement; the Conversion of Paul
the Apostle (Saul).
In the Prophet Muhammad's life story there are also
accounts of Moses and Joshua Ben Nun from the XV-XVI
cc. For example, a mother gives up her child to be raised
by another woman, later the infant is returned to his
mother, but she still gives him back. Moses kills the
Egyptian, and a pharaoh in revenge wants to kill Moses,
but fails. In the life story of Muhammad we are told that he
was falsely accused of the murder of a Christian called
Sergius, and also about the failed attempt to assassinate
the Prophet Muhammad. The Exodus of Moses with the
Israelites from Egypt corresponds with Muhammad and
his followers' migration (Hijra) from Mecca. Muhammad's
great Battle of Badr corresponds with Moses' victory over
the pharaoh's army. Muhammad, like Moses, at a single
blow cuts though the water, etc. See [PRRK].
However, the facts of the famous Sultan Mehmed II the
Conqueror were incorporated into the life story of Prophet
Muhammad most of all. The well-known Arab conquest is
the Ataman (Ottoman) seizure of the Promised Land in the
XV-XVI cc. In particular, the conquest of the cities Taif and
Tabuk by the Prophet Muhammad is the reflection of the
seizure of Czar-Grad in 1453 by Sultan Mehmed II the
Conqueror [PRRK], ch.3. Besides, in the life description of

the sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror there are fragments

of the 'biographies' of Czar Ivan the 'Terrible' (III = IV) and
Khan Ulugh Mehmed.
An interesting theme directly connected with the life
description of the Prophet Muhammad was exposed. It
turns out that a large iron meteor which fell in Yaroslavl in
1421 was reflected in the Bible, Islam, Christianity, in the
'ancient paganism' of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.
This fall of the meteor on Novgorod (i.e. Yaroslavl) is
described in detail in the Russian chronicles, as well as in
the Old Testament. It's reflected in the works of the
famous Plutarch as the fall of an 'iron shield' (iron meteor)
from the sky in the 'classical' Royal Rome and its usage in
forging weapons of steel is described. The Russian
Chronicles report the falling of the rocks (or a rock) from
the sky, out of a fiery cloud in 1421.
It turns out that the Horde master craftsmen started using
the debris of the Yaroslavl meteor (as the additive) to
smelt extra strong and resilient steel, as the result of which
the famous Damask (Bulat) steel was invented. The
Russian (Damask) steel later was reflected as 'ancient'
Syrian. Aka Damask (i.e. Moscovian) (Bulat) steel
[PRRK], ch.5.
We have also discovered the mentioning of the meteor of
1421 fallen in Russia in the 'ancient' Greek texts. In
particular, it is a legend of an 'ancient' bronze anvil which
fell from heaven to earth, to Tartar (Tataria = Tartaria).
Another famous 'meteor reflection is the famous smiting
god Hephaestus-Svarog, who fell to earth and broke both
of his legs.
Another reflection of the Yaroslavl meteor are the Iron

Tongs which fell to earth from the sky under the divinity
czar Hephaestus-Svarog. Near the place of the fall an
ancient settlement Kleshin emerged, not far from
Yaroslavl, which later grew into a town of PereslavlZalessky. The legendary 'Blue Stone' in PereslavlZalessky on the shore of Lake Pleshcheyevo is a
'substitute' of the ancient Kleshin Stone, i.e. the meteor.
The rubble of the Yaroslavl meteor (or its 'substitutes' in
place of the lost originals) is also most likely safely kept, in
the Muslim Kaaba in memory of this event. In the Biblical
Arc of the Old Testament there were remnants of the
stone 'tablets' of Moses, and in the Muslim Tabernacle in
Mecca fragments of the stone or iron meteor, blackened
by the kisses of hundreds of thousands people. Or the
debris of lava, the volcanic 'bombs'. It is known that the
Kaaba 'Stone, fallen from Heaven' is the greatest relic of
the contemporary Mahometans (Islamites) and the
Hagarenes of the Middle Ages.
It is possible that there are the pieces of lava, according to
the XIX century explorer Crichton. Lava emerges during a
volcanic eruption. For example, the eruption of Vesuvius in
Italy. Which we already earlier identified with the Biblical
mountain Zion-Horeb, where God-Thunderer handed
Moses the tablets of stone [1v]. Maybe, they could have
been the pieces of lava, on which later the sacred text was
inscribed. The fact, that the Black Stone of Kaaba is
considered to be 'fallen from heaven' could also be a
recollection of debris ejected in the air during the eruption
and then fallen to earth. It is clear why the Bible says that
the stone tablets broke down. The pieces of the red-hot
volcanic rocks falling from the air often break on impact

with the ground.

However the most established opinion (and most likely,
the correct one) states that the Black Stone of Kaaba is
the debris of a meteor.
We also analyse the mass cult of the sacred (rough) stone
in the Bible, Islam and Christianity, which originally
emerged possibly as a veneration to the iron Yaroslavl
meteor. It is also worth paying attention to the mass
ancient custom of the rough 'blue stones' in Yaroslavl and
its suburbs.
Another 'ancient' story about the Yaroslavl meteor is a
famous 'Ancient' Greek myth of Phaethon, the son of
Helios, who plunged into the river Eridanos and 'split
Tartar apart' (i.e. Tartaria'). It means that Phaethon fell in
1421. The astronomical dating of the horoscope, which we
discovered on the old bas-relief the 'fall of the Phaethon'
(Phaethon zodiac), fig.59, corresponds well with the fall of
the meteor on the 19th May 1421. Thus the date stated in
the Russian chronicle is verified astrologically and,
therefore, almost certainly with a probability of 0,999 (see
the details in [PRRK], ch.5), is correct.
Through the efforts of the 'classic' authors of the XV-XVI
cc., Phaethon, aka the Yaroslavl meteor of the 1421, was
'transferred' to the starry sky and depicted on the 'classic'
and mediaeval star maps as a renowned stellar
constellation of Auriga. The river Volga was presented as
the constellation of Eridanos, and Damascus steel which
became famous as the Cygnus constellation. So even
from here you can see how many far reaching
consequences for the 'classical' world of the XV-XVI cc.
were there in the fall of the iron meteor in Timerevo, near

Yaroslavl, and subsequently the beginning of the Damask

steel production. So, once again, and from a different
unexpected side , it is proven that the names of the
constellations and their configurations were by no means
determined in the 'deepest antiquity', as the historians
assure us, but in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. [3v].
The reflections of the Yaroslavl meteor of 1421 are also
the legends of apostle Peter-Rock with the keys of
Heaven, and the god Hephaestus-meteor with the tongs of
heaven. Some chroniclers confused Keys and Tongs (in
Russian Klyuchi and Kleshi sound similar Translator's
note). The fall of Phaethon was refracted as Apostle
Peter's crucifixion 'headfirst' (Peter was crucified upside
down).
The Old Testament Prophet Elijah is another partial
reflection of Phaethon-Hephaestus-Peter, aka the
Yaroslavl meteor of 1421. We refer to the famous Prophet
Elijah's ascension to heaven in a chariot of fire. While
Elijah of Phoenicia (Hephaestus-Phaethon?) leaves 'his
deputy ' prophet Elisha (possibly, the duplicate of god
Haelios, father of Phaethon).
Most likely, the famous Biblical Tabernacle, in which the
Arc of the Covenant was situated, is a blacksmiths, where
in a special box (like in Kaaba) the Yaroslavl meteor
debris were kept.
Finally, we examine the story of Prophet Muhammad's
confederate Ali-Aaron-Ayyub. It turns out that Ali-Ayyub
Sultan was a friend and a banner-bearer of Prophet
Muhammad and, that after allegedly 800 years of oblivion
he once again emerges in the story of Mehemet II The
Conqueror. In this respect a possible beginning of the

Hijra era is the founding of Kazan by Ulu-Mahmet in 14371438. A likely correspondence looks like this: caliph Ali is
Ayyub Sultan; caliph Muawiyah is Mehmed the Conqueror;
the first Osman Umayyad caliphate is a union of RussiaHorde and Turkey-Atamania of the XV-XVI cc. Besides,
the famous legends of Ilya of Murom and Rustam (or
Rustem) encompass the recollections of caliph Ali.
So, in the life description of Prophet Muhammad there
become apparent some vivid parallels with the life
description of Jesus Christ, Biblical Prophet Moses and
the famous sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror (1432-1481).
The image of Muhammad is complicated and complex and
originated in the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. as a result of
combining various written sources. While the main core of
the 'biography' of prophet Muhammad is a description of
sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror.
28. THE ARAB CONQUEST.
After the Battle of Badr (also described in the Bible as
Moses' victory over the pharaoh's army) the style of the
Prophet Muhammad's life story takes a dramatic twist. The
following narration up until Muhammad's death consists of
a list of the military campaigns, battles, sieges and
conquests of the cities. Wars, wars (and more) wars
The matter is clearly about a massive conquest. In fact
this is what the Scaligerian history claims to have
happened. It is considered that the famous Arab conquest
begins from the victory at Badr. Sweeping through many
countries. There were especially many conquests under
the belt of Omar, Muhammad's successor. It was he who

created the Arab Empire. Prophet Muhammad started and

developed this, and Omar successfully completed it. A
great many pages in the life descriptions of Muhammad
and Umar ibn Al-Khattab are devoted to the Muslim
military invasion. In the Bible these events are described
as the conquest of the Promised Land by Israelite (i.e.
Horde-Cossack) armies of Moses and his successor
Joshua Ben Nun (The Books of Exodus and Joshua).
Moses started the wars successfully and Joshua Ben Nun
completed them brilliantly.
In fact it was the Ataman (Ottoman) conquest of the world
of the XV-XVI cc. which later on spread onto the American
continent. In Eurasia some of these campaigns were
carried out by the Atamanian (Ottomanian) Mehmed II the
Conqueror [5v] and [6v].
29. THE BLOODSTAINED RIGHT HAND THE
RELIGIOUS SYMBOL IN ISLAM.
In the Muslim symbolism a prominent part is played by a
depiction of a right hand covered with blood. The
historians do not know the origins of this symbol or when it
was introduced. Some hazy hypotheses have been put
forward [PRRK]. The sources inform us as follows:
# This symbol had a ritual, sacred meaning.
# It was perceived as a commemorative sign in honour of
some sultan (allegedly Murad). This is the image of the
great sultan's hand. Purportedly he left an imprint of his
right palm on an important document.
# The imprint of the right hand on the janissary's banners
was made in blood. The custom was so widespread that

as early as in the time of A.S.Pushkin it was common

practice in the Turkish army.
# In the epoch of the XVII-XIX cc. the Atamans
(Ottomans), and later the Turks were Muslim.
It occurs that a ceremonial mark of a palmprint on a
military banner could have been connected with Prophet
Muhammad, the green banner of whom is called the
Prophet's Banner.
The palmprint of the sultan's hand covered with blood, as
a well-known symbol is also mentioned in the life
description of Mehmed II the Conqueror in 1453. The
Turkish historian Jalal Assad wrote: 'Sultan enters Hagia
Sophia on horseback over the piles of dead bodies with
his HAND COVERED WITH BLOOD he, allegedly, leaned
on one of the columns, which is still visible today' [240],
p.56.
Today Mehmed's II 'palmprint' is shown to the tourists in
Hagia Sophia (the Church of Holy Wisdom) [PRRK]. Thus,
the symbolic depiction of a right hand covered in blood
could have appeared as a memory of Mehmed II.
The life description of Prophet Muhammad is multilayered. The information on sultan Mehmed II, Prophet
Moses and the Emperor Andronicus-Christ is intertwined
in it. But before his execution Andronicus-Christ's right
hand was cut off [TsRS]. It became a Christian symbol
and was depicted, in particular, in the 'ancient'
Carthaginian temples on the military banners of the
'ancient' Roman legions, [PRRK], ch.4, etc.
It is possible that such a custom appeared in the epoch of
the Crusades of the XIII century, when the armies of

Russia-Horde and its allies moved onto Czar-Grad to

punish the perpetrators of Andronicus-Christ's crucifixion.
Christ's severed and bloody right hand was depicted on
the military badges as a symbol of vengeance for their
executed god. Since then this sign became one of the
symbols of the legions of 'Ancient' Rome, i.e. Horde
Empire. Most likely, originally there was also a Christian
symbol fluttering on the Islamic military banners the right
hand of Christ covered in blood. Under such banners the
Christians-Mahometans of that time went into battle. Later
the origins of this symbolism were buried, and the
chroniclers started to remember either sultan Mehmed II,
or sultan Murad, or simply spoke of a ritual meaning of the
bloodied hand on the banners of Prophet Muhammad.
30. JANISSARY.
The Ottoman Empire was founded by the Horde Cossacks
who came from Russia-Horde (Biblical Israel) to conquer
the Promised Land. Naturally there were many Slavs and
Turks among the warriors. The Cossacks-Hordians had a
strong effect not only on the Ataman (Ottoman) army's
hand-picked contingent, but also made up the Empire's
nobility from whom was elected the sultan and his court. It
is not surprising that the sultan was proud to wear the
Janissarian ketche (a hat), which in fact was a Hordian
headdress [PRRK].
So it turns out that Janissary are one of the heirs of the
Order (aka Horde) of the Crusaders, i.e. 'Bearers of Christ'
of the XIII century = the participants of the Crusades on
Czar-Grad. In memory of this Trojan war there were

established the 'ancient' gladiator games, aka the

mediaeval knight tournaments. And also the Olympic
Games were created. [RE].
Right up to the XIX century the Janissary occupied a
prominent social position in Ataman (Ottoman) and later
on in Turkish society. However in 1826 they were
massacred. In that epoch the efforts of Western Europe to
tear Turkey away from Russia and to re-orientate the
sultans towards the West were successful. The fierce
Janissary obstructed this 'movement towards civilisation',
kept alive the memory of the former unity with Russia. It
became necessary to slaughter them on the sly. At the
same time the documents connected to the Janissary
Order, the customs, Janissary's banners, etc. were
destroyed. The memory of the past was becoming wiped
out.
31. YAROSLAVL METEOR OF 1421 IN THE BIBLE.
# There are strong reasons to believe that in the suburbs
of Yaroslavl there still survives an enormous sanded up
crater of a large iron meteor which fell in 1421. Both, the
geological data and the surviving traces of the 'iron names'
surrounding this place indicate this: Zhelezny Borok (Iron
Borok), Bolshoye Timerevo (Big Timerevo), Maloye
Timerevo (Little Timerevo) ('Timer' means 'iron' in Tatar
and Bashkirian) [PRRK].
# Among the archaeological excavations there were
discovered some pieces with the clear traces of the
meteoric iron.
# According to the archaeologists, here was a major

manufacturing and trading centre of a European

importance connected with the iron processing.
# Apparently, the well-known Arizonian and a lesser
known Yaroslavl meteor craters are similar and the iron
meteors which fell down there were of comparable sizes
[PRRK], ch.5.
Please note the date: 1421. It turns out that Yaroslavl
meteor fell in the first half of the XV century. Precisely
during the epoch of the Ottoman conquest. Its beginning is
described in the Bible as Moses' famous Exodus from
Egypt with the Israelites [6v]. That is why the fall of the
meteor could have been reflected in the Old Testament.
Actually, there is such a narration. It is the handing of the
stone tablets by God to Moses. Here are two themes
closely intertwined with each other.
The first is the eruption of Vesuvius in Italy (i.e. the Biblical
mountains Sinai = Horeb) accompanied by fire, smoke,
thunder and falling of the volcanic bombs.
The second theme is the falling of a large meteor in
Yaroslavl. Which also was accompanied by fire, smoke,
thunder and falling of the meteoric debris. It is said in the
Bible: 'On the morning of the third day there was thunder
and lightning, with a thick cloud over the [Sinai] mountain,
and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp
trembled.' (Exodus 19:16). It's no coincidence that Moses'
stone tablets were broken.
32. DAMASK STEEL.
The Indian, Syrian and Damascus Steels are considered
to be the most ancient [988:00]. The historians refer here

to the territories of the modern India and the Middle East.

However, we have shown that earlier 'India' and 'Syria'
were used as names for Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVII cc.,
i.e the metropoly of the Great Empire. Besides the old DMascus (Damascus) is a kingdom of Mosokh, Moscovia,
and later the city of Moscow. Here D is the article
denoting respect, alike to 'the' [6v]. The ancient Damask
steel was first produced in Russia-Horde. It corresponds
well with our concepts of the fall of the iron meteor near
Yaroslavl, in the very centre of Vladimir and Suzdal
Russia.
In the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest the Damask swords
which were in the armament of the Cossack (= Israelite)
army of Russia-Horde, circulated rather widely. They
turned up in various provinces of the Empire. Later, after
its split in the XVII century, the Damask steel weapons
remained in some places in the arsenals of splinter states.
Its primary origin was forgotten. The new generations of
the local warriors began to celebrate allegedly 'their own'
ancient Damask steel, having a vague memory of ancient
'Indian', 'Syrian and 'Damascus' Steels. Not understanding
any longer that all of these names on the whole meant the
same thing, and at some point indicated the metropoly of
Russia-Horde. After the sly editors 'drew' on the
Scaligerian maps the new 'ancient' Syria, India and
Damascus (where we see them today) the obliteration of
the true history became even more tangible. Fairytale
theories flourished of the ancient Damask steel being
produced in the places where they had never made it.
As time passed, the secret of Damask steel was, as we
are told, lost. Since then many tried to unsuccessfully

reproduce it. Our explanation of all these failed attempts to

produce the Damask steel anew in present days is very
simple. Despite the fact, that Yaroslavl meteor was large,
sooner or later its debris was bound to become exhausted.
Though it was used very carefully and only as an additive
to steel, however the original bulk of the material was still
limited. When the debris came to an end, the
manufacturing of Damask steel also stopped. It remained
the legendary weapon of the past.
At the same time, there was enough of the valuable
meteor iron to organize in the XV century the
manufacturing of a significant amount of the Damask steel
for the army of Russia-Horde. This, partially, explains the
military superiority of the Cossack armies of that time. The
Damask steel Russian (aka 'Indian') blades cut through
the shields, armour and swords of their enemies. The
Damask steel weapons were enshrouded in legend. The
secret of the Damask steel was lost simply due to the fact
that during that time they didn't yet know how to do subtle
chemical analysis. This is the reason why the composition
of Yaroslavl meteor remained unknown to the
Horde=Damascus craftsmen. Once the meteor debris
finished the valuable additives to steel also were
exhausted. And without the knowledge of the meteor
composition, without its 'formula' it was impossible to
reproduce these additives artificially. If the ancient
steelmakers themselves invented the physic-chemical
'formula' of Damask steel (without the use of the meteor)
they would have hardly forgotten it.
When and why was the art of the Damask steel production
forever lost? We named the main reason: the debris of the

meteor became exhausted. The second reason had the

evolutionary nature. In the epoch when there were no
firearms Damask steel played, of course, an exceptionally
important role. It cut through the ordinary armour and
shields. The soldiers steel-clad in chain armour with a
Damask steel sword in their hands had of course a clear
advantage in the battle field. But with the invention of the
muskets and cannons the significance of the Damask
steel lessened and gradually faded away. For some time,
mechanically, they could have continued to forge the
Damask steel weapons out of the remains of the old
Damask swords and chain armour. But the speedy
development of the firearms resulted in the chain armour
fading into the past. They became useless against the
bullets and buck shot. It became unnecessary to cut
shields and armour. The swords and the sabres, of
course, remained amongst the weaponry, but the
requirements towards the quality of the metal became
weaker. A sword made of regular good steel was sufficient
to cut through the uniform and normal clothes. And it was
not at all compulsory for it to be made of the legendary
and expensive Damask steel. So Damask steel could
'survive' till the XVII-XVIII cc., gradually turning into
collector's and museum armament.
33. THE STONE DEBRIS IS PRESERVED IN THE
MUSLIM KAABA IN MEMORY OF YAROSLAVL
METEOR.
During the creation and consolidation of the Great Empire
the Horde army expanded in different directions. The

military workshops, where they fixed and made weapons

moved alongside the armies. There were probably also
such mobile forges where they made Damask steel. To do
so Yaroslavl meteor debris was necessary, used as the
additive to steel. A certain amount of it was carried along
and used when required. Obviously, it was guarded
rigorously. The pieces were transported in special boxes.
Several Horde armies had them. All of which contributed
to the stories of the famous Biblical Ark, in which the
priests carried the relics of the 'stone tablets', handed to
Moses by God Himself. Thus the broken tablets could
have been the debris of Yaroslavl meteor [PRRK].
But is it possible that the debris of some other meteor
fallen in a different place was venerated? We will answer
like this. Just the fact of meteor falling, even a very
spectacular one, is not enough on its own for a strong cult
of worshiping its remnants to be established. Of course
the meteor blast could have impressed accidental
witnesses. But those people who didn't see the fall would
hardly be filled with reverence based only on a few eye
witness accounts. Should the meteor pieces however be
needed for the important military and social ends, then the
picture changes fundamentally. The Yaroslavl meteor was
not just a 'stone from the sky'. The production of Damask
steel originated as a result of it. That is why the attitude
towards the remains became very reverent. They
'guarded' people, 'presented' them with military victories
and even prosperity. This is exactly how the Bible
describes the qualities of the pieces of the stone tablets in
the Ark.
The Bible believes that on the stone tablets there were

WRITTEN the laws given to the Israelites by God. Where

did this legend come from? Here is a simple explanation.
The Yaroslavl meteor was of iron origin. The essential
distinction between an iron meteor and an aerolite is that
when you smooth the surface of an iron meteor, on the
polished flat cut, complex shapes RESEMBLING
INSCRIPTIONS will bleed through. But nothing of the kind
happens with the aerolite. The 'writings' which appear on
the polished section of the ferriferous meteor are called
Widmanstatten patterns. When examining such patterns,
our ancestors could probably decide that these were the
exact divine laws given to Moses. Later the commentators
'successfully read' the arabesque like meteor patterns and
wrote the required text into the Bible. Thus canonizing the
laws designed by people with the authority of the 'Celestial
stone'.
As it was said earlier, Kaaba most likely is the Biblical Ark
of the Old Testament in the end 'emerging' in Arabia. It is
likely that the stone debris kept at some point in Kaaba,
were the pieces of the Yaroslavl meteor. The thought of
them being those very pieces you can see today in Kaaba
is very seductive. The remains of the famous 'shield from
heaven' described by Plutarch. But, most likely, it is not so.
The fact is that according to witnesses, the remains seen
today, which are embedded in the cement, belong, it
seems, to a stone meteor. However, as far as we know,
their chemical analysis was never carried out.
During their military campaigns the Hordians and Atamans
(Ottomans) carried the debris of the Yaroslavl meteor with
them in a chest containing holy relics or in several chests,
see the Bible. These portables boxes and cloth tents were

the original 'Kaabas', aka 'cubes'. The troops traversed

great distances. The 'Kaabas' moved together alongside
them. One of them at some point landed in the Arabian
Peninsula where it was hauled up. When the conquests
came to an end this very 'Kaaba-Cube' became the focus
of worship of the conquerors' descendants and the locals.
It is Kaaba in today's Mecca.
So, at first Kaaba, or a number of Kaabas, came out of
Russia-Horde. But if there survive the literary accounts of
this important event, then the original Hordian 'Kaaba'
could have also been depicted on the old maps. Notably,
exactly in Central Russia. Are there such maps?
Yes, there are. And several of them. Here, for example,
the world map by Pierre Ducellier, allegedly 1550 [PRRK],
ch.5. Straight in the centre of Russia there is an interesting
image. A commentator writes, albeit slightly perplexedly:
'A cartographer places Alexander's Shrine (from the
shores of La Manche it appears to the cartographer AS
MECCA'S KAABA) far in the North [40:c], p.12.
So, in Central Russia, closer to the North, there used to be
situated a structure, which according to the historians,
bore a resemblance to the Kaaba in Mecca. It was called
the Shrine of Alexander of Macedonia. According to our
result, the biggest contribution into the multi-layered image
of Alexander was made by Sultan Suleiman the
Magnificent of the XVI century. I.e., partially, the Biblical
military commander Joshua Ben Nun. Therefore we are
talking about the XVI century here, about the epoch of the
Ataman conquest. So it appears that in that time in Russia
there was a holy shrine resembling the Kaaba in Mecca.

On the map, upstream of the river Don, there was

depicted a black structure of a cuboid shape. We would
like to remind you, that Kaaba is a big cubic building
covered with a black coverlet.
Thus, in the centre of Russia-Horde, there was a structure
resembling the Kaaba-Cube. It is probable, that inside it
were preserved Yaroslavl meteor fragments. At first there
were a lot of stones there. Maybe several hundred tons
worth. A large building was required, a warehouse. Or it
could be even a number of such 'Arks'.
The 'Shrine of Alexander' was very well known in Russia
during the "Classical Antiquity'. It is depicted on Ptolemy's
maps, Fig.60 [PRRK], ch.5. The 'shrine' was clearly
considered to be a large building with windows. The
contemporary Kaaba is also a building.
According to Ptolemy beside the 'Shrine of Alexander', in
Russia-Horde, there was also another Shrine nearby
Royal (Ceasar's Shrine), fig.60. It is possible, that here
were also kept the holy remains of the iron meteor. As it
was mentioned before, the Cossack armies carried with
them the pieces of the meteor for the forging of Damask
steel. That is why there were several 'Shrines', they were
mobile.
34. THE BIBLICAL TABERNACLE.
Let us look at the Biblical Tabernacle, where the Ark of the
Covenant was. The commentators assure us, that a
tabernacle is something like a tent, where the box with the
stone fragments of Moses' tablets stood. However, it is
most likely that this is a much more recent perception of

what a tabernacle was. Though the matter of the

Tabernacle is not of major importance for us, however this
topic shows how the real life events could have been
fantastically interpreted in the chronicles.
The 'first' Arc of The Old Testament is a box where the
fragments of the iron meteor were kept. These pieces of
iron were used to produce Damask steel. But then a
thought occurs that the TABERNACLE was simply a
FORGE, A BLACKSMITHS' SHOP. Precious pieces of the
meteoric iron would be kept exactly in the blacksmiths'
shop, where they were needed by the black smiths and
steelworkers. Here there was finished metal products
(swords, cannons, muskets), steel feeds, furnaces,
anvils, hammers, clippers, water containers for thermo
hardening, boxes with coal and charcoal for the forges,
etc. Altogether a complex and secure Hordian
manufacturing operation.
Curiously enough the Tabernacle is described in quite
some detail in the Bible and in the Illuminated Compiled
Chronicle. Let us see if it says anything about a
blacksmiths. To begin with we open the Synodic
translation of the Bible. We read and at the first glance we
do not discover anything resembling a blacksmiths. There
is a verbose, odd and obscure text in front of us. There
many numbers in it. We open the earlier Illuminated
Compiled Chronicle. Though the description of the
tabernacle is also still hazy here, however there emerge
some vivid details, which were either erased or distorted in
the Synodic translation. They clarify the essence of the
matter. It is likely to be a mediaeval alchemic fragment
inserted into the Bible. The description is clearly intended

for the initiated, 'for the benefit of the insiders'. It seems,

before us we see the encrypted description of a
blacksmiths and the process of Damask steel making. It is
unlikely to be possible to fully restore the initial meaning of
this instruction. But some striking similarities can still be
detected [PRRK], ch.5.
35. AYYUB SULTAN.
It is generally thought, that Ayyub Sultan, the companion
and the standard-bearer of Prophet Muhammad, fell at the
walls of Constantinople allegedly in 669 during the rule of
caliph Muawiyah (after Prophet Muhammad died) and was
buried then at the site of his death. After that, as we are
told, Ayyub's final resting place was engulfed in the murk
of oblivion for many hundreds of years and even the place
itself was completely forgotten. However after 800 years it
was in some mysterious way remembered. In 1453 sultan
Mehmed the Conqueror entered the vanquished
Constantinople and immediately ordered the enclosure of
the site of Ayyub Sultan's death and the commencement
of the construction of his magnificent tomb. Ever since it
has become Istanbul's Islamic sacred place.
The historians were compelled to justify how it was that
Mehmed II suddenly learned of the burial place of Ayyub
Sultan, when allegedly nearly 800 years had passed since
his death. They say that a certain wise man Aksemsettin
(the Seyh-l Islam) dreamt of the burial place, woke up,
found it and told Mehmed II. On the third day of
conquering the city the Sultan gave a command to embark
upon the development of the sumptuous shrine of Ayyub

Sultan.
Our idea is simple. Ayyub Sultan was a contemporary and
supporter of Mehmed the Conqueror. The tomb at the site
of his death was erected IMMEDIATELY, and not after
800 years. Naturally it was possible only under the
condition that Muhammad the Prophet and Mehmed II the
Conqueror are the people of the same epoch. Or, as a
matter of fact, the same person.
Presumably, it was that fatal night in 1453 beyond the city
walls of Constantinople when the famous knight and the
high priest, Caliph Ali = Biblical Aaron = Ayyub Sultan =
the Russian epic hero Ilya Muromets = the Persian epic
hero Rustam - instantaneously perished. Notably it is far
from a complete list of names under which this legendary
man went down in history [PRRK], ch.6.
36. TACITUS AND POGGIO BRACCIOLINI.
Many works talking about the events of the XII-XVII cc.,
when erroneously dated, were shifted back into the past
and declared to be descriptions of 'ancient events'.
For example, Ross and Hochart, the historians of the XIX
century, discovered some clear traces pointing to the late
mediaeval origin of the famous 'Annals' by Cornelius
Tacitus. But Hochart and Ross were mistaken in the
interpretation of their own conclusion. Unaware of the
inaccuracy of the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius and
considering Tacitus to be an 'ancient' historian, they
appraised the facts discovered by them as the proof of the
Annals' forgery . In truth, these facts point out the XV-XVI
cc. as the time of creation of Tacitus's 'Annals' the

original text, which described the events of the XVI-XVII

cc., but later tendentiously adapted by the editors of the
XVI XVII cc.
It becomes clear that in the XV-XVI cc. a well-known writer
Poggio Bracciolini wrote various historical works about his
time and about two-three previous generations. Later his
phantom reflection under the name of 'Cornelius Tacitus'
was dated as 'classical antiquity' and a number of writings
by Poggio-Tacitus 'moved' to the distant past (with a shift
of approximately 1400 years) [2v1], ch.1. In other words,
'Tacitus' is a pen-name of Poggio Bracciolini. He has
'doubled' on the pages of history. The original remained in
the XV-XVI cc. and its phantom reflection found itself
allegedly in the Ist century under the name of 'Tacitus'.
In the epoch of the split of the 'Mongol' Empire the
historical chronicles about the Great Revolt were important
for Western Europeans. The story of Esther of the XVI
century (see the next chapter), i.e. the history of the state
coup in the metropoly of the Empire, was akin to the
rebellious reformists, who aspired to break away from
Russia-Horde. That is why the works of Tacitus describing
'Ancient Rome, in particular about Ivan The Terrible =
Nero and about the story of Esther, were embraced with
special interest. Tacitus-Bracciolini was fairly well informed
of the conflicts in the Imperial Court of Russia-Horde. His
books about the events leading to the Reformation were of
crucial interest [RE].
In [2v2], ch.4:4 we showed that Machiavelli most likely
lived in the XVII century and not in the XVI century. It was
moved backwards in time by a chronological shift of 100
years. The strong interest towards the works of Tacitus

and Machiavelli in the rebellious epoch of the late XV XVII century becomes natural and clear.
37. PLUTARCH AND PETRARCH.
The researchers of Petrarch's work point out an oddity
which is incomprehensible to them. Petrarch wrote many
letters to his contemporaries. And in his Latin
correspondence Petrarch strived - allegedly on purpose TO OBSCURE THE REALITY OF THE MIDDLE AGES
BY SUBSTITUTING IT WITH 'CLASSICAL ANTIQUTY'.
When addressing his contemporaries, he used the ancient
nicknames and names Socrates, Laelius, Olympius,
Simonides, etc. meaning that he wrote the way as if he
'lived in an ancient time'. We are told that he Latinised his
letters on purpose, so they take assumed the form of
antiquity. Even when talking of his own era, he 'disguised'
it under the elegant drapery of the 'classically ancient'.
Possibly, from the pages of Petrarch's letters, even though
'carefully' edited in the XVI-XVII cc., arises the true epoch
of the XIV-XV cc. This was in fact the real 'classical
antiquity', forcefully banished by the historians into the
remote past. So today it is necessary to seriously consider
a theory purporting that Petrarch purposefully disguised
the Middle Ages as 'the classical antiquity'.
Petrarch wrote "On Famous Men", a series of biographies.
He, as it were, 'repeated' the work of the 'ancient'
Plutarch's 'Parallel Lives'. It is likely that PLUTARCH is
simply another nickname of PETRARCH. As a result of
the activities of recent chronologists Petrarch 'divaricated'
on the pages of the chronicles. One of his reflections

under the name of 'Plutarch' was moved into the deepest

past. Approximately 1400 years back, as in the cases with
Poggio Bracciolini and Alberti, see below.
Almost all the characters of PETRARCH are public figures
of 'classical' republican Rome: Lucius Junius Brutus,
Publius Horatius Cocles, Camillus, Titus Manlius
Torquatus, Fabricius, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Marcus
Porcius Cato Major, Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, etc.
Most likely, Petrarch - aka Plutarch simply wrote the
biographies of the personalities of his epoch. Only later
the editors of the XVI-XVII cc. reviewed these life
descriptions and shifted them into the deep past.
Or there is Alberti (1414-1472), a major architect, the
author of the fundamental architectural theory. He is
reflected as a phantom 'in the remote past' (with a shift of
approximately 1400 years) under the name of the
'classical' architect Marcus Vitruvius Pollio. He wrote a
major work which apart from his theory of architecture also
included information on mathematics, optics and
mechanics.
Similarly, the mediaeval distinguished philosopher and
author Georgius Gemistus of the XV century was 'split in
two' under the quills of the Scaligerian chronologists and
one of his phantom reflections, which 'moved into the
past', is known to us today under the name of the famous
'classical philosopher Plato' [1v], [2v2], ch.1.
38. APOCALYPSE IS 'THE BOOK OF THE OTTOMAN
CONQUEST'.

The famous Biblical book Apocalypse was written in 1486

and devoted to the events anticipated in 1492, i.e. in the
year 7000 from Adam, when 'Judgment day' was
expected. It was exactly in 1492 in the face of this gloomy
anticipation that Christopher Columbus (=biblical Noah)
set out to sea. Our astronomical dating of the Apocalypse
as the year 1486 (see [1v], ch.3), - i.e. the year 6994 from
Adam ideally corresponds with its content. It turns out
that the first version of Apocalypse was created only six
years before the anticipated end of the world.
Apocalypse should take the place not as the last book of
the Bible, but should be one of the first books of the Old
Testament. I.e. Apocalypse is contemporary to the five
books of Moses and not the Gospels. It was incorrectly
placed in the Bible next to the Gospels, as it was written
much later than they were, providing a narrative of the XII
century.
Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament (Ezekiel,
Zachariah, Daniel, etc.) contain astronomical fragments.
Their analysis shows that the prophecies are the works of
the late Middle Ages. It corresponds with the results of
applying empiric statistical methods to the Bible, shifting
the time of the writing of the Bible to the XII-XVII cc. The
proximity of the prophecies of the Old Testament to the
Apocalypse means, that they all were created in the XVXVI cc. In the [6v1] Appendix (Annex) 3, indicated are the
excerpts of the Book of Daniel describing 'the story of
Esther' in XVI century Russia.
The essence of Apocalypse is usually expressed as
follows: The second coming of Jesus, He passes
judgement of the people in The Last Judgement,

separates the righteous people from the sinners, lets the

righteous people into paradise, to the New Jerusalem, and
casts the sinners down to hell. These motives lay in the
foundation of various depictions of the Apocalypse in the
churches, church books and on icons.
Jesus lived in the XII century. Approximately 300 years
later, in the XV-XVI cc. the Ataman conquest takes place,
led by Moses and continued by JOSHUA BEN NUN, i.e.
NEW JESUS. It is this epoch which is described in the
Apocalypse as the SECOND COMING OF JESUS. Since
the Cossacks-Israelites were the crusaders and marched
under the banner of Jesus Christ, the chroniclers called
their leader the 'New Jesus'.
The Ataman (Ottoman) invasion was a major blow not just
for Europe, but also for the rest of the world at that time.
The invasion spanned many countries. As it was
mentioned before one of the reasons for it was the
'cleansing' of the infected regions, eradication of the
illnesses, which had spread across the significant part of
Western Europe and Mediterranean.
To remind you, the Western-European Christian Cult, aka
the 'ancient' pagan Bacchanalias of the XV-XVI cc.
resulted in the spread of infectious diseases. Not just the
venereal ones. The Khans of the Empire found
themselves confronting a serious state problem. But at
that primitive level of the development of medicine the
causes of the disease and its proliferation were not clear.
The medics could not offer any effective methods of mass
treatment. And then the khans of the Empire made the
only, as they thought, correct decision to wipe out the
diseased population of the infected regions using military

force. To burn down the houses of the sick. The soldiers

were given orders not to come into contact with the
infected people. To avoid the local food and water. Swords
and all weapons in general had to be disinfected, cleansed
with fire and boiled in water. Clothes to be periodically
incinerated All of this is unequivocally described in detail
in the Books of Exodus and Joshua [6v1], ch.4-5.
After some qualms, the unpopular decision was made in
the end and implemented with an iron fist. Naturally, the
population of Western Europe (i.e. mainly the descendants
of the Hordians-'Mongols', who arrived to the sparsely
inhabited lands a century to a century and a half earlier,
during the conquest of the XIV century) , opposed such
dictates of their Khan-Emperor. Those who were able that
is. No one wanted to die. Even the infirm rose up in arms
to rebut the Atamans (Ottomans). Both sides knew how to
fight. The war broke out. However the rebellion was
crushed with a heavy hand. These were the events, which
seismically shook Europe and are reflected in the
Apocalypse as 'The Last Judgement'.
The Apocalypse is permeated with grim pictures of the
Last Judgement. The Judgment is inevitable for everyone.
The military aspect of the events taking place is
emphasized relentlessly. Jesus is continually depicted with
a BATTLE SWORD.' A message to thee from Him whose
sword is sharpened at both its edges' (The Apocalypse
2:12). His eyes were like BLAZING FIRE Coming out of
His mouth was a SHARP, DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
(The Apocalypse 1:14, 1:16). And so on: (The Apocalypse
2:16), (The Apocalypse 19:15)...

Here was a vividly defined picture of the unstoppable

military invasion, death, fires and stampedes. The
surviving tradition of the illustrations demonstrates that
they were referring to the real war. The mediaeval authors
equated the Biblical Gog and Magog with the TatarsMongols [5v1], ch.8:4. The old illustrations to the
Apocalypse are filled with warriors depicted in a way
usually associated with the manner in which the soldiers of
the Horde were presented [2v1], ch.2.
As we have said already, the Atamans (Ottomans)
(Israelites) were ordered to annihilate the sick population
of the infected regions. The segregation of the sick from
the healthy reflected in the Apocalypse as the division of
the populace into the pure and impure, the righteous and
sinners. The righteous were assured a good life in
Paradise, and the sinners were cast down into Hell.
A torrent of damnation was brought down by the
Apocalypse upon the 'Babylonian lechery'. It was cursed
at length and with intensity as ABOMINATIONS AND EVIL
SPIRITS (The Apocalypse 18:2). Here is described, quite
explicitly, the cause and aim of the Ataman's (Ottoman's)
quarantine policy the eradication of the negative
consequences of the sexual immorality which had spread
in the Western 'ancient' church of the XV-XVI cc. The
infamous inquisition was created for the purpose of
'cleansing' [5v1], ch.12:9-10.
The fall of Babylon described in the Apocalypse was
possibly equated with the conquest of Czar-Grad by the
Atamans in 1453. It took place 33 years prior to the year
1486 recorded in the astronomical horoscope of the
Apocalypse. But it is quite possible that by Babylon was

meant not only Czar-Grad, but collectively many Western

countries immersed in vice and sin, according to the
author of the Bible.
The fact, that the biblical story of the patriarch Noah is
also another reflection of the events of the year 1492,
corresponds with the direct connection between Noah's
voyage and the DOOM OF THE MANKIND, the
catastrophe in which allegedly almost all the people
perish. 'Judgement Day in 1492 is presented here as 'the
Flood', where the Book of Genesis describes the Flood as
the Last Judgement, the God-sent punishment for the
'corruption of the people'. In essence it says the same as
the Apocalypse.
The Old Testament story about the patriarch Noah, the
Flood and the Babylonian pandemonium, is most likely
another version of one of the central storylines of the
Apocalypse. But outlined more succinctly.
To conclude, there appears to be a remarkably close
proximity in time between the three major events: 1) the
beginning of Columbus' = Noah's of the Old Testament's
journey in 1492, 2) the anticipation of the 'end of the world'
in 1492, 3) the epoch of the biblical Apocalypse, not earlier
than 1486.
Later on, when creating or specifying the theory of the
chronology of different eras, the chronologists of the XVIIXVIII cc. combined the end of the already elapsed XV
century with the BACKWARDS CALCULATED rounded
calendar date of seven thousand years. And then they
built a theoretical justification, purporting that the
'roundness of this date itself' was catastrophically
dangerous and that is why in 1492 everyone was allegedly

expecting the end of the world. But all of this was written
later, when it had already been forgotten, that at the end of
the XV century 'the end of the world' was not expected as
a FORESEEN EVENT, BUT ACTUALLY DID TAKE
PLACE in the form of the Ottoman Conquest and the
merciless 'surgical treatment' of various European
countries. This is the exact reason why the images of the
Last Judgment (Joshua Ben Nun = The New) embedded
in the Apocalypse shocked people to the very core. This
was not a 'prediction', but an account of recent events.
Thus circa 1492 'the end of the world' took its actual place
in Western Europe and was impressively described in the
Apocalypse. But later these events were withdrawn from
the history of the XV-XVI cc. and transplanted into the
future. The Apocalypse was freshly re-written (having
destroyed the original text) and declared as a
PROPHECY, which purportedly predicts the end of the
world in a certain future. Why was this done?
The Apocalypse, as we have it today, was designed as an
important ideological and educational Book in order to
remind the people and their descendants of the Ottoman
conquest, which was described as the "Last Judgement".
is also reflected in history as the conquest of St. James
[6v1], ch.5:4. The famous map of St. James' 'religious
conquests', i.e. most likely the map of the military routes of
the Atamans (Ottomans) of the XV-XVI cc., was canonised
and declared by the church as the sacred scheme of
routes down which the future generations should go on
pilgrimage every year in order to reach the Spanish
cathedral Santiago de Compostela and bow down to the
holy relics of St. James. The Church tried its best to

reinforce the memory of events of the Ataman invasion in

people's minds.
A similar thing was done with the Apocalypse, i.e. 'The
Book of the Ottoman conquest'. It was declared holy and,
having included it into the biblical canon, turned it into an
object of devotion for the ensuing generations. When the
book was declared a prophecy of the Last Judgement, the
people believed it, as something like this had recently
been experienced. When the Khans-Czars of the Great
Empire educated the population of the colonized
territories, demanding them to abide by the law and
threatening the disobedient with the Judgement of Jesus,
they were believed unreservedly. As they remembered
that 'one such Judgement of Jesus' did already take place.
And therefore if necessary it can be repeated once more.
Everywhere in the churches and temples of the Empire
they began to paint frescos the impressive images of the
Judgement of Jesus. Stating at the same time that all of
this will only take place in the future. The rulers of the
Empire wisely employed this method of mass education in
the spirit of obeisance to the Imperial dictates.
In the West and in Russia the Judgement of Jesus was
represented in fundamentally different ways. In Russia the
Final Judgement was pictured in soft tones, without the
elements of intimidation. The stress was upon the
depiction of the righteous, giving praise to the Lord's
Throne. Hell was presented in a tawdry, not very
frightening way.
But in Western Europe the Last Judgement was portrayed
using darker methods, inducing a more penetrating effect
on the psyche, depicting terrifying executions, the tortures

of the damned, hellfire, torture instruments and gruesome

physiological details. Recall the paintings of Hieronymus
Bosch, Pieter Brueghel and many others.
It is all clear. In Russia-Horde, in the metropoly of the
Empire, as in Atamania (Ottoman Empire), there were no
quarantine actions on the liquidation of the XV-XVI cc.
epidemics. That is why the attitude towards the Final
Judgement here was more impassive. The population of
the metropoly didn't experience the cataclysms connected
with the 'mandatory treatment of Europe'. There were of
course plenty of other rueful feelings here, as everywhere,
but the 'surgical operations' passed Russia and The
Ottoman Empire by.
But Western Europe found itself in the epicentre of the
atamans' invasion. Here the quarantine operations were
carried out on a full scale. It is sufficient to read over the
Books of the Old Testament Exodus and Joshua, to
imagine the red-hot situation in Europe of the XV-XVI cc.
That is why the Western Europeans, saved from the
epidemics (by severe means, but saved nevertheless)
perceived the Final Judgement as directly experienced
reality, hence the harrowing nature of the paintings and
frescos of the Western artists.
In the West the reading of the Apocalypse to the
congregation was imposed as a duty on the priesthood, so
that the Europeans didn't forget Jesus' Judgement which
took place in the XV-XVI cc. It was here where the Great
Empire had to forcibly conduct the quarantine operations.
That is why in Europe it was necessary to keep alive the
memories of the Last Judgement, so that the seductive
orgies, which gave rise to past epidemics, didn't flourish

again. In other words the authorities sternly warned the

people against the 'drugs'. But in the East, in the
metropoly of the Empire, the situation was different. Here
Christianity, starting with the XII century, constantly
remained in a rather ascetic framework. There were never
any orgies there, at least not on the mass scale. Likewise
in Islam. That is why in the Eastern churches it was not
necessary to read the Apocalypse as an admonition to the
Congregation. So it was not read.
The shock experienced by Western Europe in the XV-XVI
cc. bred within some social groups a deeply entrenched
enmity towards the 'surgeons', i.e. towards the Atamania
(Ottoman Empire) and Russia-Horde, a hatred which had
not been felt before. That the 'surgeon' had cured the
'bacchanalian drug addiction' was a fact condemned to
oblivion. It was the grievance for the sufferings inflicted
during the compulsory treatment that took precedence.
The memory of the 'pain' experienced before was used by
the Western reformists determined to exert their control. It
acted like an enzyme which fermented and created the
conditions to justify their ambitions and aspirations to split
the Empire. It was the cunningly promoted 'Hatred of the
doctor' which slyly facilitated the organization of the
conspiracy in the metropoly of Russia-Horde and allowed
the break-up of the Empire.
In the XVII century the Reformative Western Europe at
last gained independence [6v2]. The break of the
'Mongolian' Empire enabled the Western Europeans to
invade Russia and physically destroy the Hordian dynasty,
placing the pro-Western Romanovs into power. The
bloody pogrom ran through Russia. The metropoly was

occupied by the foreigners over a long period of time.

SERFDOM, i.e. SLAVERY for the majority of the
population of the country is introduced. The Romanovs'
occupying regime held out for a long time. The Hordian'Mongolian' traditions are destroyed on the invaded
territories, the whole way of life changes radically,
including the church practices. It is not surprising that in
the epoch of the Great Revolt in Russia the people could
have seen in the Apocalypse some indication of the
beginning of the last Judgement. But this time in Russia,
in the East. So what do we see in the XVII century?
We quote: 'A resurgence of interest in the Apocalypse in
Russian society occurs in the middle of the 'rebellious'
XVII century The supporters of the old orders saw in the
drastic reformer (Nikon Author) if not the Antichrist
himself, then at least his precursor The end of the world
was anticipated in 1658 then in 1666, and finally, similar
to the situation in 1492, taking into account the earthly life
of Christ, - in 1699. At the end of the expected date, as if
in support of the premonitions, Peter the Great's state
reforms began Since the middle of the XVII century and
in the duration of one a half centuries the APOCALYPSE
BECOMES ALMOST THE MAIN BOOK OF THE OLD
RUSSIAN FAITH in particular the apocalyptic quality of
the outlook was characteristic to the extreme Old
Believers Bezpopovtsy (Sects of Russian religious
dissenters that renounced priests and all sacraments,
except Baptism Translator's note), such as
'stranniks'(religious pilgrims Translator's note) (runners),
who denied the possibility of salvation in secular life, from
which one should run away, as the kingdom of Antichrist

was perceived by them NOT AS FORTHCOMING, BUT

AS ALREADY ARRIVED' [623], p.29-30.
39. WHEN DID THE GEOGAPHICAL NAMES
'SOLIDIFY'.
Many geographical names in course of time fundamentally
changed their meaning. That is why we should not refer to,
for example, just the 'city of Rome'. You should say 'the
city of Rome in such and such century'. In which case the
geographical location of Rome will fundamentally shift.
The names of the countries, cities, etc. 'lived in time' and
moved around the map. At first they were not securely
fixed due to the lack of reliable links between the nations.
The languages and the writing systems were only just
starting to take shape. Only at a considerably later stage
with the circulation of books and single uniform printed
geographical maps, the geographical names, finally,
became permanent on the map.
Indeed, how could information about the geography of the
world be fixed and distributed? To do so it is necessary to
own some kind of multiplying equipment, allowing
reproduction of at least several dozens of copies of a map
or a manuscript in order to make it a universal asset.
Without it the information becomes mercurial and fastchanging. The old localizations fade from memory, new
ones are introduced, and the process becomes difficult to
control. The relocation of the names and the frequent
change of their meaning stopped only with the appearance
of the printed book. In the pre -press epoch the relocation
of the cities' names, the names of the nations, the change

in the meaning of these names, was a frequent

occurrence. See the previous chapter.
40. HERODOTUS THE CHRONICLER OF THE
HORDE.
Moving along the fundamental 'History' of Herodotus, we
have discovered the significant identifications, shown in
fig.61, fig.62, fig.63. Incidentally, the name 'The Histories
of Herodotus' probably meant 'The History of Horde
(Horda)' [ZA], ch.1.
# The very first book of the 'History' is Clio. It turned out
that in it, primarily, is told the story of Andronicus-Christ
from the XII century and the Crusades of the XIII century,
i.e. the Trojan war.
# The second book Euterpe tells us, as it turns out, about
Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc., i.e. about the biblical
Egypt. In particular, under the name of 'construction of the
Egyptian Labyrinth' it speaks of the building of the
overground and underground Moscow of the XVI century
during the time of Ivan IV the Terrible, who turned Moscow
into the capital of the 'Mongolian' Empire [6v].
# In the third book Thalia we discovered another narrative
of Andronicus-Christ, named here as king Polycrates [GR].
However this subject occupies only a small part in the
book. Its main content is the story of Cambyses, king of
Persia and Egypt, i.e. of khan Ivan IV the Terrible.
# The book of Melpomene mainly speaks of the
Novgorodian Serf War and once again of AndronicusChrist [TsRIM] and [GR].
# The book of Terpsichore begins a narration about the

Epoch of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc.

# The book Erato continues this narration, but here is
inserted the description of the 'ancient' Battle of Marathon,
i.e. the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380 [ZA], ch.1.
# The last books of the 'History' of Herodotus, namely
Polymnia, Urania and Calliope, tell us, as it turns out,
about Ivan IV the Terrible and the rebellion of the
Reformation in the late XVI- early XVII cc.
We found out that despite some confusion, Herodotus on
the whole moves in the right direction from the XII to XVII
cc. His last books Thalia, Terpsichore, Erato, Polymnia,
Urania and Calliope comprise the greater part of the
'History'. Therefore the epoch of the Reformation is given
the most attention. And it is understandable why. As we
said earlier, it felt acceptable to the Western Europeans,
who got free from the direct vassalage to Russia-Horde =
Israel and paying taxes to the metropoly. From the early
XVII century there was much more money left in West
than before. It was used more liberally and in some places
they began to create their own statehood and an army.
41. THE CLOCK AND ASTRONOMY.
It is perceived that the first mention of the mechanical
clock is dated to the late VI century [797]. Then it allegedly
disappears and reappears only in the epoch of
Renaissance. The science historians inform us: 'In the XIII
century the Italian master craftsmen constructed the first
mechanical clock [954], p.3. According to the new
chronology, the clock (water-clock and their ilk), appeared
not earlier than the XI century, and the mechanical clock

was invented not earlier than the XIII century [3v1].

Only 'since the XV century a clock appeared, where the
part of a string with a balance weight was fulfilled by a
spring. The clock instantly weighed far less. In the early
XVI century they learned how to make a portable spring
clock which weighed just 3 or 4 kilograms' [954], p.39.
More or less precise cataloguing of the stars longitudinally
should have naturally begun following the invention of the
clock with a MINUTE HAND. Why is a minute hand
necessary? The fact is that during the diurnal rotation the
celestial dome with the stars travels one degree in 4
minutes. Thus in one hourly minute a star travels 15 arc
minutes. The ancient celestial catalogues contain the stars
positions within the accuracy of several arc minutes. In
order to achieve accuracy of the catalogue within 15 arc
minutes, it is necessary to know how to record the interval
of time lag of one hourly minute. To get the precision of
the catalogue within 10 minutes as in Almagest, for
example, - the observer should confidently measure the
time interval of 40 seconds on the clock.
But even an hour hand without a minute hand was
introduced in the water-clock only in the XIII century or
possibly later [544], v.4, p.267. Only in the XIV century the
tower clock, also only with an hour hand, appeared in
various European cities in Milan since 1306, in Padua
since 1344. And only in the XV century there appeared a
clock with a spring and weight. At first such a clock was
used for the purposes of the astronomical observations by
Walter, and later by Tykho Brahe and others [544], v.4,
p.267-268.
In the middle of XVI century the second Minute hand was

added to the Hour hand, and two hundred years later the
third Second Hand [954, p.39]. The emergence of the
Minute hand usually dates to circa 1550 [3v1].
That is why all more or less reliable astronomical
observations, including the cataloguing of the stars, could
have begun not earlier than the XI-XIII cc. This
corresponds with our dating of Ptolemy's star catalogue
Almagest as not earlier than the XI century. At that the
epoch of the finalizing of Almagest as the astronomical
encyclopaedia, was the XVI century. And not at all the II
century, as perceived by the Scaligerian history [3v1].
42. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
1. (Year 1404) SMALL ESNA ZODIAC EM (ZODIAC EM
FROM THE SMALL TEMPLE OF ESNA). Depicted on the
stone slab relief on the ceiling of the temple, bas-relief.
'Ancient' Egypt, Esna, allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 6-8 May
1404 [NKhE].
2. (Year 1405) the 'RADIAL' ZODIAC RP2 IN THE
CHAMBER OF COURT IN PADUA. Murals of the upper
hall. Italy, Padua, allegedly 1315-1317. Astronomical
dating: 14-16 October 1405. In fact this zodiac was
created in the XVIII century. See [GRK], ch.4.
3. (Year 1421) PHAETHON ZODIAC FN on the stone basrelief in the Villa Borghese. Italy, allegedly 'antiquity'. In
fact: one of the versions 19 May 1421 precisely
matches the date indicated in the Russian chronicles
[PRRK], Ch.5.
4. (Year 1486) ZODIAC OF THE APOCALYPSE ,

contained in the famous biblical Book of the Revelation of

St. John allegedly written in the Ist century. In fact: 1
October 1486 [1v].
5. (Year 1495) ZODIAC BL ON THE BAYEUX
TAPESTRY. Positioned (among various other depictions)
on the embroidered linen cloth approximately 70 metres
long and approximately 50 centimetres wide. Europe,
England, allegedly the XI century. In fact 16 March 1495
[KR], ch.1. Therefore the famous tapestry was made no
earlier than in the XV century. Besides it was not the
conquest of England depicted on it, but the Trojan War
and Christ's deposition. As far as we know, before us
nobody tried to astronomically date the Bayeux Tapestry,
let alone speak of a zodiac with a horoscope present on it.
There is nothing surprising in this. Usually the historians
prefer 'not to notice' any zodiacs on the ancient artefacts.
Or, when it is completely obvious, they begin to pontificate
about their allegedly purely religious meaning. They, most
likely, do their best to escape the need to astronomically
date such images and, mainly, to lead the readers away
from such a 'dangerous' thought.
Chapter 6.
THE EPOCH OF THE XVI CENTURY
1. KAZAN = KHAZAR REBELLION IN RUSSIA-HORDE
In the middle of the XVI century the Kazan kingdom aka
the legendary 'ancient' Khazar Khaganate becomes the
centre of the Judaic religion. The Kazan czar, i.e. The
Khazar Kagan and his court convert to Judaism. Kazan

makes an attempt to break away from the Empire. It is

possible, that there was some kind of connection between
Kazan = Khazar Judaism and the Western Reformation,
Protestantism.
The Kazan Judaism of the XVI century and contemporary
Judaism should not be confused with each other. The
present names of the religions originated from positive
sounding notions. For instance, Jew meant 'One who
praises God'. For a long time these terms were not
attached to any of the religious branches. They were still
in general use. That is why the mediaeval terms: Jew,
Orthodox, Catholic = universal do not always correspond
with the same terms in the contemporary sense which is
already associated with this or that religious institution.
The aforesaid also refers to the names of the countries.
For example, Israel, i.e. fighter for God, was a religiously
tinged name of the entire Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.
Judaea was the name for Asmania (Osmania) - Atamania
with its capital in the Biblical Jerusalem = Czar-Grad. That
is why in the epoch of the Reformation the name Israel
was used by some newly emerging states in order to
emphasise their rightness in the religious debate. Only
later this name was assigned to just one religious branch
and one state.
In 1552 the czar-khan of Veliky Novgorod Ivan the
'Terrible' severely crushed the Kazan Khazar revolt
[6v1], ch.6. The history of the capture of Kazan was
intertwined in the chronicles with the seizure of Czar-Grad
by the Osmans a century earlier, in 1453.

In the book [ZA] we showed that the seizure of Kazan is

described, in particular, by 'classical' Herodotus in his
work 'The Histories'. Moreover, it is described more than
once and 'under different names'. For example as the
conquest and crushing defeat of 'Egyptian Memphis' by
King Cambyses II (i.e. by Ivan the 'Terrible'). For the
second time as the construction by King Xerxes (Ivan
the Terrible once again) of a 'bridge across Hellespont'.
Allegedly across the strait which separates Europe and
Asia. The subject matter here is the beginning of Xerxes'
punitive campaign against Europe with a purpose of
punishing the Greeks and the Europeans in general 'for
disobedience'. At the very beginning of the campaign
Xerxes gives an order 'to pacify Hellespont' and to build a
bridge across it, over which it would be possible to
transport a huge Persian army from Asia into Europe. The
massive bridge was built. This storyline by Herodotus
reflects the building of the city of Sviyazhsk for the
purpose of transporting Grozny's army across the Volga
river prior to the conquest of Kazan [ZA].
2. THE REVOLT-REFORMATION IN WESTERN
EUROPE.
In the second half of the XVI century in Europe the
governors who do not wish to obey the distant czar-khan
of Veliky Novgorod form a rebellion. They seek
independence. The banner of religious separation from the
Empire was chosen as the ideological basis of the revolt.
The rebels-protestants took advantage of the emergence
of Lutheranism in the West as a just cause for political

separation. Martin Luther himself was most likely a purely

religious reformer and loyal subject of the 'Mongol' Empire.
'The Reformation is one of the major events in world
history, the name of which was used to symbolize the
whole period of the new era spanning the 16th and the
first half of the 17th century'[936], v.2, p.471. As a religious
motto the reformists chose Lutheranism. In Russia it was
called the heresy of the Judaizers [6v1], .7. In the
Romanovs' version of Russian history this heresy is mainly
moved from the XVI century to the preceding XV century.
The truth is that the Romanovs themselves were mixed up
in the heresy of the Judaizers [6v1], ch.7. They were
covering their tracks. However, even in the distorted
version of the XVI century there survive many traces of the
actual events. It is generally thought, that in the XVI
century in Russia the heresy of the Judaizers re-emerges.'
3. RUSSIA-HORDE'S PREPARATION OF THE PUNITIVE
CAMPAIGN TO SUPRESS THE WESTERN
REFORMATION.
Having crushed the rebellion in Kazan, Russia-Horde
turns its attention towards the seething West. The decision
was made to send a punitive force there. In the Russian
sources this event is known as the beginning of the
Livonian war [6v1], ch.8.
In fact the whole of Western Europe is called as Livonia
here. It was only later that the Romanov historians
cunningly depicted Livonia as just a small region on the
territory of contemporary Lithuania, where the Russian

army was headed to in order to crush Lutheranism. In

other words, as we understand it now, to crush the entire
Western Reformation. The historians made light of the
matter in such a way as if to say that the conflict between
Russia and Western Europe was the struggle between the
enormous Russia with the tiny Livonia. So in the end it
came across as if the Empire was fighting a fruitless and
long drawn out war with a small, but proud Livonia. I.e.
allegedly with Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Sweden. This is the so called Livonian war of the XVI
century.
So the 'Romanovs' Livonia' was granted - on paper the
achievements of the entire Reformist Europe. The small
countries, included today by the historians into 'Livonia of
the XVI century', were on the edge of Western Europe
along the border with the metropoly of Russia-Horde. The
name of Livonia itself in the XVII century, after the
collapse of the Empire, has disappeared from the maps
[797], p.707-708. Along with the so called Livonian Order.
In other words, with Livonian Horde. The historians
themselves admit that the Livonian Order was in fact
GERMAN [797], p.708. So the historians tried at all costs
to take the name of Livonia away from the whole of
Western Europe and keep it just for the Baltic countries.
The Reformation in Western Europe = 'Livonia' was
perceived in Velikii Novgorod as a revolt in the dependent
regions. A decision was made to crush it by force. A
massive campaign was prepared the third conquest of
Europe, so to speak. But at this point a revolt ignites in the

capital of the Empire, escalating into terror and the

oprichnina (political and administrative apparatus
established by Ivan IV the Terrible Translator's note).
4. THE STORY OF ESTHER AND THE OPRICHNINA AS
THE MASSACRE OF THE RULING MILITARY CLASS
OF THE GREAT EMPIRE.
A major revolt rises up in the capital of the Empire. Czarkhan Ivan IV falls ill, becomes deranged and retires from
office. According to the Western sources, Karl V aka
Ivan the Terrible leaves for the monastery, abdicating
from the throne. In the epoch of the oprichnina it is a
teenage Ivan, the son of Ivan the Blessed, who is formally
the czar, but it is the others, his mother's relatives, who in
fact rule. The pro-Western faction of the ZakharyinsRomanovs assumed power. The coup takes place 'via a
woman'. I.e. with woman's help. It is described in the Old
Testament as the legendary Esther [6v1], ch.7. A group of
the Lutherans, which were called the Judaizers by the
Russian Orthodox church, found itself in power for a
certain period of time. They were the foreign Protestants,
who enjoyed full confidence with the ZakharyinsRomanovs. They sabotaged the punitive Russian-Hordian
campaign to the West which had already started. The
epoch of the oprichnina begins. It is one of the darkest
periods of Russian history. The massacre of the Hordian
military commanders and elite takes place. Including the
heirs to the Russian throne. One of the bright reflections of
this in the 'ancient' history is the slaughter of his brothers
by Svyatopolk the 'Accursed'. In the Bible it is reflected as

the 'massacre of the Persians'. To commemorate this

event in the Judaic church the famous holiday of Purim
was established.
There are several consecutively ruling czars represented
on the pages of the Russian history under the name of
'Ivan the Terrible'.
1) Czar Ivan Vasilyevich, subsequently Vasiliy or Ivan
the Blessed (1547-1553).
2) Czar Dmitry Ivanovich, a younger son of Ivan
Vasilyevich, who died as an adolescent in an accident
(1553-1563).
3) Czar Ivan Ivanovich, the second son of Ivan
Vasilyevich, a youth on whose behalf and under whose
authority the oprichnina was unleashed (1563-1572).
4) Czar Simeon (1572-1584), crowned to rein under the
czar name Ivan after the defeat of the oprichnina and
dethronement of Ivan Ivanovich. The founder of the new
dynasty to which belonged czar Feodor Ivanovich and the
last czars of which were Boris Feodorovich 'Godunov' and
his teenage son Feodor Borisovich, who were
assassinated by the conspirators.
The palace revolt in Russia of the XVI century, which put
the end to the Livonian war, and the oprichnina and terror
which followed it, are described in the Bible, in the Books
of Esther and Judith. The 'story of a woman' played an
important role. In the Bible it is depicted twice. As Esther,
in 'the Book of Esther', describing the court life of Russia-

Horde in the XVI century. And as Judith, in 'the Book of

Judith', which gives an account of the same events, but
through the eyes of a Western chronicler far from the khan
court of the Empire.
In the Romanovs' version the story of the heretic EstherJudith has been cleaned out from the XVI century as
dangerous for the Romanovs who were embroiled in
heresy. However it turned out that the epoch of the XVI
century in the Romanov's history is duplicated in the XV
century. It affords us an invaluable insight into the XVI
century, by peering into its XV century reflection. Here the
'story of Esther' is presented in its brightest form. Ivan III
should be read as a czar of the epoch of Ivan the 'Terrible'
of the XVI century. It is most likely Ivan's IV brother
Georgiy, who came to power after Ivan IV = Vasiliy the
Blessed stepped down. Georgiy I is described in the Bible
as Artaxerxes Macrocheir (Latin: 'Longimanus'). In
Russian history he also reflected as Yuri Dolgorukiy, the
founder of Moscow. Under his rule the capital of the
Empire was in fact moved to Moscow, where the Kremlin
was built. It took place only at the end of the XVI century.
But not in the XII-XIV cc. as we are constantly assured.
Notably the transferal of the capital is closely related to
Esther and the revolt in the Empire.
The recollections of these events were painful for the
Romanovs even in the XVIII century. That is why in their
version, the creation of which started in the XVII century,
the 'story of Esther' was presented in a muffled way. At the
same time, however, a fairly honest chronicle of these

events was composed, which was included in the Bible.

But here they were disguised under the invented 'biblical'
names for the characters, countries, etc. The biblical
canon was being created in the late XVI XVII cc. Its final
edition was carried out by the winners-reformers. In other
words by the protestants.
5. THE DETAILS OF THE STORY OF BIBICAL ESTHER
= HERETIC ELENA VOLOSHANKA AND DMITRIYMORDECAI, HER SON.
&& THE BIBLE (BIBLICAL) VERSION.
In the Old Testament 'Book of Esther' the events unfold in
the Persian kingdom under the great king Artaxerxes. The
capital city is Susa. King Artaxerxes falls out with his wife
Astin. She is accused of being disrespectful towards her
husband. The king disgraces her. The king's subjects
demand Astin's banishment and her replacement with
another queen.
The Bible says: 'The Queen Vashti (Astin) would not come
into the king's presence on his command the king
had an errand for the seven chamberlains that waited on
him They were to bring queen Vasthi (Astin) into the
king's presence Vain was the royal summons that the
chamberlains brought her; she would not come.
Whereupon the king broke out into a great passion of
rage Mamuchan thus spoke: So please thee, let an
edict go out in thy name forbidding Vasthi ever to come
into the royal presence again. LET THE CROWN PASS
TO SOME HEAD WORTHIER THAN HERS and the

king did as Mamuchan had advised' (Book of Esther 1:1213, 1:15-16, 1:19, 1:21).
The 'Persian' custom of selecting a bride for the czar is
described in the Book of Esther as a matter of state
importance. 'Now in Shushan the palace there was a
certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai Who had been
carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity whom
the king of Babylon had carried away. And he brought up
Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter' (Esther
2:5-7).
Esther takes part in the bridal parade and the choice falls
on her (Esther 2:17) So, a FOREIGNER Esther, aka
Hadassah was chosen as the NEW WIFE of the Persian
king Art-Xerxes. She was a JEWESS, a step-daughter and
a relative of Mordecai. One of the captive Jews moved
from Jerusalem = Czar-Grad by the king Nebuchadnezzar
= Ivan the Terrible. At first Mordecai FORBIDS her to
disclose her origin and faith (Esther 2:20).
The Bibles tells us: After this did king Ahasuerus promote
Haman and advanced him, and set his seat above all
the princes that were with him And all the king's
servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and
reverenced Haman (Esther 3:1-2).
On Haman's command the letters were sent by posts into
all the king's provinces in the name of Art-Xerxes ' to
destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish all Jews and to
take their spoils for prey' (Esther 3:13).

Among other things Haman writes the following: 'There is

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

gathered themselves together to lay hand on such as

sought their hurt' (Esther 9:1-2)
And further: 'THUS THE JEWS SMOTE ALL THEIR
ENEMIES ... And in Shushan palace the Jews slew and
destroyed five hundred men The ten sons of Haman
slew they' (Esther 9:5-6, 9:10). And also: 'But the other
Jews that were in the king's provinces and slew of their
foes seventy and five thousand' (Esther 9:15-16).
It is curious that here the Ostrog Bible (one of the earliest
East Slavic translations of the Bible Translator's note)
and the Elizabeth Bible (the authorized version of the
Russian Orthodox Church Translator's note) carries on:
'AND DEVASTATED THEIR DOMAIN ON THAT DAY'.
But in the synodic translation and the Hebrew Scriptures,
the direct opposite is said: BUT ON THE PREY THEY
LAID NOT THEIR HAND'. It appears that the later editors
sometimes radically altered the version of events,
changing black into white and vice versa.
&& THE RUSSIAN VERSION.
The Biblical Arta-Xerxes, aka Nebuchadnezzar, aka Ivan
III the Terrible (allegedly 1462-1505) is a partial reflection
of Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-1547-1584) [6v1], ch.7-8.
Ivan IV was born allegedly in 1503 (in fact he was born in
1526 [RI], ch.2, [ERIZ] and was declared the Grand Prince
in 1533 [988:00].
Biblical Esther is Elena Voloshanka, the wife of Ivan
Molodoy (Ivan the Young), the son of Ivan III = Ivan IV.

The story of Elena Voloshanka in the Romanovs' version

is shifted into the XV century. In fact the events took place
in the second half of the XVI century. Elena was in fact a
foreigner, who came to Moscow from the South. 'In 1482
the heir to the throne Ivan Ivanovich married Elena
Voloshanka, the daughter of the MOLDAVIAN ruler (of
MOLDAVIA)' [778], p.115. Exactly corresponding with the
Bible, she was a Hebrewess and belonged to the heresy
of the Judaizers, which was a secret heretic movement in
Russia in that time [690], .10-12. Reportedly, 'on the
surface the followers of the heresy remained Orthodox
Christians and maintained a pious exterior. In front of the
people they presented themselves as the strict devotees
of Orthodox Christianity, denounced and damned false
doctrines. In secret they carried out their nasty work' [690]
p.9-10.
So, Esther is Elena Voloshanka, i.e. Moldovanka
(Moldavian), the princess of Moldavia. Her father is the
Khan of Moldavia that is the biblical Mordecai.
The expert on the history of the church A.V.Kartashov
states: 'In 1470 in Novgorod there appears a heresy of
the so called the 'Judaizers'. It's vaccine is brought from
the outside the Novgorodians invited Prince
Alexander of Kiev (on the other accounts he was a
Lithuanian prince [690], p.9 Author) The prince arrived
in Novgorod with his aids who brought ideological
novelties from the West Not the novelties of the
Christian West, but of the Western Jewry. In the prince's
entourage there was Skhariya the Jew, a medical scholar'

[372], v.1, p.489. Within a year some people from the

circle of the high-ranking clergymen of Novgorod joined
the heretical movement. The heretics were sometimes
called Skharians after Skharia (Zechariah).
And further: 'THE RELATED, PROFESSIONALLY
FAMILIAL nature of the cult is striking The whole matter
was essentially arranged as a covert plot... The sect
managed to maintain its SECRET LIFE for a whole ten
years at the end of 1479 Ivan III, the conqueror of
Novgorod, arrived there himself and was enchanted by the
talents and gallantry of the cunning libertines protopresbyters.
He decided to move them into his capital. He made Alexei
the Arch-priest of Uspenskiy Cathedral and Denis the
Proto-pope of the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral. Chances are
that this honorary transferal was suggested to him by
the secret alliance of the Judaizers itself the Moscow
branch of which had already been established AT THE
VERY ROYAL COURT of Ivan III and was headed by
Feodor Vasilievich Kuritsyn, his MINISTER OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS and deacon of the Ambassadorial Council. It's
all kept shrouded in secrecy until 1487 when the
conspiracy collapsed in Novgorod' [372], v.1, p.490-491.
Allegedly in 1487 (in reality a century later) the Archbishop
Gennady of Novgorod uncovers the Heresy of the
Judaizers and initiates its persecution. In Novgorod, i.e. in
Yaroslavl, heresy was destroyed. However in Moscow the
heretics were left untouched as they comprised the
CLOSEST ENTOURAGE OF THE CZAR IVAN III.

Nevertheless, Gennady and the other hierarchy of the

Russian church insist on the persecution: 'Execute the
heretics burn and hang them!' [690], p.13.
Allegedly the council against the heretics was appointed in
1490. Hanging over them was the imminent danger of
complete annihilation. But among their number they
already could count Elena Voloshanka, Ivan III's daughterin-law, the wife of Ivan the Young. It is also possible, that
she was a heretic from the very beginning. The wedding of
Ivan the Young and Elena of Moldavia took place allegedly
in 1482 or 1483 [778], p.115, [282], p.54. Shortly after
Elena of Moldavia gives birth to a son, Dmitry, a family
scandal flares up among the family of Ivan III, in the centre
of which are Sophia Paleologue, Ivan's III wife, and Elena,
his young daughterin-law. Ivan III falls out with Sophia
Paleologue.
In March of allegedly 1490 Ivan the Young dies suddenly.
Some thought that he was poisoned. The doctor who was
treating him was executed.
The quarrel between Elena Moldovanka and Sophia
Paleologue, the wife of Ivan III is enflamed even more.
The conflict between Ivan III and Sophia becomes explicit.
The czar rejects his wife and openly BRINGS ELENA
CLOSER a young widow, the wife of his deceased son.
She acquires the absolute trust of Ivan III. This is the
biblical 'story of Esther'.
There emerge two antagonistic camps. One - Sophia
Paleologue and her son Vasili. The other Elena

Moldovanka and her son Dmitry. Both boys are the

potential heirs to the throne. The first camp is supported
by the Russian Orthodox Church, Joseph Volotsky and the
Archbishop Gennady. The second camp is supported by
the Heresy of the Judaizers.
At that point Ivan III favours the second camp for a
considerable time, supporting the Heresy of the Judaizers.
The threat of crushing heresy recedes. The same year,
allegedly in 1490, Judaizing heretic Zosima becomes the
Metropolitan of Moscow [372], v.1, p.495. The heretics
Alexei and Dionisy were appointed by the czar for the
ecclesiastical ministry in the Moscow Kremlin: Alexei as
the Arch-priest of Uspenskiy Cathedral and Dionisy the
priest of the Arkhangelskiy Cathedral.
The Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod and the other
hierarchs of the Russian church succeeded in convening
the councils in an attempt to destroy heresy in Moscow.
The council is held allegedly in 1490. However IT DOES
NOT RULE AGAINST THE HERETICS. The imprisonment
of Vasily, Ivan III's son and the cruel execution of Vasily's
confidants and zaritsa Sophia's supporters formed the
pinnacle of the triumph of the Heresy of the Judaizers.
They were thrown into the Moscow river. Sophia
Paleologue flees to Beloozero (White Lake). Elena
Voloshanka triumphs. Allegedly in 1498, while Ivan III is
still alive, her son Dmitry is triumphantly crowned Czar. He
becomes Ivan III's co-ruler. It is here that the Old
Testament Book of Esther concludes its narration.

But to complete the picture we would like to tell you what

happened next. Sometime later Ivan III comes to his
senses and returns his favour to Sophia Paleologue and
his son Vasily. VASILY WAS DECLARED AN HEIR TO
THE THRONE. Soon, allegedly in 1503 Sophia dies. Ivan
III was also taken ill. 'In 1503 Ivan (Ioan) III REPENTED IN
HIS FORMER WEAKNESS TOWARDS THE HERETICS
AND ASKED THE CLERICS FOR FORGIVENESS' [690],
p.16. From that point the pendulum started moving in the
reverse direction , and the counter stroke was intense.
Elena Moldovanka was thrown into a dungeon, where she
died shortly, allegedly in 1505. In 1504 THE
EXECUTIONS OF THE JUDAIZING HERETICS SWEPT
THE GRAND DUCHY OF MOSCOW. From that point the
heresy of the Judaizers for some time ceased to exist in
Russia. But, apparently, it took its toll on Ivan III. Allegedly
in 1505 Ivan III dies.
However the biblical Book of Esther does not speak a
word of it. We add the word 'allegedly' to the dating of the
XV century as in fact the events took place a century
closer to us.
It turns out that the legendary patriarch Joseph of the Old
Testament is the reflection of Joseph Volotsky renowned
saint of the Russian church, as well as of DmitryMordecai, the heretic, the son of Elena Voloshanka = the
biblical Esther of the VI century [P], ch.5. The relocation
of the family clan of Jacob-Israel to Egypt described in the
Old Testament Book of Genesis is the emergence and
establishment of the Western heretics-Reformers in

Moscow. Russia-Horde becomes immersed in the Great

Strife.
6. THE ORIGINAL ESTHER IN THE RUSSIAN HISTORY
OF THE XVI CENTURY AND A NUMBER OF HER
STRIKING DUPLICATES IN EARLIER EPOCHS.
In [6v1], ch.7 we presented two bright reflections of the
story of Esther in Russian history. One of them is the
epoch of the heresy of the Judaizers under Ivan III, where
Esther is Elena Voloshanka. The other is the epoch of the
Seven Boyars after the death of Vasily III, where Esther is
Elena Glinskaya, the mother of Ivan IV the Terrible.
However, neither of the reflections occupies the correct
place on the timeline. The original story of Esther is
associated with the oprichnina of the XVI century and the
Great Strife of the early XVII century, the origins of which
lie in the late XVI century. The epoch of the XVI century,
which was the key one in Russian history, was most
thoroughly worked on by the Romanovs' historians. Their
goal was to conceal both the very moment of the split of
the "Mongol' Empire and its causes. Luckily a more or less
exact duplicate survived in the XV century under Ivan III
as it was not recognized by the Romanovs' falsifiers. If
they did recognize it, they would have immediately
eradicated it, in order to remove accusations of the heresy
of the Judaizers from the Romanovs-Zakharins, i.e. the
Skhariyans, Zakhariyans.
Fig.64 shows a diagram of the story of Esther in its several
variants. The most interesting is the original in the XVI

century. Having broadly generalized it, it can be described

as following:
Plot 1: THE TWO CZARS-CO-RULERS Arta-Xerxes and
Haman. Haman is named 'our second father' (Esther
3:13). Or 'second after' [6v1], ch.7. They are related, either
father and son, or a brother and his older brother.
Plot 2: THE TWO WIVES. According to the Bible, they are
Astin and Zeresh. Astin is the wife of Art-Xerex (HordeGeorge). And Zeresh, ZRS or ZRSh in Hebrew (Esther
5:14), is the wife of Haman = Ivan. The name Zeresh,
Zeres or Tsereth would probably (most likely) mean
Czaritsa (Queen in Russian).
Plot 3: THE THIRD WOMAN-RIVAL AND THE HERESY.
There appears the third woman Esther. She pushes
aside both of the women, Astin and Zeresh. Astin is
banished, and Zeresh is defeated. The heretic Esther gets
the house of Haman, the husband of Zeresh (Esther 8:1).
Plot 4: A SEXUAL SCENE involving Art-Xerex, Haman
and Esther. The scene results in Haman's death. Here
Esther acts as a wife and a lover of both.
Plot 5: SLAUGHTER OF THE KING'S CHILDREN
FOLLOWED BY POGROM. IN THE Book of Esther it is
the slaughter of Haman's children and the massacre of the
Persians by the Jews. To commemorate this event the
celebration of Purim = fate was established.

Plot 6: AS A RESULT ENTHRONEMENT OF

ESTHER'S RELATIVE. In the Bible it is Mordecai's
accession to power.
Let us look at the scheme closer and see which events of
the XVI century it is comprised of.
Plot 1: THE TWO CZARS-CO-RULERS. Ivan IV had a coruler Georgy or Yury, his brother [6v1], ch.7. The
historians don't like to speak of Georgy's death. But when
they do, they immediately add that he was allegedly
disabled, feeble minded [6v1], ch.7. 'His consort Iuliania
was considered to be the second Anastasia' [362], v.9,
ch.1, column 26. The name IULIANIA is close to Elena
well known to us as the name Esther from allegedly XV
century.
Plot 2: THE TWO WIVES. The history of Ivan IV the
Terrible's wives is very dark. The first two Anastasia and
Maria. It is not very clear which of them was the wife of
Ivan IV and which one of Georgy. Why Georgy's consort
was considered 'quasi Anastasia' [6v].
Plot 3: THE THIRD WOMAN-RIVAL. The third wife of Ivan
IV is considered to be Marfa Sobakina. Somehow she
didn't become an actual wife to Ivan. Further still, this
impediment was for some reason 'attested to by the
verdict of the high clergy' [776], p.210. She died in 1571
before the end of the oprichnina and the old branch of the
Horde dynasty ascent to power, i.e. Simeon [4v]. Marfa is
the biblical Esther. And her name MARFA or MARTHA,
MARDA is a slightly distorted name MARDOCAI. The

letter 'F' = Fita () in the name Marfa is spelled practically

indistinguishable to 'D'. It was after Marfa's death Ivan the
Terrible performed ecclesiastical penance. It was exactly
in the same way that in the duplicate of the XV century
Ivan III repented after the death of Elena Voloshanka.
Plot 4: A SEXUAL SCENE. In the XVI century it was the
reason for the death of Ivan Ivanovich the son of Ivan IV
the Terrible. It appears that there is something ambiguous
going on between the czar-father and the son's wife. 'The
last QUARREL BETWEEN THE FATHER AND HIS SON
happened in Alexandrovskaya sloboda Grozny (The
Terrible) found his daughter-in-law czarevna (princess)
ELENA sitting on the bench in a warmly heated room
wearing only her undergarments He physically
assaulted his daughter-in-law when Ivan Ivanovich tried
to defend his wife... Ivan the Terrible attacked him as well.
This scene was described by the Jesuit Possevino One
Italian interpreter told him that the czarevich (prince) was
seriously wounded with a heavy blow to his head with a
staff' [776], p.235. There were also the other versions of
the event.
Here is described the same scene from the Biblical Book
of Esther, allegedly from the XV century. The father-czar
and his son-co-ruler find themselves at the bed of the
son's young wife. Incidentally according to the Bible,
Esther is presumably the son's wife, because Haman was
called 'our second father' (Book of Esther 3:13). A quarrel
flares up, as the result of which the son dies.

Plot 5: SLAUGHTER OF THE KING'S CHILDREN

FOLLOWED BY POGROM. THE PERSECUTION AND
EXECUTION OF THE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE
FIRST TWO CZARINAS Anastasia and Maria is
associated with Marfa Sobakina in the epoch of the
Oprichnina [362], v.9, ch.3, column 110. The
circumstances of this matter are unknown and Karamzin
speculates on the reasons for the execution. While the
persecution and execution of the relatives of the first two
wives is a distinct trace from the story of the biblical Esther
= Elena Voloshanka.
Plot 6: AS A RESULT ENTHRONEMENT OF
ESTHER'S RELATIVE. Under Ivan IV the Terrible the time
of the oprichnina is the time of ruling on behalf of the
young Ivan Ivanovich [4v]. Possibly it was him, who was
Marfa's son. Ivan the Terrible himself at this time has most
likely become Vassily Blazhenny (the Blessed). The state
is ruled by the others.
According to the Bible, at the end of the epoch of Esther,
Mordecai accedes to the throne. What are his traces in the
XVI century? They are vague, though something has
survived. 'DURING THAT TIME (in the last yeas of the
oprichnina Author's note) A BIG INFLUENCE OVER
THE CZAR WAS GAINED BY Eliseus Bomelius, a
physician and astrologer from Westphalia who had arrived
to Russia from England in London Bomelius was
imprisoned for black magic In May 1571 he became
GROZNY'S (Ivan The Terrible) MAIN PHYSICIAN TO
THE CZAR AND COURTIER ASTROLOGER. A doctor

and astrologer, Bomelius became one of the TRUSTED

ADVISORS TO GROZNY (IVAN THE TERRIBLE) He
predicted all sorts of disasters and immediately presented
recommendations of how to avoid them He concocted
poisons for the courtiers who fell out of favour' [775],
p.439-440. The Russian sources inform us that 'Bomelius,
planted from abroad, 'STEERED THE CZAR AWAY
FROM THE FAITH' and 'INCITED THE CZAR TO KILL
MANY OF THE BOYARS AND PRINCES' [775], p.498.
After the demise of the oprichnina Bomelius attempted to
escape Russia. He was captured and executed [775],
p.484. He was spit-roasted on an enormous skewer [776],
p.197.
It is feasible that the story of Bomelius, an astrologer, a
physician and a poisoner, is the surviving trace of the
biblical Mordecai in the XVI century which survives to our
day.
It turns out the story of Esther has also been told by the
legendary Plutarch in his 'Parallel Lives' as a story of
Artaxerxes II Mnemon King of Persia, a 'grandson' of the
Persian king Artaxerxes Macrocheir (Latin: Longimanus
'with a long hand) [6v1], ch.7. Hence the 'classic' Plutarch
lived and worked not earlier than the end of the XVI
century. However it is no longer news to us. We have
already presented the facts identifying Plutarch as
Petrarch and advancing his lifetime into the XVI-XVII cc.
[2v1], ch.1:4.
7. JUDITH.

This is what the biblical Book of Judith tells us.

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

describes the Russian and European history of the XVI

century. This logical conclusion can be explained [6v1],
ch.8. It turns out that here is given an account of the
events of the epoch of Ivan III = Ivan IV the Terrible. We
have already identified him with the Assyrian
Nebuchadnezzar. The story of Judith clearly shows the
traces of the story of Esther already familiar to us. A
foreigner, a Jewess, infiltrates the court of the 'Persian'
king, becomes his wife or an 'intimate person'. As a result
a son or a close relative of the king the king's co-ruler,
tragically dies. It is followed by the massacre of the
'Persians' by the Jews. It is no coincidence that in the
modern biblical canon the Book of Judith is placed next to
the Book of Esther.
Previously Russia and Turkey were a part of the same
Empire. Up until the XVII century the relations between
them were quite amicable. Only after the break of the
Empire in the XVII Turkey and Russia began to grow
apart.
In the epoch of the oprichnina and the unrest of the late
XVI century Western Europe gradually gains
independence. Osmania = Judaea estranges itself from
the seething Russia-Horde = Israel and makes an attempt
to once again conquer the rebellion in Western Europe.
But it cannot succeed in this single-handedly.
8. THE EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE = THE
RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE XVI CENTURY.
&& VASILIY III.

Vasiliy II Ivanovich also had the following names: Ivan,

Varlaam, Gavriil [161], p.68, and also [145], p.173. He
ruled in 1505-1533 according to [362], or in 1507-1534
according to [36], [145]. On the pages of the Western
chronicles he is reflected as Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodian,
'Maximilian I' 1493-1519 according to [76].
It was a peaceful rule. The major event was the division of
Western European and possibly African 'Novgorodian
lands', which were affected by the Ataman conquest. The
lands were divided between the new governors from the
Russian-Hordian nobility. However there was so much
land, that there was not enough of the elite and it was
necessary to attract the 'best serfs'. The land parcelling
was under control of the special authority called
Novgorodskaya Izba (Novgorodian Hut) [6v1], ch.5:10.
On the pages of history Vasiliy III is also known by the
name Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, where he is
erroneously dated to XII century.
&& REVOLT, ELENA GLINSKAYA = JEZEBEL, QUEEN
OF ISRAEL.
Revolt: Elena Glinskaya + Ivan Ovchina 1533-1538
according to [775]. It is followed by Semiboyarshina (the
government formed of 7 boyars - court nobility), i.e. board
of trustees in 1538-1547 according to [775]. To clarify:
after Vasiliy III Ivanivich's death there began an interdynastic war, followed by the reign of the Boyars Duma =
Semiboyarshina, lasting up until the accession to the

throne in 1547 of Vasiliy III's son - Ivan IV Vasiliyevich

'The Terrible', who reached maturity.
The Western chronicles did not register this strife in the
history of the Habsburgs = Novgorodians. It seems that
viewed from Europe the turbulent events in the Moscow
court surrounding the throne occupied by the juvenile Ivan,
were not visible. That is why in the Western chronicles
immediately after 'Maximilian I' = Vasiliy III the power
passes to 'Charles V' = Ivan IV. Technically that was what
happened. However in Russian history the others were
ruling for Ivan minor at first the boyars, and then Elena
Glinskaya and Ivan Ovchina (Sheepskin) [776], p.11-15.
Later there was Semiboyarshina. And only in 1547 Ivan IV
the 'Terrible' finally took the power into his own hands and
ascended to the throne [362], v.8, column 56-57.
The 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. reflected in the Old
Testament as the Kingdoms of Israel and Judaea.
Vasiliy married Elena Glinskaya in the beginning of 1526
[578], Book 2, p.262. This event was described by the
Western chronicles as 'Charles V' Habsburg's marriage to
JEZEBEL, the daughter of the King of Portugal. In the
Bible this marriage is reflected in the history of the
Kingdom of Israel as the marriage between King Ahab and
JEZEBEL (3 Kingdoms 16:31). Thus the infamous Jezebel
is the reflection of Elena Glinskaya, the wife of Vasiliy III.
In the Fourth Book of Kings of the Bible the RussianHordian czar-khan Vasiliy III is reflected under the name of
the Old Testament King Ahab. Partially he is also 'Charles
V of Habsburg'.

Elena Glinskaya dies young. It is thought that she was

poisoned [362], v.8, column 29. Vasiliy Shuisky accedes to
power. He executes Prince Ivan Ovchina Telepnev. The
name Shuisky originates from the word Shuja or Shui. In
the Third and Fourth Books of the Bible Vasiliy Shuisky,
i.e. King Shui reflected as the legendary Old Testament
commander-czar Jehu.
&& IVAN IV 'THE TERRIBLE'.
The epoch of Ivan IV Vasilievich 'The Terrible' (born 1526,
see above) 1533-1584 according to [775]. In 1547 he
acceded to the throne [362], v.8, column 56-57. On the
pages of the Western Chronicles Ivan IV is described
under the name of Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodets, 'Charles V'
1519-1556 according to [304], v.3, p.27 or 1519-1558
according to [76]. In the Bible Ivan 'The Terrible' is
described as the legendary czar of Assyria and Babylon
Nebuchadnezzar. Ivan 'The Terrible' is a 'combination', a
Hybrid of four different czars-khans. In the history of
'Ancient' Rome it is reflected as a 'foursome' of famous
emperors: Tiberius + Caligula + Claudius + Nero. He is
also the very same Henry IV: allegedly 1053-1106. He is
also the very same Ivan III the Terrible: allegedly 14621505. He is also the very same Frederick III: allegedly
1440-1493 [6v1], ch.5.
It is thought that the time of 'Ivan the Terrible' is well
documented and studied. It is not so. There are virtually
no authentic documents left from 'Ivan the Terrible'. His
time is one of the most dark and intriguing in Russian

history. It separates two completely different epochs:

Russian-Hordian and the Romanovs'.
Under Ivan IV Veliky Novgorod was conquered and
defeated. It was one of the most notorious crimes of the
Oprichnina [776], p.145-160. In the bible the massacre of
Novgorod = Yaroslavl is reflected as the conquest of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Assyria and
Babylon [6v1], ch.5.
In the Western chronicles the same events were described
as the struggle between Charles V and the Protestants.
One of the central events is Charles V defeating the
protestant city of Magdeburg on Elbe River allegedly in
1550-1552 [304], v.3, p.107. It is feasible that here on the
pages of the European chronicles, were reflected the
distant events in Russia-Horde, when Ivan IV 'The
Terrible' defeated Veliky Novgorod, i.e. Yaroslavl on Volga
river.
At the end of his life 'Ivan IV' withdrew to a monastery,
virtually forsaking all power and responsibility. Then in
1553 he falls seriously ill and turns into a holy fool [4v1],
ch.8:5 and [6v1], ch.5. He becomes Vasiliy (or Ivan) the
Blessed. I.e. the famous holy fool of the XVI century.
&& IVAN IV AS VASILIY THE BLESSED.
Ivan IV Vasilievich = Vasiliy the Blessed or Ivan the
Blessed, Moscow miracle worker, 1547-1553. Ivan IV
began to rule together with his brother Georgiy Vasilievich
and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich. The main event of the

young czar Ivan IV's reign was the conquest of Kazan in

1552.
During Ivan IV's reign a major rebellion ignites in the
Empire under the banner of the religious separation from
the metropoly = Veliky Novgorod. The government
decides to crush the rebellion. The first step was the siege
and conquest of Kazan in 1552. The next stage was
planned as the military campaign to Germany, which was
in the grip of a rebellion-Reformation. This is 'The Livonian
war'.
In 1553 Ivan IV was taken seriously ill and became
deranged. He was called Vasiliy the Blessed Moscow
Miracle worker, and also Ivan the Blessed Moscow
Miracle worker. Several years later he died. In the end of
XVI century in Moscow in the Red Square St. Basil's
Cathedral was built = Pokrovsky Cathedral, where, most
likely, the remains of Ivan IV were re-interred. However
under Ivan IV the czar's quarters are still situated in
Suzdal, and the administrative centre of the Empire, the
court of the governors was in Yaroslavl. The Moscow
Kremlin had yet to be built.
Ivan IV is also known in history under the name of
Vsevolod, except erroneously dated to the XII century.
The biblical king Nebuchadnezzar who lost his mind is the
very same Blessed Vasiliy as one of Ivan IV the Terrible's
periods of reign.
&& DMITRY IVANOVICH.

Dmitry Ivanovich, 1553-1563. An infant, the son of Ivan IV

Vasilievich. Selected Council Izbrannaia Rada (the circle
of persons close to the czar, a legislative body Translator's note) a board of trustees headed by
Adashev, ruled on behalf of Dmitry Ivanovich. During the
rule of Izbrannaia Rada the Livonian War was started in
order to bring Germany to submission, seized by the
rebellion of the Reformation. By the end of Dmitry's reign a
major military invasion into Western Europe was prepared.
However the dynastic revolt in the Empire prevented it. In
1563 an adolescent Dmitry perishes in an accident. As a
result of the distortion of Russian history this death was
dated several years later and was depicted as the murder
of czarevitch (Prince) Dmitry by 'Boris Godunov' in Uglich.
He is also known under the name of Iziaslav, except
erroneously dated to the XII century.
&& IVAN V IVANIVICH.
Ivan V Ivanovich 1563-1572. In the Western chronicles
reflected as Habsburg = Novgorodets 'Ferdinand I' 15581564 according to [76].
Following the tragic death of the adolescent czar Dmitry
Ivanovich, his younger brother, infant Ivan V Ivanovich
acceded to the throne. From his enthronement the
Zakharyins-Romanovs regain power and begin the terror.
The Livonian war is brought to an end. The climax of the
terror is the establishment of the oprichnina, the defeat of
the Old Russian capital Yaroslavl (Yaroslavovo Dvorishe
(Yaroslav Court) of Velikiy Novgorod), the execution of

Vladimir Andreyevich Staritsky, the member of the Royal

House, the co-ruler.
On the pages of history Ivan V Ivanovich and his uncle
Georgiy Vasilievich, who was ruling under him during his
time are also depicted as: a) Yury Dolgorukiy (Yury The
Long-Armed), erroneously dated to the XII century; b) the
biblical Artaxerxes Macrocheir ('Longimanus'), erroneously
dated to the VI century BC.
Only after 1564 the infamous terror attributed to Ivan 'The
Terrible' began. The Terror had started indeed. But it was
unleashed by the Zakharyins, who were butchering their
enemies. And as we know, their opposition included,
PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE OLD BOYARS NOBILITY.
I.e. the Russian-'Mongol' nobility of the Horde dynasty.
The struggle between the supporters of the Empire and
the faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs, eager to seize
power, ignited. The Zakharyins-Romanovs evinced proWestern interests. Civil war flared up. This is the actual
beginning of the Great Strife in Russia-Horde.
During this time the first attempt of the revision of Russian
history was made.
It is clear that political objectives were being pursued,
which, strictly speaking, were not concealed. 'The concern
regarding the disclosed revolt of the boyars which in 15631564 impelled the monarch to embark upon the
AMMENDMENT OF THE HISTORY of his reign' [775],
p.172. And further: 'The blossoming of the Moscow official
chronicle writing in 1550 early 1560 and ITS

COMPLETE CESSATION after 1568 The fate of the

clerks in charge of the chronicle writing The print worker
Ivan Viskovati was executed FEAR PREVENTED ANY
ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE WRITING OF THE
CHRONICLES IN ZEMSHCHINA (the basic part of the
territory of the Russian state with its centre in Moscow not
included by Ivan IV in the special appanage of the
sovereign, the oprichnina. It included the cities of the
Perm' and Viatka regions and Riazan', Starodub, Velikie
Luki, and other cities. - Translator's note). [775], p.22.
Thus the people who were writing the history of Russia
were annihilated. Besides, we are shown a 'dangerous
place for chronicle writing' the pogrom of Novgorod. This
is the moment where the name of 'Veliky Novgorod' was
stripped from Yaroslavl and then transferred to the Pskov
region. The motives were purely political. The new people
came to power the Zakharyins (the Skharievtsy), the
future Romanovs. They had their domain in Polotsk, in the
Western Russian region and gravitated towards Pskov
and Hanseatic League (a commercial and defensive
confederation of merchant guilds and their market towns
that dominated trade along the coast of Northern Europe
Translator's note.) They wished to distort the Russian
history in such a way that the origins of the old Horde
dynasty from Yaroslavl were concealed. They created the
impression that the Russian dynasty allegedly originated
from North-Western Russia, Pskov region, where the
Zakharyins themselves came from. Changing the
geography of the events and their dates, the Romanovs-

Zakharyins underpinned their new dynasty with the

'historical foundation'.
In 1564 the oprichnina was established. "The boyar V.M.
YURIEV-ZAHARYIN became one of the main initiators of
the oprichnina and it was the Zakharyins around whom the
RULING CIRCLE OF THE OPRICHNINA has grouped
around "[775], p. 225.
We are not going to dwell on the details of the terror of the
Oprichnina. They are very well-known. We would only like
to emphasise that the entire terror of Ivan 'The Terrible' fits
within the period from 1563 to 1572. I.e. precisely during
the reign of the juvenile Ivan Ivanovich on whose behalf
the Zakharyins-Romanovs ruled.
The main stages of the terror: the establishment of the
Oprichnina in 1564, the Kazan deportation in 1565, the
conspiracy of the equerry Fedorov-Chelyadnin, THE
CRUSHING DEFEAT OF NOVGOROD in 1569-1570, the
murder of the Metropolitan Philip and the Archbishop of
Kazan Gherman, the murder of the czar's cousin Vladimir
Andreyevich, THE MASS EXECUTIONS of the boyars in
1568 [775], p.338.
The crushing defeat of Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl is the
turning point of the oprichnina. The city was completely
destroyed and the entire population was banished. The
pogrom was followed by the execution of the member of
the royal dynasty Prince Vladimir of Staritsa. The civil
war breaks out.

A new faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs decided to

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

Thus the Hordian Malyuta Skuratov rooted out the

representatives of the Zakharyins Oprichniny (Oprichny)
terror. It was for this that he was later declared to be 'evil'.
We can see who was the author of today's formally
recognized version of Russian history. It is the ZakharyinsRomanovs and their descendants.
The Horde-Rat' (Army) is victorious. The Zakharyins'
Oprichnina Duma is defeated. Basmanov, its leader is
executed. The new Duma is created consisting of 'the
nobility of the highest possible rank Almost all these
figures or their relatives were subjected to persecution
under Basmanov' [776], p.174-175. Directly following this,
'the English ambassador' was informed about the
cessation of the secret talks regarding the granting of the
asylum to the Czar's family in England' [776], p.189.
To summarize, the first attempt of the Zakharyins
(Skharievtsy) to seize the throne of the Empire failed. The
'Mongol' Horde reaffirmed its status. In fact the capital for
some time was transferred to Novgorod. 'The czar soundly
settled in his new residence (in Novgorod Author's
note) ON THE YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE (Yaroslav
Court) 'by the czar's palace a new bell was hung up' [775],
p.374. Even the czar's treasury was transferred from
Moscow to Novgorod [776], p.181. Incidentally 'the
treasure which was brought to Novgorod was stored in the
church cellars in THE YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE
(Yaroslav Court) [776], p.189. Today it is thought that the
city in question is referring to Volkhovsky Novgorod on the
swamps, in fact it is Novgorod-YAROSLAVL. Which is

quite natural: Yaroslavl is the old capital of the Horde

Empire. And the YAROSLAVOV DVORISHE (YAROSLAV
COURT) is simply a Court in Yaroslavl.
To sum up. The version of the historians for the period of
1563-1572 is as follows. The actual power belongs to the
boyars Zakharyins-Romanovs, 'who concentrated the
control over Zemschina in their hands and who were ruling
at court of the successor czarevitch Ivan, their relative on
his mother's side' [776], p.165. The court of the YOUNG
CZAREVITCH IVAN was the control centre. The
Zakharyins rule on his behalf.
Here is our point of view. As a matter of fact here we say
exactly the same. The power belongs to the ZakharyinsRomanovs who rule the country on behalf of the young
CZAR Ivan. The difference being only that the historians
'proceed' here with the invented 'Terrible czar' with 50
years of reigning, where as we claim that Ivan IV is no
more. The young Ivan Ivanovich is the czar.
&& SIMEON-IVAN BECKBULATOVITCH.
Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovitch 1572-1584. In the Western
chronicles he is reflected as the Habsburg 'Maximillian II'
1564-1576 according to [76].
Following the crushing defeat of the oprichnina czarevich
Ivan was forced to abdicate. Simeon, the head of
Zemschina, a member of the Royal house becomes the
czar. He adopts the royal name of Ivan and attempts to
continue the Livonian war. But Russia's strength is

exhausted by strife and terror. Simeon-Ivan enjoyed only

regional success in the war. The campaign against
Germany was postponed. But it never happened.
Simeon is also known under the name of Mstislav, notably
he was erroneously dated to the XII century.
Our reconstruction. After the Civil war 1571-1572 the party
of the Zakharyins-Romanovs suffers defeat. The
executions of the leaders of the Oprichnina in Moscow
have begun. The historians call all of this 'Moscow
massacre' or 'Moscow affair' [775], p.163. At the head of
the new oprichnina stand the most noble families, which
prior to this were being wiped out. The army-Horde once
again comes into power. The Yaroslavtsy-Novgorodtsy
stand at the head of the country. The old documents
confirm our version: 'The oprichnina army received the
biggest reinforcement in its entire history; more than 500
Novgorodian noblemen joint its ranks... The Czar tried to
create a force represented by the Novgorodian oprichniki'
[776], p.169.
The capital was even transferred to Novgorod for a while.
The government was headed by the Tatar khan Simeon
Beckbulatovitch, most likely the youngest son of Ivan III,
i.e. the uncle of the deceased Ivan IV. In 1575 the young
czar Ivan Ivanovich was forced to abdicate. Then SimeonIvan was magnificently crowned czar in 1576. It was
customary to change the name when crowned to reign in
Russia at that time, as the example with Vasily III shows.
Simeon is of course a rather elderly man. He is around 70
years old by then.

During this period Moscow virtually ceased being the

capital. At first there was an attempt to transfer the capital
to Novgorod, where they have already begun, but didn't
complete the building of the Royal Court and a mighty fort
[776], p.169. But then due to some reasons the czar
moved to Tver: 'Having left Moscow, Simeon moved for
his 'great reign' in Tver'[776], p.205. The historians
enclose the words 'great reign' in quotes because they
dislike that the chronicle informs us about the 'great' reign
of Simeon'. What about 'Ivan the Terrible?' - they say. It
cannot be that some Simeon was a Grand Prince when
the czar and the Grand Prince 'Ivan the Terrible' was still
alive! But 'Ivan the Terrible', as we are told, in the last
years of his reign also turns out to be in Staritsa under
Tver with his entire family [776], p.228. Everything is clear.
'Ivan the Terrible' in his later years and khan Simeon is
one and the same person.
To sum up. The version of the historians of the period of
1572-1584 is as follows. Tatar Simeon is absurdly vested
with overall authority by The 'Terrible czar Ivan' who then
leaves himself at a loose end.
Our view. Following the return of the Horde dynasty to
power, in 1572 the head of the Zemskaya State Duma
khan Simeon becomes the sovereign ruler. In 1575 the 22
year old czar Ivan Ivanovich, who had already been
stripped of power, was forced to abdicate in favour of
Simeon. This is the famous abdication of Ivan the Terrible
in 1575 [776], p.195. The Hordian Khan Simeon acceded
to the throne and reigned until 1584.

We know that 'Ivan the Terrible' prior to his death was

already old and senile. However, Ivan IV was born
allegedly in 1530 (in fact in 1526) and at the time of the
death of 'Ivan the Terrible' in 1584 he would have been
54-58 years old. The historians explain such decrepitude
by citing mental disorder. Simeon, the son of Ivan III in
1584 should have been approximately 80 years old.
Indeed, Ivan III died in 1505, i.e. 79 years before 1584.
Ivan III had several children and it is only Simeon we know
nothing about. This is why the notion that Simeon
'Beckbulatovich' is the son of Ivan III seems entirely
natural.
In truth, the Great Strife of the XVI-XVII cc. was a
longstanding civil war. As a result the state system of
Russia radically changed at its core. The old RussianHorde dynasty was destroyed. The coup d'etat was carried
out by the representatives of the Western Russian,
Pskovian faction of the Romanovs. The coup was
supported by the Reformation revolt in the Western
Europe. A brand new period in the history of Russia and
the world has begun [6v2], ch.1.
The main thing that the Romanovs did was to declare the
preceding Russian-Horde dynasty to be 'unlawful'. The
entire Great epoch which lasted nearly three hundred
years was denounced as a period of the 'cruel foreign
yoke' in Russia. They declared their predecessors, the
Russia Horde khans, savage barbarians from distant
Eastern countries, who had usurped the power of the first
'Rurikovichs'. The former life of the country under the

'Mongol conquerors' was depicted as the epoch of grim

violence. On the other hand the Romanovs presented
themselves as the 'restorers of the truly Russian national
identity', which had at last replaced the bloodthirsty
'foreigners'- Tatars. The Tartar Godunov was declared to
be 'evil'. They said he had butchered a boy.
You have to hand it to them, the Romanovs were smart. In
fact they hardly manipulated the historical facts. They
simply presented them in a different light. As a result the
Russian history of the 'Mongol' period was hugely
distorted. The remains of the Cossack army Horde = Rat'
scattered during the war and partially pushed aside from
the centre to the borders of the Empire, were declared by
the Romanovs to be the fugitive surfs. Or 'the bad folk'
banished for some kind of wrong-doings. The Romanovs'
historians wrote a new history of the 'evil Horde' in the light
of the social commission dictated by the new masters. The
result was perfectly plausible at first glance. However, they
didn't succeed in plastering over everything. That is why
today we can restore our true history.
But besides the main strategic task the Romanovs also
pursued other aims, smaller, but by no means unimportant
to them. Namely:
- To conceal the fact that the Great Strife began not in the
XVII century, but in the middle of the XVI century as early
as under 'Ivan the Terrible'. And that the Romanovs were
among its main organisers and instigators.

- To prove the legitimacy of their claim to the throne. To do

so they presented themselves as the relatives of the last
legitimate czar.
- To conceal their participation in the oprichnina and the
internecine fighting, dumping all the bloody sins onto 'the
Terrible Czar'. They cover up their involvement in the
religious heresy of the Judaizers.
- To trace their ancestry from a kind of ONLY
LEGITIMATE WIFE OF THE 'TERRIBLE CZAR'
Anastasia ROMANOVA.
It is possible that specifically for this purpose the
Romanovs' historians combined the four czars into one,
falsely presenting their wives as the wives of the same
person. We would like to remind you that according to the
canonical law, after the fourth marriage all wedlock was
considered to be unlawful. Thus the marriages of the last
of these four czars were wrong, and the children born
within them had no rights to the throne, as it were. Then
the czar Feodor Ivanovich was declared childless. This
was not true. His son, i.e. Boris Fyodorovich 'Godunov' the
Romanovs declared to be unlawful czar, who did not
inherit the throne. This is also not true.
&& FEODOR IVANOVICH
Feodor Ivanovich 1584-1598 according to [362]. He is the
son of Simeon-Ivan. A peaceful reign without any internal
disturbances. The military actions in the Livonian war were
stopped, however the separation of the West from the

Empire as a result of the Reformation revolt was not

recognized as lawful at the court of the Great Khan. In the
West they understood that when Russia consolidated its
strength the Livonian war would resume.
The wife of Feodor Ivanovich is Irina Godunova. The
family of the Godunovs operates at court in the XIV-XVI
cc. Its representatives occupied high posts. The son and
the heir of Feodor Ivanovich is Boris Fyodorovich
Godunov. In the 'Romanovs'' version he was falsely
presented as IRINA'S BROTHER i.e. as a person who did
not have the inherent right to the throne.
9. MOSCOW OF THE XVI CENTURY IS DESCRIBED IN
THE BIBLE AS JERUSALEM IN THE TIMES OF
NEHEMIAH.
In [6v2], ch.2 we have shown that the transferal of the
capital of Russia-Horde to Moscow in the end of the XVI
century and the construction of Moscow Kremlin were
described in the Bible as the reconstruction of Jerusalem.
The Old Testament Book of 'Nehemiah' is entirely
dedicated to this important event.
In fact there are TWO JERUSALEMS described in the
Bible. The first one is the Jerusalem of the New
Testament. We call it The New Testament Jerusalem. It is
Czar-Grad (Yoros) on the Bosphorus. It is the very same
'ancient' Troy. Jesus Christ lived here and was crucified
(on the Beykoz mountain) in the XII century.

The Second Jerusalem is the Jerusalem of the epoch of

the so called reconstruction of the temple described in the
Bible. This is Moscow of the XVI century. The Books of the
Old Testament which describe the 'second Jerusalem' are
the latter books of the Bible. Though today they are on the
contrary considered to be the most ancient. In fact they
were written in the XVI century and were edited up until
the middle of the XVII century.
The numerous parallels between the descriptions of the
Old Testament Jerusalem in the Book of Nehemiah and
the Moscow Kremlin, which we have discovered, do not
leave any doubts about the fact that at this point the Bible
gives an account specifically of the construction of
Moscow and the Kremlin in particular. This amazing
correspondence comes down to the last detail. While in
the modern Palestinian Jerusalem (its original name, as
we know, El Quds) there is nothing even faintly
reminiscent of the Biblical description of Jerusalem.
Thus, the Old Testament Book of Nehemiah, when
speaking of the second reconstruction-building of
Jerusalem in the 20th year of Arta-Xerexes, in fact
narrates about the construction of Moscow and the
Moscow Kremlin in the XVI century circa 1567. Whereas
the six Biblical fortress gates of the 'reconstructed'
Jerusalem are the six old gates of the Moscow Kremlin.
Namely:
# The cattle, Sheep gate of the Old Testament Jerusalem
is the Spasskiy (Saviour) Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.

The Jerusalem Gate in Jerusalem is also the Spasskiy

Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.
# The Fish Gate of the Old Covenant Jerusalem is the
Timofeev Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.
# The Fortress Old Gate of Jerusalem is the Nikolsky or
Old Nikolsky Gate of the Kremlin.
# The Dung Gate, the Dirty, Sordid garrison gate of the
Old Covenant Jerusalem is Kremlin Troitsky Gate.
# The biblical garrison Valley Gate in Jerusalem is the
Kremlin Borovitsky Gate.
# The biblical Fountain Gate in Jerusalem is the Kremlin
Tainitsky Gate.
# Further, the fortified walls of the tower of the
'reconstructed' Old Covenant Jerusalem are the Moscow
Kremlin towers. In particular the biblical towers Meah and
Hananel are the Kremlin Nabatnaya and Tzarskaya
towers.
# The biblical Tower of the Furnaces is the Kremlin
Arsenal (Arsenalnaya) Tower.
# The Old Covenant Dragon Spring in front of the Valley
Gate in Jerusalem is the Chertoryk river opposite the
Kremlin Borovitsky Gate.
# The Biblical Garden of the King and the City of David
within the Jerusalem walls are the embankment Czar
Garden (Tsarsky Sad) and Czar Palace (Tsarsky Dvorets)

in the Kremlin. The very same garden was described in

the 'ancient sources' as the famous 'Hanging Gardens of
Babylon' ('Semiramida Gardens').
# The Biblical 'Wall of the Pool of Shelah' within the
Jerusalem fortress is Furrier's Chamber of the Czar's
State Courtyard (Monarchic Court) in the Kremlin.
# The Old Testament Sepulchers of David inside the
Jerusalem wall are the Czar's Burial Chambers Tombs in
the Kremlin Cathedral of the Archangel (Arkhangelsky
Sobor).
# The Biblical 'House of the Mighty' and Rybaritsa the Pool
inside the Jerusalem wall are the Hobro Courtyard, The
Armoury Chamber and the Timofeevskaya Tower = the
Fish Tower in the Moscow Kremlin.
# The Old Testament 'Armory at the Angle of the wall' of
the Jerusalem fortress is the Arsenal in the corner of the
Kremlin, in the Corner Tower.
# The Biblical 'the House of the High Priest (Eliashib)'
inside the Jerusalem fortress is the Assumption Cathedral
in the Kremlin.
# The Old Testament House Royal and the 'High Pillar'
('great projecting tower') next to it within the Jerusalem
fortress are the Czar's Palace and the Ivan the Great Belltower in the Kremlin.

# The Biblical Horse Gate inside the Jerusalem Fortress is

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

Graeco-Roman 'classicists', notably Heradotus, describe

Moscow as the 'Egyptian labyrinth'. Primarily they refer to
the mysterious underground Moscow which truly
resembles a labyrinth. This underground city was created
as a powerful defensive fortification enabling the safe
storage of the treasury, armaments, and provisions, the
secret manoeuvres of military troops and their unexpected
appearance at a besieging enemy's rear. Moscow of the
XVI century, the last capital of the 'Mongol Empire', was
designed and built as an impregnable city.
To conclude, Moscow of the XVI century gave rise to the
'classical' legends about the Tower of Babel and the
Labyrinth. We discovered the ancient paintings where the
Biblical Tower of Babel is depicted either in the centre of
the Labyrinth or next to it [GRK], ch.4. We can see that the
ancient authors actually combined the Tower of Babel and
the Labyrinth and considered them as parts of the same
construction.
The founder of Moscow the Grand Prince Yuri Dolgorukiy
(literally Yuri the Long-Armed'- Translator's note) with the
400 year shift rises exactly to the epoch of Ivan IV the
Terrible. The corrected years of Yuri Dolgorukiy's reign are
as follows: 1563-1572. Instead of the erroneous
scaligerian-Romanovs': 1148-1157. The years between
1563-1572 is the exact epoch of the oprichnina. It perfectly
corresponds with the construction of the Moscow Kremlin
in the XVI century.
So it appears that the Russian chronicles on the whole
truly say that it was Yuri Dolgorukyi who founded Moscow.

It is only necessary to amend the erroneous chronology. In

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

Under the name of the Biblical prophet Nehemiah leading

the reconstruction of Jerusalem, the Old Testament
described the famous Kuzma Minin. The liberation of
Jerusalem is the Biblical account of the liberation of
Moscow by Kuzma Minin and the Prince Dmitry
Pozharsky's militia in the early XVII century. In the Bible
Books 1,2 of Ezra and Nehemiah alongside the name of
the prophet Nehemiah the name Zerubbabel is constantly
mentioned as one of the main participants of the
reconstruction of Jerusalem. Under the name of
Zerubbabel was partially described the same Kuzma
Minin.
Dmitry Pozharsky, who alongside Minin entered the
annals of Russian History, is also reflected on the pages
of the Bible. Most likely it is the Bibical Sheshbazzar, the
prince of Judah (1 Ezra 1:7-8, 1:11). It was Sheshbazzar,
who received the vessels of the house of the LORD from
the hands of Mithredath, the treasurer (1 Ezra 1:8).
So, the famous monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Red
Square is the monument to the Old Testament Horde
heroes Nehemiah and Sheshbazzar.
Biblical Nehemiah, i.e. Kozma Minin, was buried in Nizhnii
Novgorod in the Kremlin's Our Saviour Transfiguration
Cathedral. The sepulcher of the Prince Pozharsky =
Biblical Sheshbazzar was situated in the chapel of the
Spaso-Euthymius Monastery [6v2], ch.2:7.
10. JERUSALEM IN PALESTINE.

So, the Old Testament reconstruction of Jerusalem has no

relevance to 'Jerusalem' in modern Palestine. When and
how did the concept emerge of the Biblical Jerusalem as
situated on the Eastern bank of the Mediterranean Sea, in
the remotest part of Palestine?
Most likely this 'Jerusalem' emerged on the world map
(including the 'ancient' ones, compiled and reproduced in
Europe) in the epoch of the XVII century, at this point as a
mere dot on a piece of paper. Someone, sitting in Europe
marked a place on the map and said: 'Biblical Jerusalem
must be situated here'. Why was this done?
Following the split of the Great Empire and enthronement
of the pro-Western Romanovs in Russia, Atamania
remained the only serious threat for Europe. That is why
all the efforts were concentrated into fighting it. The
European state with the participation of the Romanovs
planned the Crusade into Turkey. These plans resulted in
the lengthy Russian-Turkish wars in the late XVII XX cc.
The idea of the Crusade was easy to connect with the
'liberation of Jerusalem'. All the more so as there was a
Jerusalem in Turkey. It is Czar-Grad (Yoros), Jerusalem of
the Gospels, the holy city, where Christ was crucified. The
city which at some point was known to the entire Great
Empire. But the ideologists-reformers of the XVII century
didn't want to name Istanbul, the capital of Turkey as the
goal of their campaign. As the religious split had taken
place relatively recently in the XVI - XVII cc., and many
still remembered something about the former religious
unity of the 'Mongol' Empire. That is why the fact that holy

Jerusalem is the capital of the Turkish sultan, could mean

for many that the sultan is the embodiment of the much
truer faith than the French king, for instance. And therefore
maybe the Sultan should be the one to submit to, so on
the whole the emerging situation was quite slippery.
It would be much more intelligent to say that Jerusalem is,
of course, under the power of the Turks, but they, being
heretics, turned it into a pit in the middle of nowhere, not
showing the due respect for the holy place. Besides, it is
useful to set the 'holy goal' at the rear of the Turks. So that
in order to conquer it, it would be necessary to conquer
the whole of Turkey. That was the main purpose of the
idea.
This immediately implies though that holy Jerusalem
should be identified on the territory of Turkey, but not in its
capital. It should be somewhere far out, in the middle of
nowhere. Of course they were trying to find a place more
or less corresponding to the universally acknowledged
biblical description of Jerusalem and its vicinity as the
Promised Land, flowing with milk and honey, lush with
blossoming gardens and generally reminiscent of paradise
on earth. But the Western Europeans were not allowed
into Turkey for a long time. That is why it was difficult to
know exactly where the rivers were flowing with milk and
honey there and where they were not. From general
consideration it was presumably decided that the East
coast of the Mediterranean Sea was suitable enough. The
magnificent sea, the wonderful climate But to mark the
'Jerusalem dot' on the very coastal line of the

Mediterranean Sea was not right. As the Gospels and the

Bible in general do not describe Jerusalem as a sea port
or a coastal city. It is described as a city situated far from a
big sea, though a lake is mentioned close by. Although
there should be river Jordan flowing nearby. The real
Jerusalem Czar-Grad (Yoros) - is in fact a long distance
away from the wide open sea and is situated on the long
Bosphorus, which as well as the Marmara Sea, was
depicted on many Mediaeval maps as a wide long river. It
was considered to be Jordan.
That is why the 'Jerusalem dot' on the map was put at
some distance from the Mediterranean coast. Just around
fifty kilometres away from it. How were it's authors to
know, that in those places the fertile lands stretched only a
narrow line along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and
that fifty kilometers away from it there is mainly stony
desert.
So, the dot was marked. And the name of Jerusalem was
written on the map. One of the main ideological goals of
the planned crusade was thus decided the sacred
frontier which they should aspire to reach, was now
indicated and was at the very rear quarters of the Turks.
But in order to acquire it the whole of Turkey must be
conquered.
The wars began. They lasted for a long time and were
bloody. Only in the very end of the XVIII century, i.e.
almost two hundred years later, the Europeans were
eventually able to launch an assault behind enemy lines,
in Egypt. Close to the sacred mark the 'suffering

Jerusalem' in Palestine. It was Napoleon's famous

Egyptian campaign which began in 1798. It was only in
1799 that Gaza in Palestine was seized. The Europeans
were at last within a stone's throw of the Palestinian
'Jerusalem's mark'. Then on the 3rd April 1799 Sur was
seized followed by the victory in Nazareth on the 8th April,
[6v2], ch.2. Which means that at last they had 'reached
Jerusalem'.
It is possible to imagine that when the Western Europeans
arrived in Jerusalem they found there the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre. Although rebuilt numerous times, but
nevertheless standing proudly in the village of Al-Quds in
the middle of the stony desert. 'Proving' that it is not just
any common village, but ancient Biblical Jerusalem. That
very sacred goal pursued for so long by the Western
'Crusaders' of the XVII-XVIII cc.
However it turns out that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
was 'newly built' in 1810 or even later. The alcoves for the
crosses exist only in the stone veneer of 1888. It is not
possible to see the Holy Sepulchre itself. It is possible that
it could be there, but it would be underground. However
search and excavation is not permitted [6v2].
But if we are told that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
was rebuilt in 1810, than doesn't it follow herein, that prior
to the XIX century there was simply no church there at all?
Later, in the XIX-XX cc. this site was declared, without
foundation, to be 'holy'. Pilgrimages began to be made
here.

The history of the Western Europeans knowledge of the

'holy places' of modern Palestine is very insightful. It
began only after Napoleon. Even up until the end of the
XIX century the Europeans were in a muddle in regards to
how to situate the Biblical holy places on such unsuitable
territory. Where, for instance, could they 'find' the walls of
Biblical Jerusalem, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc.
But then they were 'painted' and 'manufactured' [6v2],
ch.2.
As far as we know, none of the Russian Emperors has
ever appeared in the 'Holy Land' in modern Palestine. It is
probably no coincidence. Chances are they understood
very well, that all the 'Palestine relics' were first drawn on
paper, and then manufactured on the location quite
recently.
11. THE NEW JERUSALEM OUTSIDE OF MOSCOW.
For a long time Czar-Grad was considered the only centre
of worship in the entire Christian world. In time the
kingdom expanded and the people from the provinces
were not always able to go to Jerusalem on the Bosphorus
to worship. An idea emerged to create semblances of the
holy city 'in situ', in the provinces. It emerged either in the
XIII or in the XV cc., when Czar-Grad was seized. The
conquest of the holy city was reflected in the biblical
'prophecies' of the fall of Jerusalem. At the end of the XVI
century Jerusalem was built in Moscow [6v2]. Shortly
before this Kazan was also referred to as Jerusalem. In
the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah the construction of the

Moscow Kremlin is referred to as 'the reconstruction of

Jerusalem'.
Long after the Bible was printed in the XVII century the
construction of another Jerusalem, namely in the modern
day Palestine, begins. Later on it was declared 'the only
Jerusalem'. The historians chose to forget about the
previous Jerusalems so that no awkward questions would
arise. However not everything was forgotten. A
remarkable example of the construction of Jerusalem in
the XVII century in the time of patriarch Nikon on the Istra
river outside Moscow survives. It was designed on a large
scale. However, the works were scrapped a few years
down the line. It was appointed a place of a conventional
monastery.
Hence it appears that everything could have turned out
differently. If the original plan was not cancelled and the
New Jerusalem was accomplished on the large scale,
then it is entirely possible that today's Jerusalem would
have been located on the Istra river, near Moscow, but not
in modern Palestine. Mind you, no one would of course
have remembered that in the XVII century the river was
called Istra. Everyone would have sincerely called it 'the
Gospel river Jordan'. The numerous guide-books would
have told us with conviction about the centuries-long
history of this Isra-Jordanian Jerusalem. They would have
pointed out to us 'that very same' Mount Sinai which
Moses had once ascended. But if anyone dared to openly
declare that the city of Capernaum in the XVII century was
called Zinovieva Pustosh (Zinoviev wasteland), this person

would have been looked at with the same suspicion as

anyone, who today would attempt to reinstate the former
Arabic names in present day Palestine. For example, the
Arabic name Al-Quds of modern Jerusalem, the Arabic
name of the village renamed 'Biblical Jericho', etc.
More importantly, the editing of the Bible would have taken
a different direction. They would not have eradicated the
traces of snow, frost and the Northern winter in general.
On the contrary, they would have added something about
the thick snow and bitter cold. Everything would have
looked rather convincing. Even more convincing than in
the modern 'Southern, Palestinian version'.
But for some reasons Jerusalem on Istra was abolished.
Only after this they started calling it The New Jerusalem.
Alleging that it was not the 'actual' Jerusalem. And in
general, the entire grand design was only a whim of the
Patriarch Nikon. And the 'genuine Jerusalem' is situated in
a completely different place. Allegedly in the present day
Palestine.
12. BABYLONIAN EXILE.
In the Bible there are a number of events called the
'Babylonian Exile'. The first is the Babylonian exile of the
XIV century, during the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest. It
is reflected in the history of the Catholic Church as the
Babylonian captivity of the papacy. Its details are virtually
unknown. What is suggested to us is a XVII century
version. It was composed after the breakup of the 'Mongol
Empire' and is a part of the distorted Scaligerian history. In

particular Dante's works, for example his 'Letters', where

he speaks a lot of the Avignon Exile (he calls it Babylonian
[2v1], ch.1:4) were written, most likely, not earlier than the
XVII century.
The same refers to the works of Petrarch (allegedly 13041374) which were allegedly written XIV century. As we
said before they were most likely to have been created in
the XVII century [2v1], ch.1:4.
It is thought that Dante lived in 1265-1321 [797], p.359.
The bronze bust of allegedly XV century, modeled on the
mold of Dante's face is well known [304], v.2, p.410. Most
likely it was made not earlier than the XVII century using
the death mask of a man who lived in that epoch.
Alternatively it could be yet another 'visual aid' of the XVIIXVIII cc. for the textbooks on the Scaligerian history in
front of us.
The second Babylonian captivity was in the XV century. It
is the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans in
1453.
The third Babylonian captivity took place in the XVI
century. It is the conquest of Kazan-Khazaria in 1552 and
Novgorod-Yaroslavl in 1570 by Ivan the Terrible, i.e. the
biblical Nebuchadnezzar [6v1], ch.6. The important events
in Russia-Horde of the XVI-XVII cc. are connected to
these foreigners-settlers. Namely, the story of Esther.
13. THE BIBLICAL TEMPLE OF SOLOMON AND
HAGIA SOPHIA IN INSTANBUL.

When the Biblical and European histories are aligned,

King Solomon overlaps the Byzantine emperor Justinian I
allegedly of the VI century. He 'restores' the famous Hagia
Sophia in Czar-Grad. The Holy Temple built by Solomon
and Hagia Sophia coincide. The temple erected by
Solomon in Jerusalem is often called Solomon's Temple.
So it is CONSTANTINOPLE'S HAGIA SOPHIA WHICH IS
SOLOMON'S TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. Going forward,
king Solomon (the very same Justinian I) is the reflection
of the legendary sultan Suleiman, aka Suleiman the
Magnificent. Born in 1494 or in 1495, he became a sultan
in 1520 and died in 1566. One of the most eminent rulers
of the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire. So Hagia Sophia =
Solomon's Temple was erected in the XVI century. It is the
first construction project of the enormous temples. It didn't
turn out entirely successfully. In approximately twenty
years the temple began to 'sprawl', and Selim II had to
reinforce it with the 'supporting piers' [6v].
Prior to the early XVII century and possibly later, Hagia
Sophia, where the sultans had already been praying for
many decades, still did not change its Christian
appearance. In other words the Istanbul sultans up until
the XVII and maybe even up until the XVIII century
PRAYED IN THE CHRISTIAN CATHEDRAL! This is
contrary to any ingrained prejudices we may have about
the Ottomans = Atamans. But it corresponds brilliantly with
our reconstruction: as the Ottomans (Atamans) came from
Russia-Horde, were Christian and prayed in the Christian
churches. The Christian icons were not plastered over. All
the major changes in the ritualism, at least those

connected with the iconoclasm, prevailed only in the XVIIXVIII cc.

Suleiman the Magnificent's wife was the Russian
Roxelana, and Solomon's wife was the daughter of the
Egyptian Pharaoh. But as we have shown already, the
Biblical Egypt is Russia-Horde. So, Solomon's wife is a
Russian princess. By the way, the Queen of Sheba, who
once came to visit King Solomon, is partially identified with
the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine. She is also
the Russian princess Olga.
Furthermore, the mysterious biblical 'a great many waters
in the midst of David's Column' in Jerusalem is a vast
underground reservoir-cistern of the Mediaeval Istanbul.
Besides, the Old Testament's 'Sea of Solomon's Temple in
Jerusalem on the 12 oxen' is once again the legendary
Istanbul cistern-reservoirs [6v].
14. THE AMAZONS.

Many think that the Amazons existed only in the 'ancient'

Greek myths. In the meantime the Russian Povest
Vremennykh Let (The Tale of the Bygone Years The
Russian Primary Chronicle, also called Chronicle of Nestor
or Kiev Chronicle Translator's note), for example, tell us
about the Amazons. The equestrian squadrons of female
warriors did in fact exist in Russia-Horde. For example,
THE EQUESTRIAN FEMALE COHORTS

ACOOMPANIED EQUIPAGES OF THE GOLDEN

HORDE QUEENS [282], p.146.
Astonishingly this CONVOY OF THE AMAZONS existed
at the Russian czars' court until the early XVII century!
There survived some foreign travelers' commentary about
it [282], p.145-146. Giving this description, the historian
I.E. Zabelin could not refrain from an obvious comparison:
'The ceremonial female equestrian convoy, the Amazons
of a sort, leads us to wonder, whether such a custom for a
queen's escort was adopted from the long-term customs of
the escorts of the ancient Queens of the Golden Horde
[282], p. 146. As we understand it now, the Golden Horde
was simply a Russian state of the XIV-XV cc. with its
capital in Kostroma or Yaroslavl Veliky Novgorod.
Moscow Rus' (Russia) of the XVI century became the
heiress of that state. Naturally the customs of Moscow and
Golden Horde corresponded.
The country of the Amazons, as situated in Russia, is
named directly on the magnificent map of Charles V and
Ferdinand dated to the XVI century. It turns out that
Amazonia situated between the Volga river and the Don
river, in the region of the Sea of Azov, Tartaria, below the
Volga and Don skid way. This country is named on the
map of Charles V as AMAZONVM [4v1], ch.4. HERE THE
NATIVE COSSACK, I.E. TATARIAN LANDS WERE
SITUATED.
Finally we will quote a wonderful title of one of the
chapters of 'Universal Chronicle' by Marcin Bielski
published allegedly in 1551. The chapter is thus named:

'ON AMAZON WOMEN, THE TATARIAN WIVES' [344],

p.231. Thus in the XVI-XVII cc. it was JUST THE
TATARIAN WIVES WHO WERE CALLED THE
AMAZONS. And who are the Tatars? In the epoch of the
XIV-XVI cc. they are the Cossacks. Therefore, the
Amazons were the Cossack wives, kazatchki. They were
always famous for being great horse riders, active in
public life. They sometimes fought alongside men.
The Cossack-Amazons are reflected in various 'ancient'
sources. The Amazons entered the realms of classical
literature and art. The Amazons were the favourite motif
on Greek painted vases. They were depicted on a horse
wielding a spear, fighting the Greeks [4v1], ch.4.
15. THE CONQUEST OF CENTRAL AMERICA BY
ATAMAN (COSSACK LEADER) YERMAK =
CONQUISTADOR CORTES.
It appears that Yuri Vasilievich, the brother of Ivan the
Terrible, is described by Herodotus as 'ancient' Dorieus.
Herodotus gives a detailed account of him as a brother of
Cleomenes. Thus we were lucky to come across an old
document containing the most interesting facts of the
mysterious story of Ivan IV the Terrible's brother Yuri
Vasilievich, the son of Solomonia Saburova, the first wife
of Vasili III [163], p.250-251. 'Ancient' Herodotus
unexpectedly lifts the veil off an important page in Russian
history hitherto obscured by the Romanovs. It is for a good
reason that the historians still ardently dispute whether
Yuri Vasilievich, brother of Ivan the Terrible, ever existed

at all. It turns out that not only he existed, but also

accomplished remarkable deeds.
We discovered that the famous Cossack ataman Yermak
Timofeev of the second half of the XVI century was
described by Herodotus as Spartan Dorieus, the brother of
king Cleomenes, i.e. Ivan the Terrible. Herodotus informs
us about Dorieus' campaign, his conquest of the city of
Sybaris and his death [ZA], ch.7. It was the second
campaign, following the one in the early XIV century,
being the colonization of Siberia and its subjection to the
metropoly of Russia-Horde.
According to the Romanov sources at first the relationship
between Ivan the Terrible and ataman Yermak-Vasili was
hostile. The chronicles accuse Yermak of robbery, looting
and insubordination to authority. Herodotus says
something similar about Dorieus. Dorieus is also resentful,
clashes with his brother and refutes his brother's authority.
According to Herodotus the confrontation between the
Spartan king Cleomenes and his brother Dorieus resulted
in Dorieus, at the head of the army, LEAVING THE
KINGDOM AND ESTABLISHING COLONIES OR
SETTLEMENTS IN DISTANT COUNTRIES. The two
Spartan kings could not coexist in the same country. One
of them had to leave. A plausible excuse was concocted
to conquer the far off territories. That is where Dorieus set
off to.
According to the Romanov chronicles, following the
animosity between Ivan the Terrible and the Cossack

Ataman Yermak-Vasili, the latter sets off to conquer

Siberia at the head of the Cossack army equipped with the
firearms. Not only did Yermak conquer the cities, but
founded new settlements. A vast and wealthy country is
being colonized. It is probable, that Yermak-Vasili was
purposefully 'pushed out' of Moscow as far as possible,
when an honourable, but dangerous occasion turned up.
Something in terms of: Let him fight! And if he is killed, as
it did happen in the end, we will glorify him, proclaim him a
great conqueror.
We will repeat that Herodotus unexpectedly illuminated
the dark Romanov version of Ivan the Terrible's reign.
Herodotus has got the details of Yuri Vasilievich =
Dorieus, the brother of Ivan the Terrible = king
Cleomenes. Moreover, we discovered an astonishing fact:
in essence Herodotus claims, that Ivan the Terrible's
brother was that very same famous Yermak-Vasili, whose
name was so popular in the Russian history of the XVI
century.
Where did this 'classic' name DORIEUS originate from?
As it points to Yermak, it could have been connected with
his great campaign to the East. Immediately the name
'DAURIA' springs to mind, which was very well known in
the Far East: 'DAURIA is a country stretching from the
Yablonoi Mountains to the East up to the river valley of
Arguni. THIS NAME OCCURS SINCE THE RUSSIANS
EMERGENCE THERE and originates from the Tungus
tribe inhabiting it' [988:00], 'Dauria'.

The facts that we discovered about Dorieus-Yermak are

interesting and unexpected. Notably it would be
impossible to uncover them without the New Chronology.
Hence it is clear how vital it is to have the correct dates at
your disposal.
Furthermore, the core of the narrative of Yermak's
conquest of Siberia is the colonization of America by
Russia-Horde and Ottoman (Ataman) Empire in the XVXVI cc. In the Western sources all of this is described as
the conquest of America by the Conquistador Cortes.
In [6] we showed that the voyage of Columbus is the
reflection in the Western chronicles of the conquest of
America in the XV-XVI cc. carried out by Russia and the
Ottoman Empire, where the troops of Russia-Horde
invaded the American continent not only from the East,
having crossed the Atlantic, but also from the West,
having made it through Siberia, via the Pacific Ocean. The
Cossacks entered America also via Alaska. Having
colonized a continent, little populated at that point, the
Cossacks and Ottomans-Atamans created here the
civilization of Maya, Aztec, Inca and Toltec These
civilizations perished during the epoch of the Reformation
of the XVII-XVIII cc., when the troops of the Western
European armies who were crushing the 'Mongol' Empire,
arrived to America. Including its distant American colonies.
Later the atrocities of the 'progressive reformers' were
attributed to the Horde colonists of the XV-XVI cc.
Was the colonization of America reflected in the RUSSIAN
CHRONICLES? At first glance it wasn't. However, it turns

out that the conquest of America is nonetheless described

in the Russian sources. Only these descriptions are
included as a part of the stories about the famous voyage
of Yermak and his conquest of the 'vast Siberia'.
The Romanov editors GREATLY BELITTLED THE SCALE
OF YERMAK'S CONQUEST AND NARROWED DOWN
ITS GEOGRAPHICAL FRAME. Today we are led to
believe that allegedly only several hundreds of Cossacks
set off for the campaign. And they succeeded in
conquering a huge country. Besides, in order not to insult
the colleagues-reformers across the ocean, the Romanovs
did their best to erase from the chronicles any mention of
the fact that the Cossack army, having crossed Siberia,
invaded America and founded their prospering civilizations
ones which later on were declared by the historians to
be 'terribly ancient'. Following the emerging of the USA in
the XVIII century in place of the former territories of
Russia-Horde the true history of America was, by
coordinated efforts, plunged into darkness.
The traces of the true events surface even in Karamzin's
work one of the most faithful of the Romanov historians.
Karamzin himself, without our prompting, compared
Yermak's voyage with the conquest of Central America by
Cortes [362], v.9, ch.6, column 226-228. And it is correct.
To a far greater degree than Karamzin believed himself.
Correct - not figuratively, but literally.
It is for or a reason that the old depictions of Yermak's
voyage show him navigating large rivers [ZA], ch.7. Of
course some Siberian rivers are very wide. However,

earlier the seas and the oceans were depicted on the

geographical maps as rivers [1v], [2v]. That is why some
old images of Yermak's voyage could have been
describing the crossing of the ocean by the large Cossack
ships.
Likewise Herodotus' account of Dorieus' army sailing
across the sea to a faraway 'island of Sicily' could have
reflected the crossing of the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean
by the Russian-Horde troops on their way to America.
When the historians radically minimized the scale of the
events, it appeared that sailing from Greece to the nearby
island of Sicily had begun to be considered 'very far-off'.
What actually happened is that in the old original an
account was given of the crossing of the Atlantic and the
Pacific Oceans. I.e. about truly long-distance expeditions.
The cunning editors of recent times started to assure us
that the 'ancient' settlers of Dorieus were sailing not to
America, but merely to the 'island of Sicily'. Purporting that
it was 'too far and dangerous'.
Let us take a look at the name of khan KUCHUM who
Yermak fights with. The name KUCHUM pointed not only
to the ruler, but to the entire kingdom, which was
sometimes called the 'Kuchum's Domain'. If the conquest
of America is reflected here, then will we find KUCHUM
and his kingdom there? Yes, we will. In [6v] we showed
that during the colonization of America the name of the
people of MAYA KICHE or KICHE MAYA emerges. It is
plausible, that KUCHUM is a variant of the pronunciation
KICHE MAYA which appeared in the Russian chronicles.

The name of the American people Maya Kiche is the

marking of the Slavic conquest reaching America and
engulfing it in the XIV-XVI cc. The first Hordian settlers
could have appeared here in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc.
under the 'Mongolian' conquest. After two hundred years,
in the XV century, the Cossack czar Yermak-Vasili meets
the descendants of this first wave of the Horde-Cossacks.
They called themselves Kiche Maya = Kuchum. We would
also like to note, that KICHE is close to the word
KOCHevnik (NOMAD in Russian Tr. note), meaning the
horse cavalry of the Horde.
The great significance attributed by the Russian chronicles
to Yermak's voyage becomes clear. In the XVI century it
was not Siberia at all that they conquered: there was no
need to do so. As it is, Siberia was already a part of the
Great Empire for a long time, since the early XIV century,
when the 'Mongol' invasion swept through Eurasia. The
second 'conquest of Siberia' by Yermak in the XVI century
could have of course meant the suppression of the small
rebellions or separatist tendencies on his way. But such a
voyage clearly wouldn't 'cut it' to play such an outstanding
role attributed to it by the chroniclers. But if the matter at
hand concerned the COLONIZATION OF AMERICA, then
the picture would be altered. The campaign in fact
becomes a grandiose event.
Supposedly Yermak's troops crossed Siberia and the Far
East quite fast. As they were HOME lands. But the main
events began later. The Cossacks continued their journey
across the Bering Strait and the Pacific Ocean towards the

distant America. Called by Herodotus a 'distant ISLAND of

Sicily'. Where the king Dorieus (Dauria=Horde?, Dal,
Dalnii meaning 'Distance' and 'Distant' in Russian) had to
sail his ships to. It is clear why the old Russian texts,
wrongly ridiculed by Karamzin, claimed that not hundreds
of Cossacks, but THOUSANDS of them were marching
with Yermak. Obviously, in order to conquer a vast
transoceanic continent, large numbers of the soldierscrusaders were needed.
Aside from Russian Alaska, Russian Oregon and Russian
California, the emergence of the entire Great Tartaria also
becomes clear = Moscow Tartaria spanning Siberia as
well as the significant part of the American continent [6v].
It is clear why the name of the Cossack czar YERMAK in a
form of AMERICA began to apply to the entire continent.
The conqueror named the country after himself. Besides,
the name AMERICA or AME-RICA could have originated
from MAYA-RICA, i.e. (meaning) MAYA-STATE, THE
STATE OF MAYA, MY STATE. In the Middle Ages the
word RICA meant STATE (for example, Costa Rica, etc.).
The stories about the famous conquistador Hernan Cortes
came down to us from the Western European, mainly
Spanish chronicles. In a nutshell the essence of the
conquest of Central America by Cortes sounds like this. It
turns out that it is necessary to repeat almost word for
word the accounts of the Russian chronicles about
Yermak. This will result in the following.

A great conqueror at the head of a small naval brigade,

equipped with firearms, conquered a distant vast country,
the inhabitants of which were brave warriors. Cannons
and muskets, thus far unfamiliar to the locals, crushed
their resistance.
It turns out that the surviving documents about Yermak's
voyage emerged not earlier than the middle of the XVII
century or even later. Most likely they were based on the
old testimonies of Yermak's contemporaries [ZA], ch.8.
However these texts didn't survive. Yermak died in 1584. It
means that today we view his voyage based on the texts
written at least 20-30 years later, and more likely half a
century later. Or even later. The old testimonials were
edited by the Romanovs' censors. They 'corrected the
history' adapting it to the newly created version. The main
purpose was to erase from the chronicles any traces of the
fact that having crossed all of the Siberia and Far East,
Yermak's army made an intrusion into the territory of
Central America. It was there where the MAIN EVENTS
unfolded. Also it is not impossible that Yermak set out to
America either from the shores of Kamchatka or from the
east, from the island of Cuba in the Atlantic Ocean.
The Siberian chronicles became accessible to the public
only after the final division of the spheres of interest
between the Romanov Russia and the USA in the second
half of the XIX century. Since 1867 the Romanovs gave
Alaska away to the Americans [4v]. After that the Russian
sources were edited once again and in 1880 it was kindly
allowed to publish the Kungur Chronicle.

What do we know about the documents giving us an

account of the conquest of Mexico and Central America by
Cortes allegedly in the first half of the XVI century? The
picture is similar to the one in the Russian historiography.
The surviving Western-European texts on this topic
surface not earlier than in the XVII century. It is thought
that the conquest of Central America was described
mainly by the Spanish. This being said they mean the
people who lived on the territory of modern Spain.
But most likely the 'Spanish conquest' is the Ottoman
conquest. To recap, the famous division of the world in the
XV-XVI cc. between Spain-Castile and Portugal was in
fact the division of the world between Ottoman (Ataman)
Empire and Russia-Horde. Certainly, some parts of the
Ottoman and Horde troops could have consisted of the
inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, where present-day
Spain is situated. But at that time all of these lands as well
as many others were part of the Great Empire. That is why
when reading today about the SPANISH conquest of
America one ought to understand that at the bottom of it is
the OTTOMAN and HORDIAN colonization of the
continent in the XV-XVI cc.
There survives information in the Russian Siberian
chronicles informing us that Yermak was buried near
some volcanos [RI], ch.4. So where were they situated?
There are no volcanos on the territory of present-day
Siberia. Hence Yermak was not buried in Siberia. But
where? The answer is simplified by the fact that WE HAVE
ALREADY FOUND OUT THE TRUE SETTING OF

THESE EVENTS. They unfolded in Central America. Near

the city of Meshiko (Mexico) there are indeed situated the
two huge volcanos Popocatepetl and Istasiuatl, more
than 5 thousand meters high [ZA]. They are probably
presented in the Russian Kungur Chronicle. Later on the
Romanov historians 'dragged' (on paper) Yermak's voyage
from America to the Asiatic Siberia and edited the old
texts. But, luckily, they didn't pay attention to the volcanos
described and even depicted in the drawings in the
Kungur chronicle. Thus we yet again catch the falsifiers
red-handed.
The mysterious phrase in the Kungur Chronicle becomes
clear: FIERY COLUMNS CAN BE SEEN BY THE
TATARS AND MUSSULMEN, BUT NOT BY THE
RUSSIANS. Indeed, it is very far from the European and
Siberian Russia to Mexico across the ocean. It is in fact
impossible to see the columns of fire and smoke above
the Mexican volcanos. But the American inhabitants
Meshikas-Mexicans, Aztecs = Ostyaks, could see these
'great burning candles' really well.
16. YERMAK'S VOYAGE AND CORTES' CAMPAIGN
CORRESPONDENCE SCHEME.
# The Conquistador Hernan Cortes is the Cossack ataman
Herman-Yermak Timofeyevich.
# Diego Velazquez, the governor-sovereign's vicegerent of
the emperor Charles V in Cuba is Stroganov or the
Stroganovs, the sovereign's vicegerent of Ivan the Terrible

allegedly in the Urals. Or perhaps in Cuba not far from

America.
# Emperor Charles V is czar-khan Ivan IV the Terrible [6v].
# The clash between Cortes and Charles V's authorities is
the conflict between ataman Yermak and the authorities of
Ivan the Terrible. However the authorities flirt with
Yermak-Cortes, invite him to serve and declare a major
campaign.
# The ships sail off. The sudden fury of Diego Velazquez
in the beginning of Cortes' campaign is the reflection of
Ivan the Terrible's sudden wrathful decree at the start of
Yermak's expedition.
# The campaign of the allegedly small crew of Hernan
Cortes to Central America is the voyage of the allegedly
small crew of ataman Yermak to the Siberian Czardom.
# The true historical event was the voyage of HermanYermak from Russia via Siberia to Central America, to
Mexico. The Western chroniclers described this campaign
as the voyage of Hernan Cortes from the island of Cuba to
Mexico. I.e. they described only the last stage of Yermak's
conquest, omitting his voyage through Siberia, The Far
East and The Pacific Ocean.
# The accounts of the both campaigns emphasized the
fact that the colonizers were equipped with the firearms
which the locals did not possess. Due to this in particular,
victory was gained, despite the high courage of those on
the defensive side.

# The American Azteks are described in the Russian

chronicles as the 'Siberian Ostyaks'.
# King Moteuczoma or Motecuhzoma, who was later killed
and who fought against Cortes in Mexico, is the czar-khan
Kuchum, who was also later killed and fought against
Yermak in the 'Siberian Czardom'.
# The seizure of the city of Meshiko, the capital of Mexico
by Cortes is reflected as the seizure of the Asiatic city of
Siberia, the capital of the Siberian Czardom by Yermak.
Both the American capital and the Czardom itself were
called the same name MESHIKO.
# The Spanish conquistadors of the epoch of the 15191524 years are the Russian-Horde Cossacks and
Ottomans-Atamans, i.e. also the Cossacks of the epoch of
the 1581-1584 years.
# The well-known 'La Noche Triste' ('the night of sorrows')
is the severe defeat of the conquistadors and Cortes'
wounding is the well-known night attack of khan Kuchum
on Yermak's crew and the death of the famous ataman.
# Cortes' letters to the Emperor Charles V are Yermak's
messages to the czar Ivan the Terrible.
# The temporary setback of the conquistadors is the
temporary retreat of the Cossacks after Yermak's death.
They soon regrouped with fresh reinforcements. Following
which the wave of the colonization ultimately overwhelmed
the vanquished country.

# The name MEXICO or MESHIKO is a slight distortion of

the name MOSOCH-MESHECH or MOSCOW. Thus was
also called the vast MOSCOW Tartaria, spanning not only
over the Asiatic Siberia at that time, but also the greater
part of America. The word MESHECH itself could have
originated from sMESHAYU ('I will mix' translated from
Russian), sMESHEniye ('medley, mixture' translated
from Russian), i.e. a mix of races. Hence the word
MUZHIK (a man, a peasant). The word MOSOCH entered
the Bible as the name of one of the biblical patriarchs.
That is why in some old chronicles the word MESHIKI
could have been understood as meaning MUZHIKI (MEN).
# Why is it still not possible to trace the Ostyak capital
Isker-Siberia in the Asiatic Siberia? The answer: because
it was situated in America. It is the Atzec city Meshiko =
Mexico.
# The confusion in the description of Yermak's voyage by
the Western chroniclers is clear. Yermak-Herman went
from Russia to the East, via Siberia to America. But the
Western chroniclers decided that he Hernan Cortes
sailed from the island of Cuba to the West, to America.
The fact is that it is indeed as early as at the end of the XV
century that the Hordian and Ataman troops appeared in
America, having crossed the Atlantic ocean. It was the
Columbus expedition [6v2]. Since then the Western
chroniclers confused the directions of the Horde or the
Ottoman invasions. As Russia and Ottoman (Ataman)
Empire entered America from both directions from the
West and from the East. Or in fact Yermak's army set out

to Mexico from the island of Cuba in the Atlantic Ocean.

# Cortes' voyage in 1519-1524 was dated by the
chronologists approximately sixty years earlier than the
voyage of Yermak: 1579-1584. As we understand now,
Yermak's expedition is in its correct chronological place.
But the Western Europeans were noticeably mistaken and
shifted the dates approximately 60 years down the line.
The duration of both campaigns roughly coincide.
# Ataman Yermak's death at the end of his campaign and
the serious wound of the conquistador Cortes at the end of
the voyage to Mexico. The Romanov historians deceived
us when assuring that Yermak purportedly died in Asiatic
Siberia. There are surviving testimonials in the Russian
chronicles that Yermak was buried in Mexico, close to the
two large volcanos in the Meshiko valleys.
17. THE CHRONICLER OF THE VOYAGE OF YERMAKCORTES.
According to the commentators the book by Bernal Diaz
'The True History of the Conquest of New Spain' is the
most authentic and the most colourful among the conquest
chronicles, the most valuable material on the conquest
history of America'[64:3], p.320.
At the same time 'the most complete Siberian chronicle
was written by SAVA YEFIMOV, who finished his book on
the 1st September 7145 {1636}. The aforementioned
Yefimov declares in it that HE COMES FROM AMONG
THE YERMAK'S COMPANIONS AND THAT HE WAS AN

EYEWITNESS TO EVRYTHING DESCRIBED BY HIM'

[876:3], 306-307.
Thus emerges before us the name of the Cossack, a
participant of Yermak's expedition, who left behind a whole
book describing the voyage. It provided the basis for the
chronicles known to us today. Sava Yefimov's accounts
correspond well with another edited version of his work
known today as the 'book of Bernal Diaz de Castillo'.
Presumably in the XVII century there were several editions
made of the book by Cossack Sava Yefimov = Bernal
Diaz. It was rewritten both in Russia, in Siberia and in
Western Europe, in Spain. Some things were changed, in
particular characters' names, however the core of the
matter remained the remained the same. That is why we
managed to restore the true facts, having detected a
striking correspondence between the Siberian Chronicles
and the Spanish = Ottoman book by Bernal Diaz. That is
why in the history of Russia there remained a version
which was later called the 'book by Sava Yefimov', and in
the history of Ottoman Empire its other version under the
name of the 'book of Bernal Diaz'.
The chronicle of Bernal Diaz is considered to have been
published in 1632, and Sava Yefimov's chronicle was
completed in 1636. These dates are close. As we
understand now it is not a coincidence. We speak here
about the same remarkable piece of work.
In the both versions the same kind of contemptuous sneer
of the later historians towards Sava Yefimov = Bernal Diaz
can be felt. Purporting that an 'inelegant' 'swashbuckler'

wrote a bulky chronicle. It is of course important for

history, but the author was just an 'uneducated bandit'. He
has shed much more blood than ink. And thus, we are
told, was just spinning a good yarn.
The conclusion. The comrade-in-arms of Yermak-Cortes
described the campaign of 1581-1584. In Russia he
became known under the name of Sava Yefimov. In Spain
he is already famous as Bernal Diaz del Castillo = the
Castilian. His work is at the heart of the modern perception
of the conquest of Central America. The Romanov
historians edited the chronicle, having shifted the place of
action exclusively to Siberia. They pretended that
Yermak's army had never been to America. In general
they did their best to distort the story in such a way, that
the mere notion of the Horde Cossacks conquering
America at the end of the XVI century began to seem
absurd.
Apparently, the story of Yermak is reflected on the pages
of the 'ancient' Roman classics, Cornelius Tacitus and
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, for example. The general
Germanicus, the nephew of the Emperor Tiberius (= the
reflection of Ivan the Terrible), is the Cossack atamanconquistador Yermak-Cortes, who conquered Central
America [RI], ch.4.
To conclude, the pages of Tacitus, Suetonius, Herodotus,
etc. give us a detailed account of the ataman-conquistador
Yermak-Cortes. Where a lot of information which survived
in the works of the 'ancient classics' is described in the
Russian and Spanish (Ottoman) chronicles either more

sparsely or is not reflected at all. Now we write a

completely new and much more detailed history of the
conquest of Central America. The picture becomes richer
and more colorful.
18. WHY THE AMAZON RIVER WAS NAMEDED THE
AMAZON. THE ELEPHANTS IN AMERICA.
Let us turn to the Western-European version of the
discovery of the Amazon river in South America. These
documents colourfully illustrate the 'relocation of the
names' which we detected. In the epoch of the great
conquest and then during its second wave in the XV-XVI
cc., which in the Bible was called the 'conquest of the
promised land', the colonizers brought with them their
recollections of their Motherland. I.e. of Russia-Horde and
the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire. There were some special
people in the Cossack army responsible for the written
documents, military and diplomatic correspondence and
the archives. The notes of a journey were written, the
maps were compiled and reports were prepared for the
Imperial administration in the metropoly of the Great
Empire. The Horde and the Ottoman armies conquered
the vast territories and founded settlements and cities. The
people settled down there for a long time and even for
good. They carried over here the customs, names and the
geographical names from their distant Motherland. They
called some of the American settlements the same names
as their native European and Asiatic cities which they had
left behind forever. The military and battle archives of the
conquerors formed the basis of the future American

libraries and archives. The chronicles giving us accounts

of the events in the Old World also found their way here.
The first settlers still remembered their true content, but
their descendants were forgetting about the roots of the
old texts passed on to them by their fathers and
grandfathers. And after a couple of generations they
started to think that these dusty chronicles purportedly
described the events in the New World. Thus some
important events and names of the Old World 'migrated'
(on paper) into the New World.
We have repeatedly given the examples of such 'paper
relocation' [STKR]. For example, the battle of Kulikovo
'was relocated on paper' from Moscow to the remote India
during its colonization by Russia-Horde in the XIV-XV cc.
And the battle of Kulikovo was erroneously considered to
be the local Indian 'battle in the field of Kurus'. Even the
suitable 'battleground' was picked out. It was drawn on the
map near the city of Delhi. Since then 'this battle' is
considered to be one of the most important events in the
history of India.
A similar thing was happening in America. For example, a
country Amazonia from Russia-Horde has 'relocated' here
too (see above). And appeared on the map as a name of
the South American Amazon river, although no Amazon
women were ever there.
Let us clarify. In the Horde chronicles which emerged in
America, there appeared some accounts of the great
Volga river flowing in the meridian north-south direction.
Later, when the European origin of the chronicles was

forgotten, the descendants of the pioneers decided, that in

them there was a description of the great South American
Amazon river. As though the magnificent Volga transferred
on paper its properties to the magnificent Amazon.
And for some time, looking into the Russian chronicles,
the confused chroniclers were mistakenly convinced that
Amazon was allegedly flowing ALONG THE MERIDIAN
[ZA], ch.8. In time they of course got things straight and
realized the correct direction of the Amazon (it flows
approximately along the parallel of latitude). But the old
texts, like those of the chronicles of Oviedo, survive in the
archives. And raise the commentators' eyebrows.
Purporting that he was a wonderful geographer, but was
so oddly mistaken.
The documents of the conquistadors contain accounts that
allegedly there were CAMELS, ELEPHANTS AND
TIGERS in America. However there were never such
animals in America and there are none of them now. All
such fragments found their way into the chronicles of the
Spanish conquest on the territory of America as a result of
transporting here the European and Asian chronicles
during the colonization of the XV-XVI cc. The Horde
Cossacks and Cossack-Amazons remembered Eurasia
and Africa, where they saw, of course, the camels, the
elephants and the tigers.
On the whole the theme of the 'elephants in America' have
been irritating the historians for a long time [6v2],
ch.6:27:2. There are a lot of references to the elephants
that survive in the American Indian culture [336], v.1,

p.206. It is clear now, that, for instance, the American

burial mounds in the shape of elephants, were erected in
the epoch of the XIV-XVII cc. by the Hordians, who had
arrived there recently from Eurasia, where there are plenty
of elephants. The elephants were also depicted on
smoking pipes. On reflection, the historians declared
unfoundedly, that purportedly the American burial mounds
and pipes were 'unbelievably ancient', that they were
made by the 'primitive people' in a distant epoch, when
there were prehistoric elephants and mastodon wandering
around America, which later became extinct [336], v.1,
p.206. Thus the Hordian-Ottoman constructions of the
XIV-XVII cc. were shifted to the 'stone age'. The historians
emitted a sigh of relief, having mistakenly thought that
they had solved the problem.
19. THE CONCLUSIONS. COSSACK CONQUISTADOR YERMAK-CORTES.
# The Russian sources identified the CORRECT dates of
Yermak's campaign, specifically 1581-1584. The Spanish
= Ottoman sources were MISTAKEN by approximately 60
years. They decided that allegedly Cortes'-Yermak's
voyage took place earlier in 1519-1521.
# On the other hand the Romanov historians WRONGLY
professed that the main events allegedly developed
exclusively in Asiatic Siberia. Most likely it was a
deliberate deception. In fact there was no war between
Yermak and the Siberians. The main voyage of YermakCortes developed in Central America. Here the Spanish =
Ottoman chronicles are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Yermak's

troops could have set off to America from the shores of the
Far East or from the Atlantic island of Cuba.
# The Romanov historians MISTAKENLY thought that
Yermak allegedly died on an island in the middle of the
large Siberian river Irtysh, and then was resurrected. In
reality Yermak-Cortes was badly wounded on an island in
the middle of the lake Lago de Texcoco in Mexico during
the battle for the capital Meshico. Here the Spanish =
Ottoman version is CORRECT, and the Romanov version
is ERRONEOUS.
On the whole the Russian-Horde descriptions of Yermak's
expedition despite all the distortions of the editors perfectly
correspond with the Spanish = Ottoman chronicles telling
us about the voyage of Cortes.
# Yermak-Cortes was Yuri, the brother of the czar-khan
Ivan IV the Terrible. There are some vague stories that
survive in the Romanov version of history. Herodotus also
mentions him as the brother of the great king, calling him
the 'ancient' Spartan king Dorieus.
# 'Ancient' Herodotus gives a brief description of the
voyage of Yermak-Cortes and the conquest of Mexico as
the expedition of 'ancient Dorieus' to conquer SybarisSiberia.
# There survive some sources, for example, a work by
Isaac Massa, in which the development of the Asiatic
Siberia is described as a peaceful colonization, except it
was carried out not by Yermak, but by other people. It is
all correct: Yermak was fighting in completely different
territories. And Asiatic Siberia already belonged to RussiaHorde for a long time and there was no need to conquer it
by force.

# Most likely, Yermak-Cortes didn't die in 1584, though he

was badly wounded during the siege of Meshico, the
capital of Mexico. The Spanish = Ottoman version quite
rightfully claims that for some time the atamanconquistador was alive, took part in the conquest of
Central America, and then died in disgrace. The Russian
chroniclers didn't know anything about the burial place of
Yermak = Cortes. The Western chroniclers also flounder
here. Most likely Yermak-Cortes was at first buried in
Meshico, not far from the two Mexican volcanos. Maybe in
one of the Mexican pyramids. Later his body was reinterred.
# When wiping out from the chronicles the very fact of the
existence of the vast American domains owned by Russia
and the Ottoman Empire up until the XVIII century (until
the victory over 'Pugachev'), the historians fulfilled an
order striving for geopolitical goals. Following the division
in the XVIII century of the territories formerly belonging to
Horde in America between the recently emerged USA and
Romanov Russia, it was necessary to cast a veil over the
true story of these 'Mongol' lands so that Russia could not
demand the return of its overseas domains after it became
more powerful. In the XVII-XVIII cc. the feeble Romanovs
being at first the pro-Western minions, more or less toed
the line of their masters. But later, in the XIX century,
having partially forgotten the core of the matter, they
altogether gave away to the USA the last remaining
scraps of the former Hordian domains: vast Alaska, huge
states of Oregon, California, etc. [6].
The rough scheme of the correspondence between the
plots of the Spanish Conquista in America and the

fragments of the Ottoman history of the conquest of

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

20. 'THE STORY OF ESTHER' AS ONE OF THE

SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION.
Let us recap. In the late XVI century in Europe there
appears a centrifugal tendency, reinforced by the deep
seated resentment towards the Russian-Horde authorities
for the merciless 'medical' operation of the XV century.
These feelings erupted into a major rebellion in the West.
The Western governors increasingly exhibited
independence. The epoch of the Reformation and
Protestantism begins. The attempts of the central Imperial
regime to crush the rebellion failed. In the Bible, in the
Book of Esther, for example, these events are described
as unsuccessful attempts of the Assyrian king
Nebuchadnezzar, aka khan Ivan the 'Terrible', and his
commander Holofernes Malyuta Skuratov to establish
order in the provinces of the Persian-Babylonian Empire.
The Great Revolt begins in the Empire. The Western
governors split from the centre. In the capital of RussiaHorde there emerges a religious movement, commonly
known as the 'heresy of the Judaizers'. There forms a plot
and the rebels-reformers manage to sow discord within
the Horde Royal family. In the Russian chronicles it is the
story of the heretic Elena Voloshanka allegedly of the XV
century (aka the biblical Esther).
These events are described in the Biblical Book of Esther
and Book of Judith as the victory of the Jews over the
'Persians', aka p-russians, the white Russians (Russii). In
the early XVII century the Empire splits. The rebels'
armies, amongst which there were particularly many
natives of Western Europe, marched out to Russia. The

Russian-Horde dynasty of the Empire is mercilessly

butchered. The Romanovs, the pro-Western puppets,
come to take power. A harsh occupational regime is
established in Russia. Serfdom is introduced effectively
slavery for the greater part of the population. Practically
all of the aspects of Russian life conform to Western
'standards'. The epoch of the Horde Empire is declared by
the Romanovs to be the epoch of the 'dark Mongol-Tatar
yoke' in Russia. The Romanovs played the people of
Russia-Horde against each other, driving a wedge
between the 'Russians' i.e. the Russian Orthodox and
the 'Tatars' i.e. the Muslims. They foster nationalism in
Russia. The Battle of Kulikovo is being 'repainted' from the
religious battle between the Apostle and the Royal =
Hereditary Christianity into an allegedly international fight
between the 'enslaved Russians' and the 'invaders /
Tatars'. The image of the enemy is being carefully
fabricated.
The appearance of various works of art and literature
dedicated to the subjects of Esther and Judith in the XVIIXVIII cc. is attributed to the 'joy of liberation' experienced
by the Western Europeans. The meaning embedded into
such 'works of art' was as follows. The enlightened West
has finally defeated the barbaric East. Look: a beautiful
European woman Judith with a steady hand decapitates
the fierce Eastern monster of Horde. All of this was
impressed onto their contemporaries by the rebellious
governors of Horde. In order to supress any memories that
were still fresh among the people, both the chronology of
Scaliger and Petavious and the 'correct art' were called in
for assistance.

But if many nations remembered their recent true history

well, then how was it possible to force them to forget it?
Apparently it was not easy at all. Moreover, it was
incredibly difficult.
Various social strata of Western society and entire nations
fought back tooth and claw. And then the sword was
called in to support the word. The 'New Bible' and the 'new
order' was introduced by fire and sword. Europe for a long
time was shaken by the bloody wars, which are today
evasively called religious. These are the wars of the times
of the Reformation.
The terminology of the authors of the Book of Esther and
the Book of Judith correctly reflects the realities of the XVI
century. The Book of Judith uses the name of Israelites
when speaking of the Western rebels who
Nebuchadnezzar wishes to supress. Effectively, earlier, in
the XIV-XV cc. Europe was conquered by the Fighters for
God, i.e. the warriors, the Israelites, and became Khan =
Land of Canaan. Their descendants rebelled in the XVI
century. So it was the descendants of the sons of Israel,
i.e. the warriors of Russia-Horde who had settled in
Europe earlier - whom Ivan IV the Terrible the head of
Israel=Horde wanted to punish.
The Book of Esther uses the term Jews. That is quite
clear. Here the God praisers are referred to, the
representatives of a different social class. They are not the
warriors, but something alike to priests or Druids. They
were located in the capital of the Horde Empire, amongst
those close to the Czar's court.
21. ANCIENT HISTORY IS BEING RE-WRITTEN.

In the memory of the Western Europeans of the XVI-XVII

cc., who were the descendants of the Hordians of the first
wave of the XIV century, the era of the 'ancient' RussiaHorde of the XIV-XV cc. turned into a nostalgic beautiful
memory. In the XVI-XVIII cc. the Europeans started to talk
about this Hordian epoch as the 'beautiful ancient Rome'
dealt deathly blows by the 'evil nations'. Having distorted
the history, they started to keep quiet about the fact that
the Ottomans' invasion was aimed at stopping the
epidemics in Europe. The military aspect of the invasion
was given precedence. The blame for the 'barbaric
destruction of ancient Rome (i.e. the Western provinces of
Russia-Horde of the XIV-XV cc.) was attributed to the
'aggressors' Russia and Atamania (Ottoman Empire).
Hence the tension between West and East, which later
triggered the wars between Russia, Turkey and Western
Europe.
It is understandable why the Europeans, beginning with
the XVII-XVIII cc., paid such deference to the 'iron ancient
Rome'. They started talking about it with a heady idealism,
as if of a beautiful legend, worthy of emulation. In the XIXXX cc. the 'ancient' Roman ruins were restored all over
Europe. And where there was nothing left, they simply
built them anew, unashamedly declaring them to be the
remains of the military Roman camps, aqueducts, theatres
and arches. They wanted so badly to have their own
'sightseeing attractions'. Without compunction they
erected 'half ruined ancient columns' of modern reinforced
concrete. They made cracks and holes 'from the savage
cannon balls' in the freshly built 'ancient' walls. They broke
the bricks off in a beautiful way. For example, in the XVIII-

XIX cc. an 'ancient' modern replica was erected the

Coliseum in Italian Rome, in imitation of the genuinely old
Coliseum of the XIV-XV cc, in Czar-Grad [VAT]. The
modern replicas were muddied and cured with smoke to
give them an 'ancient' patina. Numerous 'designers'
worked hard. Here and there, nearby, there were
authentically old pieces, fragments from the XIV-XVII cc.
BC which were scattered picturesquely, on each of them
an obligatory plaque: II century BC, VIII century BC, XXVI
century BC and so on. Tourists arrived in their droves, and
with them money. Piles of it.
A French artist Hubert Robert, 1733-1808, in 1784 was
appointed in charge of the Louvre museum and the
curator of its art gallery. He created a series of large great
canvases celebrating the ruins of 'ancient Rome'. He
painted gigantic half-ruined Roman temples, lit by the rays
of the setting sun. Moonlit remnants of the grandiose
statues. The colonnades overgrown with trees But there
were never any ancient constructions of such a size in
Western Europe. Hubert Robert aimed to arouse the
emotions with such exaggerations. He expressed the spirit
of his age. The talented artist placed tiny figures of people
in front of the background of crumbled silent 'classical'
temples, who in admiration were gazing at the traces of
Europe's great past.
Thus the history of the Horde Empire was divaricated (on
paper). One 'half' of it was turned into an idealised
glamorised myth to be worshiped and adored. The other
part in fact the same one! was declared to be the
Empire of every evil. So:
1) 'ANCIENT' ROME is mainly the reflection of the Great

Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. The Russian emperors are the

Russian-Horde czars-khans.
2) ISRAEL was in that epoch the name for (including the
Bible) Russia-Horde with its capital in Vladimir, Yaroslavl =
Veliky Novgorod, and later in Moscow. They also
emphasized fighting in the name of God, the militarized
nature of the metropoly: the 'Mongol' troops of RussiaHorde always inspired fear.
3) JUDAEA in that epoch was the name for the Ottoman
Empire=Atamania with its capital in Czar-Grad (and the
Yoros fortress) = Biblical Jerusalem =ancient Troy.
Concurrently the God praising nature of that part of the
Empire was emphasized. Everything is clear: it was CzarGrad where Jesus Christ lived and was crucified. Later in
this city, which became holy for the Christians, they began
to Praise God (Judaeans = those who praise God).
In the Bible under the word ROSH or ROS (RASH or RAS)
is meant RUSSIA (Ezekiel 38:2-3, 38:18 and further;
Genesis 46:21). By the way, in the Western reading the
word in English, for example is spelled Russia and until
now is read Russia, i.e. the same Rosh. In the Ostrog
Bible is said perfectly clear: PRINCE ROSSKA!
Under the Biblical names GOG and MAGOG (and also
MGOG, GUG, MGUG) (for example, Apocalypse 20:7) are
hidden the very same Russians and Tatars, who had
created 'Mongolia' = Magog, i.e. the Great Empire. The
Mediaeval tradition claims that the Apocalyptic people Gog
and Magog are Goths and Mongols. Some English
chronicles actually identified Gog and Magog, speaking of
one people Goemagog. In fact they identified Goths with
the Tatars and Mongols.

In the Bible under the words MESHEKH (or MESECH)

(MShKh or MSKh) are meant MOSOCH the legendary
persona after whose name, as asserted by many
Mediaeval authors, MOSCOW was called.
The Biblical TUBAL (FUVAL) (TBL or TVL) is TOBOL
river in Western Siberia, on the East side of the Urals. It is
the very same BALTICS. The fact is that letter Fita (?, ?)=
Theta (, ) was pronounced as T (Th) and as F. Besides
the sound V could shift to B and vice versa because of the
double interpretation of the Greek letter Vita = Beta (,
?).
The famous 'ancient' Assyria, described among other
places in the Bible - i.e. Syria or Ashur is identified with
Russia-Horde. The Biblical names: ASSYRIA or ASSUR
and also ASUR or SYRIA and also ASHUR are simply the
backward reading of the three old names of our country:
ROSSIA i.e. ASSYRIA or ASSUR; then there is RUS'
i.e. ASUR or SYRIA and, finally, RUSSIA i.e. ASHUR.
The British, FOR EXAMPLE, use the word RUSSIA (for
ROSSIA) until now.
The Biblical Babylon is the White Horde of the Volga
Horde. And after the Ottoman conquest the Biblical
Babylon is most likely Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus. The
Biblical Nineveh the Great City is Novgorod Veliky on
Volga river. The Biblical Assyrian Damascus is Russian
Moscow [6v1], ch.5.
'ANCIENT' GREECE is just the name of Greece of the
epoch of the XII-XVI cc. For the identification of these
'ancient' and mediaeval events see [2v2].
'Such an integral part of the mediaeval historiography as
anachronism' becomes clear. 'THE PAST IS DEPICTED

USING THE SAME CATEGORIES AS THE MODERN

TIMES THE BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL
CHARACTERS APPEAR IN MEDIAEVAL COSTUMES
the presence of the kings and patriarchs of the Old
Testament alongside the classical thinkers and characters
from the Gospels on the portals of the temples best of all
explains the anachronistic attitude towards history' [217],
p.117-118.
The historians reliant on the erroneous chronology, think
that the Middle Ages 'confused on massive scale ' the
epochs and notions that the mediaeval authors, and only
'due to their ignorance' identified the 'ancient' biblical
epoch with the epoch of the Middle Ages. This is not true.
The writers and the artists, on the whole, faithfully
reflected the reality.
The 'classical' authors who for example described the
'classical Greece' Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon et
al - lived in the XIV-XVII cc. They were not the falsifiers,
but the chroniclers who reflected the original mediaeval
events. They were writing at the same time as the other
chroniclers known to us as the mediaeval ones. The
difference between the 'classical' writers and the
'mediaeval' ones is that their works were dated incorrectly
and were shifted back into the past. Besides, the
Scaligerian editors have 'raked over' them. They got rid of
all the obvious traces of the Middle Ages. A lot of things
were distorted, but some things (even a lot of things)
survive. This falsification took place in the XVI-XVIII cc.
22. THE BIBLE.

The Bible describes the events of the XII-XVII cc. and is

completed at the end of the XVII century. The New
Testament narrates the second half of the XII century, and
the Old Testament about the XII-XVII cc. The books of
the New Testament give the account of the life and deeds
of the emperor Andronicus-Christ (Andrey Bogolyubsky),
Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), Christ's apostles who
lived in the second half of the XII - beginning of the XIII cc.
The Old Testament also relates to these characters, but
also tells us about the Ottoman conquest of the XV-XVII
cc, about the Moscow Kingdom the metropoly of the XVXVII cc. Empire, about the Ottoman Empire (Atamania)
and finally about the Time of Troubles in the early XVII
century.
The legendary Old Testament mount Sinai (Zion), aka
Horeb is the Vesuvius volcano in Italy. The biblical cities
Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by God ('24 Then the
Lord rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah brimstone and
fire from the Lord out of the heavens 28 the smoke of
the country went up like the smoke of a furnace' (Genesis
19:24, 19:28) are the famous cities of Stabia and
Herculaneum, buried by the eruption of the Vesuvius in
the XVI early XVII cc. The part of the Apocalypse of the
Old Testament about the destruction of Jerusalem gives
an account of the ruin of the city of Pompey during the
eruption of Vesuvius in 1631 (and far from the II century
as we have been assured). The ruins of 'ancient' Pompey
excavated from the ground show us the way people of the
XVI-XVII cc. lived. The 'classical' artists of Pompey were
the contemporaries of the epoch of Rafael and JulioRomano. It is not surprising that they had a common style

[1v], ch.1.
The well-known God's Revelation together with the
commandment tablets that the biblical Moses received
also on Vesuvius in the XV century. 'there was thunder
and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain (Sinai),
and a very loud trumpet blast Mount Sinai was covered
with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The
smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and
the whole mountain trembled violently. As the sound of the
trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the
voice of God answered him' (Exodus 19:9, 19:11, 19:13,
19:16, 19:18-19). Besides this, the legend absorbed not
only the story of Moses' commandment tablets, but also
the story of Yaroslav meteorite falling near the Volga river
in 1421 [1v], ch.1, [PRRK].
Biblical Phoenicia Venice, the mighty Republic of
Venice. According to the Bible the 'ancient' Phoenicia was
a powerful maritime state reigning over the entire
Mediterranean and establishing its colonies in Sicily, Spain
and Africa. The 'ancient' Phoenicians traded heavily with
the far away countries (Ezekiel, ch.27).
Various events from the Old Testament, for example, the
journey of the Israelites lead by Moses and the conquest
of the Promised Land by Joshua ben Nun, didn't take
place in the modern Palestine, but in Europe, in particular
in Italy, as well as in America.
According to the Scandinavian chroniclers [5v2], ch.9, the
biblical PARADISE is situated in the East [523], p.32. The
Volga River was called in the 'ancient' sources as RA.
According to the common view in the Middle Ages, from
the Paradise in the East the four great rivers were flowing

out. See for example the map of Hans Ru"st, allegedly of

the XV century [1v], ch.5:9.
So, the geographers of the Middle Ages used the name
PARADISE to name some geographic region. Which one?
It is not so simple to understand it from the old reference
maps. But there is in fact a place from which the four
major European rivers flow out. It is the Central Russian
Upland. Here, not far from each other, are situated the
sources of rivers Volga, Don, Dnieper and Western Dvina.
The largest of them is Volga. That could be the reason
why it was called RA. As according to many PARADISE
used to be situated there. So appealingly described in the
Bible. These lands were actually very convenient for living.
Here, the metropoly of the Great Empire many were
striving for.
23. THE STOPPED SUN.
Both in the Bible and in the history of Charles the Great
there plays out a familiar theme of the stopped sun. An
idea to place the centre of the world in the sun, in other
words to bring to THE SUN TO A STOP appeared in the
XVI-XVII cc. when the Books of the Bible were being
written and edited [6]. The famous words in the Book of
Joshua ben Nun about the SUN that STOOD IN THE SKY
10:12-14, in a poetic way reflect that deep impression
made on people when the heliocentric model was first
revealed. Quite unexpectedly it turned out that IT IS
POSSIBLE TO STOP THE SUN. Contrary to all evidence!
As the sun is continuously moving across the skies and
'never stops'.

The editor of the bible of the XVII century attributed to

bringing the sun to a standstill to Joshua Ben Nun [6v1],
ch.5. I.e. to the conqueror of the epoch of the Ottoman
conquest of the 'Promised Land'. But it was in the XVI
century when there originated the idea of the heliocentric
model finally and conclusively formulated by Tycho Brahe
(Hipparchus) and Nicolaus Copernicus [3v1].
Thus, the discovery by Brahe and Copernicus
revolutionized people's minds. The scientists 'made the
Sun stand still', i.e. placed it in the centre of the universe
and made all the planets, including the Earth, revolve
round it. Prior to that Ptolemy's system was predominate,
where the stars revolve round the Earth [3v1], ch.11:7.6.
In the 'most ancient' Bible the Sun was brought to a
standstill allegedly during a battle, which was Joshua Ben
Nun's revenge for a prior defeat.
In the well-known Mediaeval epic poem 'The Song of
Roland' the Sun was brought to standstill during the battle
which was Charles the Great's (the Great King) revenge
for the defeat of his rear guard.
Pic.65 shows an unusual symbol which can be seen in
'The Triumphal Arch of Maximilian I' by Durer [PE]. The
oblique Andreevsky cross surrounded by the four symbols
of the stopped sun. The sun while moving across the skies
stumbles against the czar's crown and comes to a
standstill. We see that the discovery of the heliocentric
model was depicted on the coat of arms of the Horde
Empire. On 'The Triumphal Arc' there is also the image of
the stopped sun, boxed in between the two czar's royal
crowns. Such images are also present in both 'The

Triumphal Procession', pic.66, and in a A.Durer's gravure

'Large Triumphal Carriage' [PE].
24. WHEN THE SYMBOLS OF THE CONSTELLATION
OF STARS AND THEIR NAMES WERE INVENTED.
We are being told that the constellations of the stars
depicted on the Mediaeval and modern star maps were
invented in the deepest antiquity. There were some
changes occurring over the course of time, but as we are
told, on the whole, the starry sky was divided into the
constellations a long time ago. They claim, for example,
that the star signs appeared 'possibly as early as 2500
years ago'. See the details in [3v2].
The figures of the constellations of Serpent-bearer, Gemini
and Orion, for example, appeared allegedly long before
AC. And naturally long before Christianity. So allegedly
there are no Christian symbols there, let alone the
symbols connected to the events in the Middle Ages. And
thus there is allegedly no connection with the Biblical
events.
However, it is not true. A fresh approach to the ancient
celestial maps uncovers some incredible connections, for
example, with the biblical history. The sky atlas turns from
something 'very ancient' and half-forgotten into a selection
of bright illustrations on the history of the XI-XVII cc. It is,
in short, an 'illustrated textbook'. The pictures-hieroglyphs,
i.e. the celestial figures, reflected major events of that
epoch [3v2], ch.9. Later all of this was forgotten.
The most ancient fragment of the celestial map is the
Zodiac. The figures of the zodiacal constellations acquired

their final form not earlier than the XII century. The first
half of the Zodiac represents the biblical events of the XII
century. The second half the story of Georgi
Pobedonosets (George the Conqueror) = the RussianHorde czar-khan Georgi Danilovich = Genghis Khan. I.e.
the events of the XIV-XV cc., the creation of the Great
Empire and the seizure of Czar-Grad in 1453.
The celestial maps of the Northern and Southern skies
were finally created in the XV-XVI cc. There are, in
particular, depicted on them the events of the late XV
century: the voyage of Columbus = Biblical Noah =
'ancient' Jason crossing the Atlantic Ocean; the discovery
of America = 'India'. The striking images of the Biblical
Apocalypses written in 1486 also reflected in the map of
the Southern sky [1v], ch.3 and [3v2], ch.9.
25. WHEN AND HOW THE ARABIC NUMERALS WERE
INVENTED.
V.V.Bobynin, the mathematics historian wrote: 'THE
HISTORY OF OUR NUMERALS PRESENTS NO MORE
THAN A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS, INTERMITTENT WITH
THE ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS, which, as a result of
preceding application of the indoctrination method,
occasionally comes across as SOMETHING SEEMINGLY
PROVEN'. Cited by [989], p.53. Having explained various
theories of the origin of the Arabic numerals, the authors
of the Encyclopaedia [989] conclude: 'Thus WE STILL DO
NOT HAVE A HISTORICALLY VALID THEORY WHICH
COULD ADEAQUATELY EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF OUR
NUMERALS' [989], p.52.

However the matter is much simpler. As we show in [4v2],

ch.1, all the 'Arabic numerals' originated from the
preceding Slavonic and Greek demi-radix numeration
system. Where it was exactly the SLAVIC VERSION OF
LETTERS-SYMBOLS used. The Russian XVI century
ornate cursive writing was its source. All of this took place
in the XVI century in the epoch of the invention of the
positioning system.
It doesn't follow from the fact discovered by us, that the
'Indo-Arabic' numerals were invented exactly in Russia, in
the metropoly of the Empire. It could have been done in
one of the Imperial provinces. For instance in Egypt or in
Europe in the late XVI early XVII cc. Then the Great
Empire was still one and its lands fulfilled different
functions. It was convenient and sensible. In some regions
the Horde czars-khans developed shipbuilding, in the
other science and medicine, and in the third the fine
arts All the achievements belonged to the 'Mongol'
Empire, 'went in to the pot'. The Imperial court and the
Great czar-khan, the Emperor himself were considered to
be the owners of all of the achievements. Only after the
breakup of the Empire in the XVII century there occurred
the phenomenon unknown before. There appeared and
magnificently flourished sharp provincial competitiveness
whose science or whose medicine was better. Such a
question has simply never arisen before. But at that point
some were proud of their ships, purporting that they were
the best, while the others were responding by having the
best cannons. Having forgotten that not so long ago both
the ships and the cannons (and everything else) were
collective, Imperial and were produced in this or that place

in accordance with the economic plan put together in the

administrative office of the Great Emperor.
Therefore, we will repeat, the 'Indo-Arabic' numerals could
have been invented in a place where in that epoch they
decided to organise the scientific centres and to channel
the funds to. But we claim that AT THE ROOT OF THE
INVENTION LIES EXACTLY THE SLAVIC TRADITION
OF RECORDING NUMERALS BY USING LETTERS. As
we have demonstrated in [4v2], ch.1, only within this
tradition it was possible for the 'Indo-Arabic' figuring to
emerge. If they were invented in Europe, it means that in
Europe they used the Slavic letters and language. And if
they were invented in Russia, it means that Western
Europe simply made use of the new notations, having
possibly altered them; in particular, having repositioned
five with six and three with seven [4v2], ch.1.
26. TRACES OF REPOSITIONING SIX INTO FIVE IN
THE OLD DOCUMENTS.
Here is, for example, the engraving 'Melancholia' by the
famous Albrecht Durer who lived allegedly in 1471-1528,
pic.67. In the right upper corner there is depicted a magic
square of dimensions 4 by 4. The Sum total of the
numbers in each line and sum total of numbers in each
column is the same and equals 34. In pic.68 this square is
enlarged. Have a look at the first square in the second
row. Here is number 5. And it should be there, otherwise
the square stops being 'magic'. But it is obvious that this
five is a result of the correction of the number six which
was previously there [4v2] ch.1.

The picture is clear. Today's six was originally perceived

as a five. And vice versa, the current five was then
perceived as a six. These were the original denominations
used in Durer's 'magic square'. But when the symbols
were repositioned, the square ceased being magic. So it
was necessary to amend the image. It is possible that it
was done by Durer himself. Or, it might be done after his
death by his pupils or followers. It is possible that the
numbers were amended not only on the Durer's drawings.
So, on the engraving 'Melancholia' there survived clear
traces of the AMMENDMENTS OF THE NUMERALS in
the XVI-XVII cc.
27. THE AMENDMENT OF THE OLD DATES IN THE
XVII CENTURY.
The fact that in the early XVII century the value of the
'Indo-Arabic' numerals had not been long established yet,
was cunningly used by the Scaligerian historians in order
to falsify the dates of the early XVII century. Let, for
example, in some document the date of YEAR ONE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN be written
down according to the old style, i.e. as 1514, where digit 5
in the shape of letter DZELO denotes the numeral SIX.
Then the numeric value of the digit has changed and has
become FIVE. If we forget that numeric value of digit 5
was changed we can read the date 1514 'in a new way'
(which would be wrong): as 1514. Instead of the correct
1614. As we can see the date became older by a hundred
years. Using this simple method it was possible to shift the
dates of many early XVII century documents backwards. It

is probable that the chronologist widely used this method.

As a result many events of then XV-XVII cc. were shifted a
century back.
So now a question arises - when did the famous figures of
the allegedly XV-XVI cc. really live: the rulers, scientists,
writers, artists and sculptors For example we are being
assured that A.Durer lived in 1471-1528. Doubtfully so.
Most likely he lived in the late XVI - early XVII cc. As the
old value of the dates like 15() which are marked on his
works was 16(). And therefore his engravings, star
maps for Ptolemy's Almagest, etc. were made not in the
early XVI century, but in the early XVII century. To recap,
our analysis of Almagest showed that this book in its
contemporary version appeared not earlier than the
beginning of the XVII century [3v1]. Therefore Durer's star
maps for Almagest were made approximately at the same
time.
28. SCANDINAVIAN GEOGRAPHICAL TREATISES
AND MAPS OF OLD RUSSIA.
From a great variety of geographical names cited in the
Scandinavian chronicles and geographical treatises [5v2].
ch.9, we will choose only three, presenting the most
interest to us at the moment: 1) RUSSIA-HORDE - the
very same Great = 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc; 2)
DON - river; 3) EUROPE.
We would like to explain the meaning of the sign '=' used
in the following list.
The Mediaeval cartographers sometimes themselves
identify some of the geographical names clearly saying,

for example, that 'Thrace is the same thing as Grikkland'

[523],p.96. Some 'patchings' were discovered by the
historians. Some were added by us. We mark all of them
with the equal sign.
&& WHAT RUSSIA-HORDE WAS CALLED BY
DIFFERENT PEOPLES.
It turns out that Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. was
called the following names (some of them possibly
referred not to the entire Empire, but to its parts):
Scandinavian RUSIA = RUTSCIA = RUZTSIA = (Scand.
RUZCIA) - RUSLAND = Scand. RUZALAND = RIZALAND
(Scand. RISALAND) = LAND OF GIANTS = Scand.
GARDARIKI = LAND OF CITIES (CITY is 'GOROD' in
Russian) = HORDE-RIKI, i.e. HORDE-STATE,
Scand.GARDAR = VELIKY GRAD (Rus.GREAT CITY) =
GOROD = GRAD, Old Slavic (Slavonic) = GRHAS,
ancient Indian (Old Ind.) = HOUSE (DOM in Russian) =
GRHAS, ancient Ind. = GARDAS, Lithuanian (GARDAS,
Scand.) = GUARD RAIL (OGRADA in Russian) =
GARDAS, Scand. = GARDS, Got. (GARDS, Scand.) =
HOUSE, FAMILY (DOM, SEMIA in Russian) = SAMARIA SARMATIA, land of Sarmatians, see the city of SAMARA
= KYLFINGALAND, Scand. = LAND OF BELLS = AFRICA
= THRACIA = TURKEY = TATARIA = BLALAND =
OSTARRICHI = ASIAN-TATAR-EMPIRE = AUSTRIA =
SCYTHIA (SCITHIA, Scand.) = SITHIA, Scand. = CIPHIA
or CITHIA, Scand. = CITIA, i.e. China! = SCOTIA, hence
SCOTLAND = SCOT-LAND, SCYTHIA is named after
MAGOG! = SVITJOD THE GREAT (SVITJOD HINN
MIKLA, Scand.) = SARMATIA+ALANIA=GOTHIA, i.e.
SCYTHIA was divided into these three regions = THE

GREAT SVITJOD (The Great Saint) = GODLAND, Scand.

= LAND OF THE GREAT GOD, or LAND OF GODS, or
GOD'S LAND = LAND OF GOTHS = GOTHIA (GOTH
LAND), GOTHS = GODS = GOD = GAUTAR = GEATS =
HETHITES (OR HITTITE) = HOMELAND OF THE
GIANTS = JOTUNHEIM = JOTLAND = GREAT GOTHIA =
NOBLE GOTHIA (Scand. REIDGOTLAND =
HREIDGOTAR). The Great Svitjod was at first populated
by the Turks, i.e. closely connected with TURKEY. The
Great Svitjod probably included THE LITTLE SVITJOD,
i.e. SWEDEN.
Furthermore, the Old Russia = THE GREAT SERKLAND,
sometimes is placed either in Africa or close to Africa =
THRACIA = Scand. KVENNALAND = QUENLAND =
KUNALAND = LAND OF THE AMAZONS = LAND OF
WOMEN-QUEENS (Scand. QUEN-LAND or QUEENLAND) = LAND OF SERES, i.e. RUSSII (RUSSIANS),
hence ASSYRIA, then SCITHIA = CHINA! = LAND OF
SARACENS! A Muslim country = CHALDEA! =
PALESTINE! = MESOPOTAMIA! = INDIA, i.e. a DISTANT
land, where the division of INDIA into THREE INDIAS is,
most likely, the division of Russia into THREE HORDES.
PARTHIA was populated from SCITHIA, where at some
point Parthia was probably used for PRUSSIA =
PRUTENIA =PRT = P+RUSSIA = White RUS (RUSSIA).
It is possible that Rus (Russia) = Bjarmaland = Land of
Boyars or Barms (Bjarmians, Beormas). Where the name
Bjarmeland = Great Permia was later used only for the
territory of modern Germany, Austria and Italy. Later the
historians relocated the name Great Perm (or Great
Permia) to the territory of the Romanov Russia.

Going forward, Rus' (Russia) = Scithia = BARBARIA,

according to the English sources.
We will add some identification which we encountered:
RUS (RUSSUA) = KINGDOM OF PRESTER JOHN, and
will also integrate some synonyms of Rus' (Russia) which
were used in the English sources. See [517], ch.3:1.5. So.
THE ANCIENT RUS (RUSSIAN STATE) = SUSIE,
RUSSIE, RUISSIE, RUSIA, RUSSIA, RUTHENIA,
RUTENIA, RUTHIA, RUTHENA, RUSCIA, RUSSCIA,
RUSSYA, ROSIE.
Let us point out the name RUTHIA. Without vowel marks
we have RT or RD. It is simply HORDE, RAT'(ARMY).
One of the most best-known names of the Great Empire. It
turns out that the English called Ancient Rus' (Russia)
absolutely correct HORDE.
Such amplitude of the synonyms can be explained by the
importance, which the World Empire acquired in the XIVXVI cc. Each nation among the many peoples of Europe,
Asia, Africa and America populating it, would give it their
particular name. That is why such a variety of names
survive to our time.
To remind you, the Empire was in close connection with
the Ottomans, i.e. with the Cossack Atamans. Russia and
Ottoman Empire (Atamania) began to grow apart only with
the Romanovs coming to power in Russia. The
relationship deteriorated and turned into the military
confrontation.
The 'ancient' Empire of Alexander III of Macedon
(Alexander the Great) is the phantom reflection of the
Ottoman Empire (Atamania). [2v2], ch.1:18-19. By the
way, why was Alexander called The Two-Horned

ISKANDER? The meaning of the word Two-horned is

clear - it is the Ottoman crescent. But what about
ISKANDER? Could it mean 'a man from SCANDIA', i.e. a
man from SCITHIA! See above the identification of
SCANDIA and SCITHIA.
&& WHICH MEDIAEVAL RIVERS WERE CALLED BY
THE NAME DON.
The Scandinavian sources inform us of the following
identifications:
DON = DANUBE = DANUBIS (Scand. DANUBIUS) = DUN
(Scand. DUN) = DANUBIUM (Scand. DANUBIUM) =
DYNA (Scand. DYNA) = HISTER, HYSTER (Scand.
HISTER, HYSTER) = ISTR (Scand. ISTR) = DNESTR (or
DNIESTER) = DON = THANAIS (or TANAIS) =
TANAKVISL = DUNA (Scand. DUNA) = WESTERN
DVINA (or DAUGAVA RIVER) = DAN = JORDAN
JOR+DAN.
Such variety is very simple to explain. We have already
said that earlier DON used to mean RIVER. As we
showed in [4v1], ch.6:2.12, the todays Moskva-river
sometimes used to be called Don.
&& THE SONS OF BIBLICAL JAPHETH.
According to the Scandinavian sagas, the seven sons of
Biblical Japheth ruled Europe. Where it is told in great
detail who owned what. In [5v2], part 3, we showed that
the settlement of the sons of Japheth is another reflection
of the Great Empire conquering Europe and was ruling it
for a long time.
The sons of Japheth are the seven major peoples or the
seven Euro-Asian regions which were a part of the Empire
during the first stage of its expansion in the XIV century.

They are:
1)MAGOG = 'MONGOLS' = GREAT MIGHTY = GOTHS;
2) MADAI the very same Mongols; 3) IVAN (JAVAN) OR
IVANS (JAVANS) IVAN KALITA = BATU KHAN, who
conquered the West; 4) TURKS TATARS = TIRAS,
Southern part of the Empire; 5) TOBOL Siberian part of
the 'Mongol' Empire or BALTIA;6) GOMER ET-RUSCAN
ITALY, FLORENCE and Western Europe in general; 7)
MESHECH = MOSCOVIA. The very same original
MECCA.
29. CATHERINE DE'MEDICI IS A REFLECTION OF THE
RUSSIAN CZARINA SOPHIA PALAIOLOGINA AND
MARY STUART IS A REFLECTION OF ELENA
VOLOSHANKA, I.E. ESTHER.
'Catherine de'Medici is among the MOST FAMOUS
WOMEN OF THE PAST. The heiress of the well-known
Florentine Medici family, the wife of the French king Henry
II and regentess on behalf of the juvenile kings of the
ruling Valois dynasty, SHE LEFT A DEEP MARK IN THE
HISTORY OF FRANCE. FOUR CENTURIES AGO SHE
WAS CONSTANTLY TALKED OF AND WRITTEN
ABOUT. This was mostly due to the bloody events of The
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572. The massacre
of the Huguenots in Paris shook the whole of Europe
Her personal drama fired the imagination and was
perceived with undiminishing interest by close and distant
descendants' [659], p.3-4.
In reality Catherine de 'Medici is to a great extent the
reflection in the Western chronicles of Sophia

Palaiologina, the famous Russian-Hordian princess, the

wife of Ivan III the Terrible. Karamzin informs us that they
called Ivan III the Terrible: 'He was the FIRST to be
given the name of GROZNY (Terrible) in Russia' [362],
v.6, column 215. He was also called the GREAT. We will
repeat that he is the reflection of Ivan IV Vasilievich the
Terrible from the XVI century.
Today Sophia Palaiologina is dated to the XV century. And
Catherine de' Medici lived in the XVI century. However,
there is nothing surprising in such a hundred years shift.
We discovered it in the history of the XV-XVII cc. [4v1].
Ch.2:2 and [6v1], ch.6:2. In the Bible Catherine-Sophia are
described as the Queen Vashti (Astin) the first wife of King
Artaxerxes.
It is quite challenging to point out the original of SophiaCatherine in the XVI century, as the epoch of Ivan IV
suffered particularly thorough cleansing by the historians.
From what survive it is only possible to understand that
the image of Sophia Palaiologina combined with
information about several wives of 'Grozny' (the Terrible)
Anastasia and Maria [6v1], ch.7.
Elena Voloshanka, the rival of Sophia Palaiologina in the
Russian-Horde court, the very same Biblical Esther,
reflected in the Western chronicles as the notorious Diane
de Poitiers and also as the famous Mary Stuart, her
contemporary from the XVI century. Please make note of
the similarity between the names Esther and Stuart.
Biblical ESTHER or ESTER or STR without the vowel
marking (on account of TH turning into T) was considered
in Europe as the name STUART, i.e. STRT, without the
vowel marking. Or, in other words ASTRUM (ASTER), i.e.

a STAR in Latin.
The following 'merging' result derived from the parallelism
between the Western European 'Habsburg dynasty' and
the Russian-Horde dynasty of czars-khans of the XIV-XVI
cc. The brief gist of it is as follows.
# Catherine de Medici is the reflection of Sophia
Palaiologina.
# Diane Poitiers (and Mary Start) is the reflection of Elena
Voloshanka, i.e. of Biblical Esther.
# Henri II d'Orlan is the reflection of Ivan III=IV the
Terrible.
# The death of the king Henry II is the reflection of the
death of czar-khan Vasilii III, i.e. Biblical king Ahab.
# Biblical prophet Micah is the famous seer Michel de
Nostredame (Nostradamus).
# The Huguenot-Protestant rebellion in France against the
Catholics is one of the manifestations of the Reformation
revolt in the 'Mongol' Empire of the XVI century. Such
uprisings, the Oprichnina in the XVI century Russia in
particular, reflected in the Bible as 'slaughter inflicted by
the Jews on the Persians'.
30. THE LEGENDARY JOAN OF ARC IS DESCRIBED
IN THE BIBLE UNDER THE NAME OF THE
PROPHETESS AND WARRIOR DEBORAH.
'Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc), the 'The Maid of Orlans'
(circa 1412-31), is a folk heroine of France. She was born
into a peasant family. During the Hundred Years' War
1337-1453, she led the French people against the English
invaders and in 1429 she freed Orleans from the siege. In
1430 she was captured by the Burgundians, who in

exchange for money handed her over to the English, who

in their turn declared Joan of Arc a witch and put her on
ecclesiastical court trial. For charges of "insubordination
and heterodoxy" she was burnt at the stake in Rouen. In
1920 she was canonized by the Catholic church. [797],
p.431. A vast amount of literature is written about Jean of
Arc.
The story of the prophetess and warrior Deborah is
narrated in chapters 4-5 of the Old Testament Book of
Judges. In the synodic translation her name reads as
Devra, however in the scholarly literature they usually use
Deborah [797], p.365.
The comparison of the Joan of Arc and biblical Deborah
stories reveals a vivid parallelism [7v1], ch.9. It was
partially known to some of the authors of the XVII-XVIII cc.
But today it is thought that the chroniclers 'were only
comparing' Joan of Arc and Deborah, i.e. identifying them
in the literary sense. But this 'congruence theory' was
formed only in the XVIII-XIX cc., when the historians who
were editing the texts, were substituting the direct
identification of the ancient characters with tenuous
'comparisons'.
Even the supporters of the traditional version admit that
THE MAID OF ORLEANS BEGAN TO BE CALLED JOAN
OF ARC ONLY FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE XVI
century [7v1], ch.9. But this implies that in the duration of
MORE THAN A CENTURY the heroine was called
something else. The question is, what? According to our
results she was called DEBORAH. Under this name she
entered the Book of Judges. Then in view of the growing
interest towards Joan, her other names and nicknames

also fell into common use. And later, in the XVII-XVIII cc.
the former name Deborah was gradually extruded from the
story of Joan. The fact that Joan and Deborah is the same
person was slowly forgotten. The 'biblical events' were
pushed into the past, two thousand six hundred years
back! The following generations of historians began to
sincerely perceive Joan of Arc and the biblical Deborah as
two different characters.
In our reconstruction Deborah = Joan of Arc lived in the
epoch of the Ottoman conquest in the world of the XV-XVI
cc. That is why the original geography of the events
connected to her campaigns was much wider than the
modern version. We are assured that allegedly the armies
of Joan = Deborah fought only in France, in the
comparatively small area. But the Bible and Josephus
Flavius here refer to:
- the ASSYRIANS [878], v.1, p.230 and the kingdom
HAZOR (Book of Judges 4:2), i.e. the RUSSIANS and
RUSSIA [6v1], ch.6;
- the kings of CANAAN (Judges 4:2), i.e. KHAN rulers;
- town of Kedesh (Judges 4:6, 4:10), probably the capital
Kadesh, i.e. Czar-Grad [5v] and [6v];
- the waters of MEGIDDI (Judges 5:19), i.e., probably, the
waters of MACEDONIA. Etc.
When creating the Scaligerian history all of these largescale campaigns were artificially 'squeezed' into the
territory of one county in France, greatly reducing the
scale of events. As a result some of the distant
geographical names also 'moved' here. And the entire
story of Joan of Arc turned into an allegedly 'purely
French' story.

Furthermore, it turns out that the famous French marshal

Gilles de Rais, Joan of Arc's legendary comrade-in-arms,
is partially described in the Bible under the name of
Samson, the famous hero and warrior. This congruence is
a result of the stories of Joan of Arc and the biblical
Deborah overlapping each other [7v1].
31. THE EPOCH OF THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL
DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE IS THE EPOCH OF THE
INQUISITION OF THE XV-XVI CC.
One of the main books of the Old Testament is the Book
of the Judges of Israel. Following the shifts on the global
chronological map of A.T.Fomenko, we identified some of
its stories with the real events of the XIII-XVI cc. Here they
are.
1) The story of the prophetess-warrior Deborah (judges 45), aka Joan of Arc, in the French version allegedly the XV
century. Joan was found guilty by the Inquisition tribunal
and was executed. One of the landmark cases of the
Middle Ages.
2) The story of Abimelech (Judges 9), aka Simon de
Montfort in the French version, allegedly XIII century. He
spearheaded the crusade against the Cathars, he
supported the Inquisition in its battle against the Cathar
heresy by fire and sword. Simon de Montfort was also
described by the 'ancient' Greek writers, in particular
Plutarch = Petrarch, and the well-known general Pyrrhus
[6v2], ch.1:7.5.
3) The story of Samson (Judges 13-16), i.e. Gilles de
Rais, allegedly XV century. Marshal Gilles de Rais, French

national hero, faced the Inquisition court and was burnt at

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

For example, the well-known biblical story of the 'body cut

into pieces' and the battle of Israel with the tribe of
Benjamin is the famous 'expulsion of the Jews' from Spain
in the late XV century. In particular, according to the Bible
the assault of a husband
-Levite and death of his concubine draws the whole of
Israel into war against the tribe of Benjamin. In Spain in
the XV century the assassination of an official of the
Spanish Inquisition - inquisitor Pedro de Arbues
precipitated a massive persecution of the Jews.
The Old Testament places a special emphasis on the
'blood epistle' in the form of the body parts sent to all of
the tribes of Israel in order to chasten the sons of
Benjamin, i.e. one of the tribes of Israel for the vicious
thing they did. Now then, the 'blood epistle' to the tribes of
Israel is the infamous edict of 1492 by Kind Ferdinand and
Queen Isabella of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
According to the historians of the Inquisition, the edict
made a 'stunning impression' [330], v.3, p.150.
According to the Book of Judges, furthermore the tribe of
Benjamin is virtually wiped out in its entirety. All the rest of
the tribes of Israel descended upon the sons of Benjamin,
killing them and driving them out from their homes. So, the
destruction of the Benjamin tribe by the Israelites is the
crushing of Marranos in Spain in the late XV century.
As we showed in [6v2], ch.6, the 'exodus of the Jews' from
Spain in 1492 reflects Columbus' voyage and the
conquest of the distant America. In the late XV the early
XVI cc. the flotillas were departing Spain and Portugal for

the inviting lands overseas. It was the extension of the

Horde-Ottoman conquest of the world. The wave of
conquests having rolled up onto the shores of the Atlantic
for some time had ended up here. Later, when the large
naval vessels - 'Noah's arcs' were constructed, the Horde
and Ottoman armies moved on, across the ocean. The
vestiges of this massive event were imprinted in the
Spanish chronicles as the 'Jewish exodus'. The 'Mongol'
Empire required major military and trading assets for such
an event. The 'Mongol' governors in Spain the Orthodox
Christian sovereign-cafolics Ferdinand and Isabella used
every effort in order to organise the crossing of the ocean
by the massive fleets with thousands of people. As
always, such actions were accompanied by exerting a
certain amount of force upon the large masses of
population. The people would mainly embark upon the
unknown and frightening ocean not by following their
hearts, but by following an order, under penalty of the
church or the administration.
Understandably, the chronicles of that time all vied to
inform about mass migration of peoples across the 'great
sea' (the Atlantic ocean). But later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. the
Scaligerian historians, erasing the very fact of the
existence of the 'Mongol' Empire, edited these accounts
and instilled into them a sombre mood of forced
banishment. Which the merciless rulers of XV-XVI cc.
Spain were to blame for. The armies of Horde and
Ottomania were called 'Gods Warriors', i.e. armies of
Israelites. Therefore there is a large element of truth in the
words about 'Israelites exodus' from Spain. The Israelite =

Horde armies boarded the ships in the ports and

embarked upon the ocean. In that epoch such an
enterprise was very dangerous. Most people and families
left Europe for ever. This fact lent a tragic air to the event
as a whole. Thus the HUNDRED THOUSAND OF Jews
BANISHED from Spain and Portugal, referred to in the
sources, are most likely the crew of several 'Mongol'
flotillas setting out to colonize the American continent =
The New World.
It doesn't concern the religious persecution of a selected
part of the population according to their nationality or on
any other grounds during that epoch, nationalities in the
modern sense of the word were not formed yet, but the
formation of the military and commercial and
administrative bodies for the transfer across the ocean.
Most likely, entire villages and colonies were signed on to
these ships. Some families would look after the cattle, and
some would provide the repairs of the shipboard
equipment. Those who refused or balked were, clearly,
malicious heretics. They would be dealt with by the
Inquisition tribunal. Some of them were burnt at the stake,
after which the rest became much more compliant. As a
result, America was successfully colonized.
32. THE BIBLICAL ABDUCTION OF THE WOMEN OF
SHILOH IS THE 'ANCIENT' ROMAN RAPE OF THE
SABINE WOMEN. AKA THE CATALAN ABDUCTION
AND DIVISION OF THE WIVES ALLEGEDLY IN THE
XVI CENTURY.

The last chapter of the Book of Judges narrates the

cessation of the persecution of the Benjamites. 'But
look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh
So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, "Go and hide in
the vineyards and watch. When the young women of
Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the
vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your
wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. When their
fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, 'Do
us the favour of helping them, because we did not get
wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of
breaking your oath because you did not give your
daughters to them
So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young
women were dancing, each man caught one and carried
her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their
inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.'
(Judges 21:1, 21:3, 21:6-7, 21:16-21, 21:23).
It turns out that this storyline is described in the 'ancient'
Roman history as the well-known Roman rape of the
Sabine women in the epoch of the founding of Rome. And
also in the history of Mediaeval Greece, when the Catalan
military, allegedly circa 1311, divided between themselves
the wives of the knights killed in the Battle of the
Cephissus. According to the chronological shifts
discovered by A.T.Fomenko, the founding of Rome in Italy
dates circa 1380. Thus, in the history of the Middle Ages
the dramatic biblical storyline of the abduction and division
of the wives is accounted for and dates not earlier than the
XIV century. Considering the one hundred years shift it is
not impossible that the event dates to the XV century. It

may well be that they might be speaking here of one of the

Horde squadrons of Israelites=Benjamites, who left Spain
after 1492 to conquer the Promised Land [2v2], ch.2.
Besides, in the book [TsRIM] we show, that the rape of the
Sabine women in 'Ancient' Rome to a great extent is the
reflection of the abduction of the wives by serfs in the
Russian Novgorod=Yaroslavl.
33. HAREM-TEREM ('TOWER-CHAMBER' in Russian
Translator's note)
In [4v] the section 'Russian terem and Eastern harem is
the very same thing' we showed that in Russia-Horde of
the XIV-XVI cc. amongst the prosperous Hordians, there
was a common custom to keep harems. Here can be seen
an earlier similarity between the customs of Russia and
the Ottoman Empire. Why did the harems = terems
appear? In the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV
century and the Ottoman conquering of the Promised
Land following it in the XV century, there developed a
shortage in the male population of the Empire. A great
many warriors and Horde officials left for the distant land
in order to colonize it. There were also human losses on
the battle fields. As a result the amount of women in the
metropoly of the Empire considerably exceeded that of
men. The replenishment of the human resources was
required. The harems=terems appeared as one of the
methods to solve this new problem. At the same time
another problem was solved to protect young women
from insalubrious sexual relations in order to guarantee a
healthy and viable offspring for the elite. Well-off harem

children were intended to take important posts and

positions in the various provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire
spanning Eurasia, Africa and America.
34. THE BIBLICAL STORY OF SAMSON IS THE
BATTLE OF ZEMSHCHINA AGAINST THE
OPRICHNINA IN RUSSIA UNDER IVAN IV THE
TERRIBLE.
&& SAMSON IS AN ALLEGORICAL DESCRIPTION OF
ZEMSHCHINA AS ITS TWO MAIN LEADERS AND TWO
OTHER FAMOUS CHARACTERS OF THE XVI
CENTURY.
Ivan Petrovitch Cheliadnin-Fedorov, the equerry, who had
wielded a lot of influence and was well respected, became
the leader of the Zemshchina opposition [776], p.118.
'Zemtsy (landed proprietors) addressed the czar with a
protest against the arbitrary actions of the oprichny guards
who inflicted unbearable insults on zemshchina The
dvoryane (noblemen and gentry) demanded the
immediate abolishment of the oprichny governance. The
uprising of the noblemen was quite impressive: 300
Zemshchina nobles participated in it The opposition
declared itself in 1566. The protest against the
oprichnina's violations originated from the members of the
Zemskoy Sobor (Assembly of the Land) summoned in
Moscow The czar denied the request of the Zemshchina
noblemen and used the emergency powers granted to him
by the Oprichnina edict, to punish Zemshchina. 300
petitioners were thrown into prison [776], p.119.

Karamzin gives an account: 'Fedorov (Cheliadnin Auth.),

a man of old customs, DECORATED WITH MILTARY
GLORY and the gravitas of the state experience, having
occupied the respected post of the Equerry and the head
of the State Office for 19 years, a magnanimous and
splendid nobleman became an object of slander' [362],
v.9, column 58.
During the epoch of the struggle of Zemshchina against
Oprichnina Filip Kolychev, the supporter of Zemshchina
forces comes to the fore of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
'The conflict with the highly influential ecclesiastical
authorities, put the czar (Ivan the Terrible Auth.) in a
difficult situation, and he had to come to terms with the
choice of a new candidate for the potential metropolitan.
Father Superior Philip of The Solovetsky monastery was
urgently summoned to Moscow (his secular name was
Fedor Stepanovich Kolychev). Philip descended from a
highly distinguished old Moscovian familyIt appears that
he was put forward by the same faction, which was
HEADED BY THE EQUERRY I.P.CHELIADNIN AND
WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL
IN ZEMSHCHINA. The Solovetsky Father Superior was
distantly related to the equerry. Philip entirely aligned his
fate with that of the boyarin Cheliadnin IN HIM THE
ZEMSHCHINA OPPOSITION AQUIRED ONE OF THE
MOST ACTIVE AND ENERGETIC LEADERS. Kolychev
CATEGORICALLY DEMANDED THAT THE
OPRICHNINA WAS IMMEDIATELY DISBANDED. THE
BEHAVIOUR OF SOLOVETSKY FATHER SUPERIOR
MADE IVAN THE TERRIBLE FURIOUS [776], p.118.
However the czar was confronted by Zemshcina and he

was forced to come to an arrangement with Philip

Kolychev about the mutual neutrality. As a result 'on the
20th July 1566 Philip was forced to publicly repudiate his
demands and pledged 'not to intervene' in the Oprichnina
and the czar's 'household customs' After this Kolychev
was consecrated metropolitan' [776], p.118.
&& THE PARALLELS IN THE STORY OF SAMSON AND
THE BATTLE OF ZEMSHCHINA AGAINST
OPRICHNINA.
In [7v1], ch.10 we discovered some correspondence
between the biblical Samson and the French version of
the story of Gilles de Rais. But the French version, as well
as the Old Testament account are only the variant
reflections of important events in Russia-Horde in the
middle of the XVI century. I.e. the fight between the two
major organisations, parties, which gathered together a
great many people under their banners. These were the
tragic events in the history of Russia-Horde. Biblical
Samson, as well as Gilles de Rais are the slightly
allegorical reflections of Zemshchina. I.e. a large party
which was at the head of the opposition to Ivan the
Terrible and Oprichnina.
We will describe the parallels between 'Horde Zemshchina
= biblical Samson' as a table, see the details in [7v1].
In column 1 there are listed the main storylines
constituting the core of the Old Testament story of
Samson.Column 2 reflects the correspondence with the
French 'biography' of Gilles de Rais. Column 3 contains
the fragments of Cheliadnin's biography reflected in the

Old Testament Book of Judges.Column 4 recites

fragments of Cheliadnin's biography reflected in the Old
Testament Book of Judges.Column 5 points out the facts
of metropolitan Philip Kolychev's life which entered the
Bible under the guise of the deeds of Samson.Column 6 is
designated to the analogous data from the 'biography' of
Khan Simeon Beckbulatovich.Column 7 contains the
information from the 'biography' of Simeon, Prince of
Rostov, which contributed to the story of Samson.Column
8 we designated to Ivan the Terrible, who was also
reflected both in the Bible and in the French version under
the symbolic names: 'Gilles de Rais' or
'Bluebeard'.Asterisked are the events from Russian history
reflected in the Bible, in the 'biography of Samson' and 'the
Frenchman Gilles de Rais' [7v1], ch.12.

According to the Bible, a sly Philistine Delilah, Samson's

beloved, cunningly charmed out the secret of Samson's
strength and revealed this secret to the Philistines. They
used this information and finally captured Samson (Judges
16). In the French version these events are reflected in the
way of the 'cunning devil' who ensnared the knight Gilles
de Rais into his web, which led to the arrest of the marshal
and his death on a charge of sorcery.
The original of this biblical storyline in the history of
Russia-Horde is the insidious treachery of Zemshchina
and particularly the equerry Cheliadnin by Prince Vladimir
Andreevich Staritskii.
&& THE FANTASTICAL STRENGTH 0F SAMSON (I.E.
ZEMSHCHINA) THE ENEMY OF THE PHILISTINES
(I.E. OPRICHNIKI)
Subsequently the Bible's continuous emphasis of
Samson's incredible power becomes clear. If it concerned
some specific person, then the heroic feats attributed to
him would have looked exaggerated at the very least. But
if the Old Testament authors described Zemshchina in its
entirety, then such heroic qualities become clear.
Zemshchina was a credible force based on the wide social
strata of Russia-Horde society. Zemshchina was fiercely
fighting for its rights hand in hand with the Orthodox
Church headed by Philip Kolychev. The Bible, being a
religious book was bound to take this into account. In that
epoch the Orthodox Church was an imposing power in the
Empire, which was impossible to disregard.
In these chapters of the Book of Judges Oprichniki and

Oprichnina, on the whole, act under the name of the

Philistines, the enemies of Samson-Zemshchina.
Thus the Biblical story of Samson reflects the major
events in the Russian-Horde history of the XVI century,
the struggle of Zemshchina against The Oprichnina.
Samson is a generalized image of Zemshchina, which had
absorbed various factors from the biographies of several
of its leaders. Primarily the equerry Ivan Petrovich
Cheliadnin-Fedorov and the metropolitan Philip Kolychev.
35. SEVEN DECEASED WIVES OF BLUEBEARD. THE
ENGLISH KING HENRY THE VIII AND HIS SIX WIVES
ARE THE REFLECTIONS OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE
AND HIS SEVEN WIVES.
In [7v1].ch.10:4, we are talking about Bluebeard, one of
the reflections of 'Gilles de Rais' in French history. King
Bluebeard had 7 wives whom he killed [330], v.2, p.487.
The fact of him having a comparatively large number of
wives and that there were seven of them stands out.
Considering the parallelism with the Russian history
discovered by us, we should draw your attention to the
fact that 'Ivan the Terrible' also allegedly had 7 wives.
They probably should be distributed between the four
czars, combined in the Romanov version under one name
of 'Grozny' (the Terrible).
And now let us recall that in the English history there is
also a famous character Bluebeard. This is the King of
England Henry VIII [7v1], ch.10. There are no other
famous kings with a nickname of Bluebeard in European
history.

In [7v1}, ch.3/ we showed that the dynasty of Novgorod

khans, the rulers of the Empire of the XIII-XVI cc. reflected
in the Western chronicles as the Habsburg dynasty.
Furthermore, in [7v1[, ch.4, we showed that the epoch of
Oprichnina is dramatically reflected in the history of
France and England. Specifically czarina Sophia
Paleologue is described as the French Catherine de
Medici and the English Elizabeth Tudor, and Elena
Voloshanka as Mary Stuart. But then the English king
Henry VIII is the Western-European reflection of the khanczar of the 'Ivan the Terrible' epoch. This is in fact correct
[7v1], ch.12 and [ShEK].
Incidentally Henry VIII as Ivan the Terrible is considered to
be a cruel tyrant [304], v.3, p.181. The name HENRY itself
could have originated from KHAN+REX, i.e. Khan-Czar or
Khan-Rus, i.e. as the sounds of Kh-Sh and S were often
interchangeable.
Henry VIII is considered to be a polygamist, he had six
wives. At this point it is difficult to say which names exactly
Ivan the Terrible's wives are concealed beneath the
names of the Englishmen's Henry VIII wives.
36. WHERE AND WHERE ICARUS ASCENDED INTO
THE SKY. THE RELIGIOUS MYSTERY PLAYS.
We all know the most 'ancient' legend about the
destruction of Icarus. He took to the air using artificial
wings, but fell down and drowned. His fall is depicted, for
example, in the 'ancient' paintings, discovered during the
excavation of Herculaneum and Pompeii. Now then,

Icarus' famous flight is the flight of the aeronaut Nikita,

Trofim's son, under the czar Ivan the Terrible Nero [RI],
ch.2. Besides, the Ancient' Greek legends about the
Labyrinth, Minos, Minotaur are the reflections of the
dramatic events of the XVI-XVII cc. in the capital of
Russia-Horde [6v3], ch.3. Specifically, the story of Esther
= Elena Voloshanka, a heretic and Ivan the Terrible's
lover. Thus the flight of Daedalus and Icarus precisely
during the times of Minos and Minotaur once again date
them to the second half of the XVI century.
In Russian history we know Icarus by the name of 'Nikita,
the serf, Trofim's son'. He climbed the tall Crucifixion
Church in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda and leaped from the
belfry flapping a pair of wooden wings. Nikita purportedly
even flew over the rampart surrounding the czar's
headquarters. We were informed about this detail in the
science division of the Alexandrovskya Sloboda museum
in October 2006. During the epoch of Oprichnina Sloboda
was Ivan the Terrible's capital. It is most likely that Nikita
invented something along the lines of a light glider, on
which he could remain airborne for a considerable amount
of time.
The flight was successful. However after his landing Nikita
was allegedly accused by the czar of 'a diabolical act' for
which he was executed. This corresponds with the
'ancient' accounts of Icarus, son of Daedalus, who
crashed and drowned. Most likely the Western chroniclers
like the 'Ancient Greeks' and Suetonius got confused in
the details of the notorious event in the capital of RussiaHorde. They knew that Icarus-Nikita ascended into the air

and that he perished 'because of the flight'. But they didn't

know the flight itself was completed successfully, and the
death of the pilot was a result of the czar's wrath. The
chroniclers 'glued' these facts together and it resulted in
Icarus allegedly rising into the air, but 'falling down and
crashing'.
'The ancient' master craftsman Daedalus, the wings
inventor, should be searched for in the XVI century, in the
epoch of Ivan the Terrible. The search should also cover
the epoch of Ivan III, the phantom reflection of Ivan IV and
dated to the XV century instead of the XVI century. The
search won't take long. We have repeatedly looked to
Aristotele Fioravanti the famous architect and master
craftsman, who allegedly lived in the XV century and who
did much for Ivan III. It turns out that it was he who was
the 'ancient Daedalus' [RI], ch.2.
It is widely thought that 'the teachers of the Russian
architects in the subterranean construction were the Italian
architects-builders, the creators of the Kremlin and KitaiGorod (the walled merchant town - China Town):
ARISTOTELE FIORAVANTI, Petrus Antonius Solarius,
Aloisio the New, Petrok Maly. Ignatius Stelletskii claimed
that both the underground and above-ground Kremlin was
built according to the plan of the 'wizard and sorcerer'
Aristotele Fioravanti' [815:1], p.9.
And further: 'ALL THE THREE ARCHITECTS COULD
NOT LEAVE MOSCOW AND HAD TO LAY THEIR
BONES THERE. Is it a fluke? Not in the least!... This

idiosyncratic triumvirate of the Moscow Kremlin (Aristotele

Fioravanti, Solarius and Aloisio Author) was the bearer
of its innermost secrets To let even one of this glorious
trio back to Europe would have been almost equivalent to
making Moscow's innermost secrets the subject of
malicious gossip It is that and only that, it seems, to be
raison d'tre of the violent death of the creators of the
Moscow citadel in its depths', p.106-107.
To recap, the major building and construction of Moscow
began not in the XV century under Ivan III as it is thought
today, but in the XVI century under Ivan IV [6v2], ch.2.
Erecting the capital in the new place could be attributed to
the fact that Ivan the Terrible's court for some time lapsed
into the heresy of the Judaizers, which caused a rift in the
Empire's ruling elite. The czar even left the former capital
(Yaroslavl or Suzdal) and decided in favour of a small
settlement located at the site of the Battle of Kulikovo.
There they began to build the stone Moscow = the Second
Jerusalem. However the czar could not invite the local
Horde builders as a result of the social rift. The Orthodox
Church strongly condemned the heresy of the czar and his
immediate entourage [775]. This was the reason for
summoning the Italian architects. In that time Italy was one
of the provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire and naturally, the
Western architects quickly arrived to the metropoly by
order of the Emperor. On the completion of building, the
chief architects, who knew the scheme of the underground
Moscow, could be silenced for ever, so they could tell no
one.

It is quite possible, that Icarus-Nikita took flight from the

Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. Perhaps
during Ivan the Terrible's reign there were several of such
flights depicting the Ascension of Christ. There survive a
tradition which directly connects Nikita's flight under Ivan
the Terrible with Moscow Kolomenskoye. This tradition
hardly originated from nothing. The information about
Nikita's flight lived amongst the gliders and pilots [RI],
ch.2.
In the Middle Ages in Europe there were popular
mysteries, i.e. the religious plays depicting the Gospel
events for the public. For example, Christ's arrest, Pilate's
trial, the Flagellation of Christ, the Road to Golgotha and
the Crucifixion [KAZ]. 'This Liturgical performance which
took place not in a church, but in public, is considered to
be the oldest religious drama and simultaneously 'the first
performance bearing the similar characteristics of theatre'
[415:1], p.9, 11. It is not improbable, that in some of the
Western mystery plays an 'actor' who was personifying
Christ was crucified for real.
Most likely Nikita's flight from the tall cathedral-belfry in the
presence of the czar Ivan, courtiers and a multitude of
spectators was an element of such a religious mystery
play. The ascent of a man into the air on wings symbolised
the climax of the play - The Resurrection and The
Ascension of Christ. It is likely that Nikita took off exactly
from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. The
very name of the church suggests that it was exactly from
here, in full public view, a man depicting the Ascension of

Christ rose up into the sky. The mysteries were illustrating

the key moments of Christ's life. It is absolutely clear that
the climax the Ascension should have been
represented in some way. But at this point the directors
would be presented with problems. It was not so easy to
show Christ ascending. It is most likely that for a long time
they were unsuccessful. They had to be satisfied with
some conventional scenes symbolising the 'ascent to
heaven'. It is possible that the actor was hoisted up with
ropes or some other device.
They approached this subject in a more fundamental way.
Clearly the capital should have been the place for the
most gripping performances dedicated to the Gospel. That
is why it must have been this very place where they
should have begun to think about how to recreate the
Ascension Day. They began to experiment. Soon they
realised that it was possible to create 'wings' capable of
lifting a person into the air and keep him there. Thus
aeronautics was born. It is possible, that Nikita could have
been the first or among the pioneers. Supposedly there
must have been many rehearsals of the religious show
which would culminate with the flight of the actor who was
playing Christ. When the directors and gliders decided that
enough experience had been accumulated, they
announced the performance. A premier, so to speak.
The entire court assembled, numerous guests. It is likely
that there were rumours swarming and everyone was
expecting something extraordinary. Ivan the Terrible, the
great khan himself, was seated in the first row. The actors

were nervous. The closer to the end of the performance,

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

Nikita's flight in Kolomenskoye from the height of the

Church of the Ascension feels more genuine than from the
Crucifixion Church Belfry in Alexandrovskya Sloboda,
though it is worth repeating that there could have been a
number of similar flights. As the mystery plays were
staged over many years. In some years an actor could
have flown into the air from the Crucifixion Church Belfry
in Alexandrovskya Sloboda, in the other years from the
Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. There also
must have been other locations from which the
Russian=Horde gliders demonstrated their skills in front of
the delighted audience.
After some time the religious performances became a
thing of the past. But the art of gliding in the air remained
and began to develop according to the laws of scientific
research. Professional aeronautics was born.
37. THE ROMAN EMPEROR CLAUDIUS, AKA IVAN
THE TERRIBLE WAS A WRITER. IT TURNS OUT THAT
THE FIRST VERSION OF THE FAMOUS 'LITSEVOI
SVOD' (THE ILLUSTRTED CHRONICLE
COMPILATION) WAS COMPILED UNDER HIM.
Practically in all the phantom reflections of Ivan The
Terrible it is stressed that he was a prolific writer, was
interested in literature and was the author of many works.
The same account was also given about the Emperor
Claudius, allegedly 41-45 years. Suetonius informs us:
'He was neither uncultured nor lacking in eloquence, but
on the contrary had constantly devoted himself to the
liberal arts As Emperor he continued work on his

history, hosting frequent readings but employing instead a

professional reader. He began the work with Julius
Caesar's assassination, then he started afresh with later
times He completed only two books of the earlier work,
but forty-one of the later times. He also wrote an eightvolume autobiography and also penned a 'Defense of
Cicero against the charges of Asinius Gallus', a work of no
little learning. HE ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL
LETTERS OF HIS OWN INVENTION TO THE LATIN
ALPHABET, maintaining that there was a dire need of
them, and after becoming the Emperor was able to initiate
their general use
He gave no less attention to Greek studies He would
often make his Senate reply to Greek envoys with a
prepared speech in their own language
HE WROTE COMPLETE WORKS IN GREEK: TWENTY
VOLUMES OF ETRUSCAN HISTORY AND EIGHT OF
CARTHAGINIAN. A new Claudian wing was added, in his
name, to the old Museum at Alexandria, with HIS
ETRUSCAN HISTORY READ ALOUD FROM
BEGINNING TO END ANNUALLY IN THE OLD, AND
THE CARTHAGINIAN IN THE NEW, VARIOUS
READERS BEING EMPLOYED IN TURN, AS IS THE
WAY WITH PUBLIC RECITATIONS.' [760], p. 145-146.
This information is very interesting. It turns out that the
Emperor Claudius, i.e. Ivan the Terrible was the author of
an immense work consisting of at least SEVENTY NINE
BOOKS (as stated: 2 + 41 + 8 + 20 + 8). Among them: 43-

volume History of Rome, 20-volume Etruscan History and

8-volume Carthaginian History.
As we already understand, the history of 'Ancient' Rome
written by Claudius is the history of Russia-Horde of the
XIII-XVI cc.
Et-ruscan history is also the Russian history, and the
Carthaginian history is the history of Czar-Grad [5v],
[TsRIM]. So it means, that under the Emperor Claudius =
Ivan the Terrible there was created an enormous work on
the history of Russia-Horde and Czar-Grad. We will
repeat: 63 books on the Russian History and 8 books on
the history of Czar-Grad.
It is hardly likely that the Emperor Claudius Ivan the
Terrible wrote with his own hand all 79 books he is
credited with. As the czar has a lot to do. Most likely he
ordered the creation of a detailed history of the 'Mongol'
Empire. Scholars, scribes and artists were summoned,
who under the Emperor's supervision created such a
prodigious body of work.
But we are told that no such immense body of work
survives until our time. They say that hundreds and
thousands of years have passed Allegedly everything is
lost However neither Suetonius nor Tacitus say anything
about Claudius' books perishing. Which means that they
still did exist during their time, i.e. in the XVI-XVII cc.
As Claudius is Ivan the Terrible, than the historical
manuscript created on his initiative should have left an
indelible mark in Russian history. Is that so? Yes. It is. We

know that it is under Ivan the Terrible the multivolume

Litsevoi Svod was created. The mammoth historical
literary classic encompassing world history from the most
ancient times to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. Incidentally
for a very long time Letsevoi Svod was not published at
all. It was published for the first time in Moscow by the
publishing house 'Akteon' [477:31], amid the extensive
public discussions on the New Chronology.
However, according to our results, THE ORIGINAL text of
Litsevoi Svod never survived. Most likely in the XVII
century under the Romanovs it was edited in the spirit of
'new ideas'. So the version which exists today belongs to a
later date. Nevertheless, even in the 'Romanov' way it
presents an invaluable monument of the XVII century
based on the sources of the XVI century.
So to conclude, under the 'Ancient' Roman Emperor
Claudius = Ivan the Terrible Litsevoi Svod was created.
According to the Roman accounts, at first it consisted of
71 books. Even re-worked and abridged by the Romanovs
this body of work comprised 10 gigantic volumes. That is
why the publishing house 'Akteon' divided most of the
volumes into two parts. As the result Litsevoi Svod in its
new modern facsimile edition takes up 19 voluminous
books.
Nothing of its kind has been created ever since! All known
Western European, Arabic, Eastern, Chinese and other
chronicles known today pale by comparison with the
Russian-Horde Litsevoi Svod. None of them are even
remotely similar. This is understandable. Litsevoi Svod

was created in the capital of the Great Empire in the XVI

century, in the age of its progress and might. That is why
from the very beginning it was destined to be unique. The
best scholars and craftsmen were gathered. Writing of the
world history, i.e. the history of the Empire of the XIII-XVI
cc. was under the control of Ivan the Terrible = Claudius
himself. The executants did their absolute best. Litsevoi
Svod is illustrated with magnificent illuminations.
'Ancient' Suetonius spoke respectfully of Litsevoi Svod,
calling it a body of work dedicated to the Roman, Etruscan
and Carthaginian history.
Suetonius' accounts of Claudius personally writing the
Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history corresponds
with the opinion of the historians, that Ivan the Terrible
was himself editing the text of Litsevoi Svod. It is thought
that some notes on some pages were made by Ivan the
Terrible [775], p.28-31.
According to Suetonius the Emperor Claudius also wrote 8
books about his own life. I.e. his autobiography. Most
likely he didn't write it himself, but dictated it to the scribes,
or based it on his own archives. Thus we learn that in the
XVI century there was a large account written of Ivan the
Terrible's life: 8 volumes! Unfortunately this work didn't
survive. It is possible that it seemed to the Romanovs
unacceptable. That's why it was destroyed. And but for
Suetonius we would have never learnt that Ivan the
Terrible (Claudius) wrote his own autobiography.

38. THE LIGHTHOUSE OF ALEXANDRIA (PHAROS OF

ALEXANDRIA).
Apparently the famous 'ancient' Lighthouse of Alexandria,
aka Pharos of Alexandria (one of the seven wonders of
the ancient world) is a well-known Bell tower of Ivan the
Great in Moscow [RI], ch.6. In the ancient times the Pillar
of Ivan the Great was compared to a burning candle.
Hence comes the legend of the 'lighthouse'. The divine
bronze statues of Pharos of Alexandria are the huge bells
of Ivanov Pillar. Incredible as it may be, in the 'ancient'
history of Pharos of Alexandria accounts are given of the
events from the reign of Peter I (The Great), from the late
XVII early XVIII cc.! See [RI], ch.6.
Besides, the 'Pillar of Ivan the Great' in Moscow was
described by the 'ancient classics' as the 'Ancient' Roman
military column or as the famous Tower of Babylon [RI].
The historians think that allegedly Pharos (Etruscan)
Lighthouse was close to Egyptian African Alexandria.
However today there are no traces of it there. Then they
unfoundedly professed that allegedly the lighthouse 'of
course, is dilapidated', and that it remained there allegedly
until the XIV century, after which it 'irretrievably
disappeared'. 'The remains of a tall pedestal on which the
beautiful tower stood, survive until our time, BUT THEY
ARE ABSOLUTELY UNACCESSABLE TO THE
ARCHITECTS AND ARCHEOLOGISTS, as they are built
into the mediaeval fortress' [572], p.118. Purportedly the
remains 'may be still there', but unfortunately it is
impossible to see them.

Such lamentations are needless. Pharos Lighthouse exists

even now, though in a somewhat reconstructed version.
Those who wish to see it should visit the Cathedral Square
(Sobornaya Square) of the Moscow Kremlin and see the
Et-ruscan Pillar of Ivan the Great.
39. TACITUS AND SUETONIUS DESCRIBE THE TIMES
OF TROUBLES IN RUSSIA.
THE EMPEROR VITELLIUS IS THE FALSE DMITRY I.
Apparently, starting with the 'biography' of the emperor
Vitellius, Suetonius and Tacitus describe the Time of
Troubles in the Horde Empire. Tacitus is speaking about
the great revolt in his preface to the 'Histories'. In Tacitus'
'Annals' descriptions are given of the emperors Augustus,
Tiberius, Caligula, Nero and Claudius. I.e. primarily the
epoch of Ivan the 'Terrible', the second half of the XVI
century [RI], ch.10.
In the 'Histories' Tacitus begins his narration with Galba
followed by Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
According to our findings Vitellius is the reflection of the
'False' Dmitry I. Incidentally, Tacitus informs us that he
himself is a contemporary of all the above mentioned
'ancient' emperors. Consequently the famous Cornelius
Tacitus lived in the epoch of the first half of the XVII
century. Or later.
The next emperor of 'Ancient' Rome was Vespasian. And
the Russian czar who succeeded the 'False' Dmitry I was
Vasili Shuisky. Hence 'ancient' Vespasian could be a

phantom reflection of Vasili Shuisky. Our idea holds up

very well [RI], ch.10.
Furthermore, Roman emperor Titus is Russian prince
Skopin-Shuisky. Titus' siege of Jerusalem is the defence
of Moscow in 1610 by Skopin-Shuisky, which Tacitus
combined with the liberation of Moscow by Minin and
Pozharsky in 1612 [RI], ch.11.
40. MOSCOW OF THE LATE XVI EARLY XVII CC. IS
DESCRIBED BY FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS AS
JERUSALEM.
The well-known work of Flavius Josephus 'The Jewish
War' describes the civil war in Judaea under the emperor
Titus, followed by the siege, military assault and the fall of
Jerusalem, the capital of Judaea. It is thought that during
that time Judaea used to be a province of the Roman
Empire. Therefore all of these events took place in the
early XVII century in Russia in the metropoly of the
'Mongol' Empire. In particular, the seizure of Jerusalem by
Emperor Titus must be some major and well-known event
in the Times of Troubles in Russia. Such an event does
exist. It is the defence of Moscow by Skopin-Shuisky in
1610 followed by the final victory over the 'Poles' and the
liberation of Moscow in 1612 by Pozharsky and Minin.
Jerusalem described by Flavius Josephus is Moscow, the
capital of the Empire. The walls of Kitai-gorod (China
town), Bely gorod (White Town) and Zemlyanoy Gorod
(Earthworks Town) in Moscow are described by Flavius as
the three walls surrounding Jerusalem.
To remind you, there were two well-known Jerusalems in

ancient history. The first, evangelical is Czar-Grad on

the Bosphorus, Homeric Troy. The second Jerusalem is
described in the Old Testament Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah. It was 'reconstructed' during the reign of the
kings Artha-Xerox, Cyrus and Darius. Apparently here the
subject matter happens to be the construction of Moscow
and the Moscow Kremlin in the middle of the XVI century
under Ivan the Terrible = Artha-Xerox [6v2], ch.2.
Today we can see only the foreign made old plans of
Moscow-Jerusalem. It clearly states that the Russian
originals didn't survive (were destroyed?). Surprisingly
NONE of the old original plans of Moscow of the XVI
century epoch survived! Just the foreign 'copies'. We are
being assured that allegedly they more or less accurately
follow the 'lost Russian originals'. But is this true?
Most likely it is the result of the editing 'activities' of the
epoch of the Reformation. After Russia's occupation by
the Western armies followed by the ascent to the throne of
the Romanov dynasty, the history of the Great Empire
began to undergo distortions. Including removing from the
old 'Mongol' maps and city plans various Horde names
which became inappropriate in light of the 'Reformation
history'. Everything 'incorrect' was crossed out and burnt.
After which crocodile tears were shed in front of the future
generations for the 'lost originals'.
There are known reports that in Russia under Godunov
the 'extensive cartographic activities' have unfolded. It is
understandable as it is during Godunov's reign the
'Mongol' capital Moscow (Jerusalem) achieved its highest

peak. However, we will repeat, that there are no surviving

original plans of Moscow. Everything perished!
But now we can reasonably contemplate what exactly was
depicted on the Russian-Horde maps burnt by the
Reformers. It is probable that Moscow (Jerusalem) was
depicted in the way in which 'Ancient' Rome is drawn
today. In particular, the Pillar of Ivan the Great could have
been called the Babylon Tower or the Pharos of
Alexandria (Lighthouse) or the Roman Milliarium Aureum.
I.e. the central pillar of Rome from which the distances into
all the ends of the Great Empire were measured. Clearly
all such names (which became 'incorrect') were
immediately abolished [RI], ch.11.
The 'ancient' book 'The Jewish War' by Flavius Josephus
describes the grandiose war encompassing not only the
Judaic Kingdom, but the entire Roman Empire comprising
Judaea, among others. As we understand, the subject
matter is the Times of Troubles in Russia and the wars of
the Reformation, spreading all over Europe. Thus the
voluminous work of Flavius Josephus was devoted to the
events of the XVI-XVII cc. which his contemporaries were
deeply passionate about. His book reveals many details of
that epoch which were previously unknown [RI], ch.11.
Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus complete their
accounts with the Great Strife of the early XVII century, i.e.
the fall of the Great Empire. It is exactly during this time
the Scaligerian chronology is being created and enforced.
It was already used to the utmost by Flavius Josephus for
example. Therefore there is every reason to believe that in

the works by Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus

there must become apparent the chronological shifts
invented by the Scaligerians. Notably, the shift which
combines the beginning of the Roman Empire in the XIII
century with its ending in the XVII century. In other words,
concluding with his narrative about the Times of Troubles
of the XVII century, Flavius could 'skip' to the end of XII
the beginning of XIII cc and tell us, albeit briefly, about the
events in the gospel Jerusalem = Czar-Grad. We already
know that the chroniclers sometimes confused the Gospel
Jerusalem with The Old Testament Jerusalem, i.e.
Moscow of the XVI century.
Our prognosis comes true. Flavius Josephus does in fact
'leap' from the XVII century into the end of XII century and
gives us a summary of the story of Andronicus-Christ. His
death followed by the avenging Crusade of Russia-Horde
and its allies onto Czar-Grad in order to punish those
responsible for the crucifixion. These accounts are
vaguely reflected by Flavius Josephus, but it is still quite
recognisable [RI], ch.11.
41. DOMITIAN.
The Biography of Emperor Domitian concludes the works
by Seutonius and Tacitus. It turns out that the 'ancient
biography' of Domitian narrates about False Dmitry and
Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Then there is a jump into
the beginning of the Empire, and the last part of the
'biography' of Domitian gives an account of King Herod
and Emperor Andronicus-Christ. Thus at this point

Suetonius and Tacitus 'skip' back in time from the XVII

century into the XII century, from the end of the Great
Empire into its very beginning. As a result 'ancient'
Domitian is a 'bonding' of the following four genuine
historical figures: False Dmitry II + Czar Mikhail
Fedorovich Romanov, then King Herod + Emperor
Andronicus-Christ. The first two are from the first half of
the XVII century, and other two are from the late XII
century.
In his book Suetonius clearly states that his youth fell
within Domitian's reign [760], p.216. Therefore the 'ancient'
Suetonius was born in the early XVII century, in the epoch
of Times of Troubles. He wrote his book in his adulthood.
Hence in the middle of the XVII century or even later.
42. THE STORY OF IVAN SUSANIN IN THE
BIOGRAPHY OF 'ANCIENT' DOMITIAN, I.E. OF
MIKHAIL ROMANOV.
We all know a story of Susanin who saved the young czar
Mikhail Romanov from Polish captivity having paid for that
it with his life. This story was popular in Romanov Russia.
In particular, the composer M.I.Glinka wrote a famous
opera called 'Life for the Czar' (it is sometimes called 'Ivan
Susanin').
The story of Susanin still touches people. In order to
satisfy interest in this subject the historians make
somewhat odd 'discoveries'. For example, in January 2007
yet again a statement appeared that allegedly several

years earlier Susanin's remains were found in

Kostromskaya district. Though, as noted, 'for many years
the place of the hero's death was unknown'. The remains
were 'examined in the Russian centre of forensic
investigation under the supervision of the professor Victor
Zvyagin. Vladimir Filippov was assigned to reconstruct
Susanin's appearance based on the skullbones' (Journal
'Arguments and Facts', issues 1-2, 10-16 January 2007,
p.13). As far as we know there are no scientific
publications which would tell us in detail on what grounds
the found bones were declared to be 'Susanin's remains'.
That is why our attitude towards this 'finding' is rather
sceptical, as it is towards the 'discovery of the remains of
Andrey Bogolyubsky and Yuri Dolgoruky ' , widely
advertised in its time, which were also unsupported by any
scientific data.
Let us get back to more reliable accounts kept by the
ancient authors. It turns out that the 'most ancient'
Suetonius and Tacitus tell us about the story of Susanin.
Allegedly more than two thousand years before Mikhail
Romanov, prior to the event taking place [RI], ch.12.
As Susanin saved young Mikhail Fedorovich, and he
agreed to accept the Imperial crown, according to the
Romanov version, The Times of Troubles declined. The
new Emperor emerged in Russia. This event is considered
to be a turning point in the bloody Strife of the early XVII
century. In Romanov interpretation it was Susanin's heroic
deed which saved the country from further civil wars:
'Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov's election as Czar of Russia
put an end to the strife' [578], book.2, p.1002.
We can find in 'ancient' Tacitus' accounts a perfectly

analogous presentation of a story about Sabinus (it turns

out that it is Susanin). He straightforwardly claims that
according to many Romans it was Sabinus' death which
saved Rome from the new civil wars and upheavals [RI],
ch.12.
Let us draw our attention to the psychological difference in
the descriptions of Susanin by 'ancient' Suetonius and the
Romanov sources. The 'ancient' version is more exalted
as opposed to the Romanov's version, slightly more
grounded. For example, the Romanov historians have a
'burning barn', and Suetonius and Tacitus a 'burning
temple' (or even Capitol). According to the Romanov
historians, frightened Mikhail was hidden in the barn,
burying him in the hay. According to Suetonius and
Tacitus, the trembling Domitian is hidden in the sacred
temple. Possibly, someone wished to turn (on paper) a
prosaic shed (and barn) into a poetic temple (and Capitol).
It may be that on the contrary the Romanov historians
purposefully lessened the scale of the events, belittling
them. It could possibly be that the ancient text was
describing a temple-cathedral, and the Romanov editors
turned it into a 'barn' and 'farm shed'. Thus by doing so
they moved the events from the Imperial capital to a small
village, tenaciously destroying any traces of 'Ancient'
Rome in the Russian sources.
43. WHY DOMITIAN WAS BURIED AS A 'GLADIATOR'.
WHERE THE GLADIATOR GAMES ORIGINATED
FROM.

It is said that Domitian (i.e. Andronicus-Christ) was buried

'like a gladiator' [726:1], p.135. The ancient authors paid
particular attention to this aspect. We repeatedly came
across the 'ancient classics' start talking about the
'emperor-gladiator' when describing some of the phantom
reflection of Andronicus-Christ. What is it all about?
The common explanation of a word Gladiator is: 'Term
'gladiator' originates from a word 'gladius' a sword, which
was used by Roman legionaries and various types of
gladiators' [589:1], p.8. This is quite possible. Latin
GLADIUS = SWORD could have been a slightly distorted
Slavic word KHOLODNY (COLD), i.e. 'cold' weapon.
Besides in Russia a word 'KLADENETS' (steel sword) was
used to describe a SWORD (was called 'KLADENETS').
So 'GLADIATOR' is a man armed with a COLD WEAPON
or KLADENETS. But we will note a following peculiarity in
the Scaligerian version. Not only gladiators, but also
regular soldiers of the Roman army, were armed with
swords (gladius). But they were not called gladiators! Only
the participants of the special combat-performances were
thus called. A suspicion arises that a word 'gladiator' could
possibly have had a different origin.
It is possible, that the Latin word GLADIATOR, in relation
to Domitian-Christ, originated in the process of distortion
of the word-combination KOLYADA+TORIU when K
turned into ---> G. To remind you, sometimes Christ was
called KOLYADA [TsRS]. And the word TORIT' is
Russian, meaning 'to clear a path', 'to carry'. Hence, the
words 'tract', 'roadway', etc. [7v2]. Hence originated a
name with a meaning 'carrying Christ' (KHRISTA TORIU).
It becomes clear why the name Christopher in Greek

meant 'bearing Christ' [533], v.2, p.604. That is why Saint

Christopher was often depicted carrying young Christ on
his shoulders [RI], ch.12. So in Domitian's biography the
word GLADIATOR could have originally meant
CHRISTOPHER, i.e. denoting Christ. If KOLYADA is
CHRIST, than the expression KOLYADA=TORIU could
have literally meant the same as CHRISTOPHER
(CHRIST TORIU). Then later, KOLYADA-TOR could have
turned into GLADIATOR. It appears that two ideas got
intertwined in the term 'gladiator': 'cold weapon'
(kladenets) and 'Christ Toryu' carrying Christ).
The famous gladiatorial contests in Ancient Rome
probably originated to commemorate the execution of
Christ-Kolyada in 1185 and the Trojan War = RussiaHorde Crusade. To begin with the Gladiatorial Games
were the religious performance, a mystery play, enacting
the Passion of Christ and vengeance catching up with his
enemies. The masses of believers and spectators would
gather in the church-circus. In particular, AndronicusChrist murder by the Roman soldiers was re-enacted.
Perhaps a man personifying Christ was called KOLYADATORIU, i.e. CHRISTOPHER, 'Christ bearer', a man who
symbolically carried the image of the suffering Christ.
Later the original meaning of the mystery-plays was
forgotten and they continued to exist just as the bloody
performances, where a gladiator (Kolyada-tor) died under
the strikes of the soldiers representing the Czar-Gradians
of the late XII century. Then the battle of the two groups of
warriors would commence. One of them represented the
Jews who crucified Christ, and the other the crusaders
(gladiators) avenging him. When in time the meaning of

the religious performance became vague, the 'main

gladiator-Christ' was forgotten.
It becomes clear why the 'ancient' gladiator contests were
so ruthless and often resulted in the gladiators' death.
Allegedly in the III century approximately every other
combat would result in the death of a gladiator [589:1],
p.167.
The spectators often participated in judging and could
either pardon a wounded soldier, or condemn him to
death. Then he would be slaughtered in the arena
accompanied by the roar of the crowd. Today it is
'explained' to us that such was the bloodthirsty nature of
the Romans. Of course, many enjoyed watching battles
and death. However, most likely, the violent performances
were based on the real events the execution of
Andronicus-Christ, followed by a war and punishment of
his murderers. That is why at first the 'actors' were killed
on the arena for real. The memory of the recent events
was still fresh. And only while the heart of matter was
gradually forgotten, some of the participants of the show
were left alive.
A similar idea also came from the religious performances
dedicated to god Mithra, i.e. once again Christ. Here the
performers represented on the stage of a circus-church
the death of Christ in the shape of a bull impaled by a
bullfighter's steel weapon. It is not impossible, that we see
the traces of the original symbolism, in which an Ox-bull
identified with a cross (stauros), in the famous Spanish
Corrida (Bullfighting). Maybe in some versions of the
liturgical performance (which later on turned into Corrida)
a bull symbolises a cross, bringing death to Christ, and the

matador Christ himself.

Later the original meaning of the mystery plays was
forgotten, and the performance took on a life of its own.
The toreadors began to kill the bulls in an arena in front of
the audience excited by the smell of blood, simply for
entertainment and a demonstration of their fighting skills.
And so, Domitian-Christ was buried 'as a gladiator' for no
other reason that it was Kolyada-Tor, i.e. Christ, who they
were burying. And since Kolyada (Nikolay) is Christ, then
a 'gladiator' meant Christ bearer or Cross bearer, a man
who fights in the name of Christ. I.e. Christopher, who
goes into battle under the banner of Christ. Bringing to the
nations the name and the legacy of Christ. This
corresponds with the essence of the Crusades of the early
XIII century whose goal was to punish those guilty in the
crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ. These are Horde
campaigns described by the 'classical authors' as the
Trojan War.
The ancient references to the gladiatorial games being
established exactly by the ET-RUSCANS, i.e. the
Russians, according to our results, become clear [RI],
ch.12. Following the victory in the Trojan War it was in
'Ancient' Rome, i.e. in Russia, where the religious
festivities were established, spreading from the metropoly
to the provinces of the Empire. The Et-ruscans = Russians
celebrated the victory over the enemies of AndronicusChrist. It is clear that the celebration in honour of the
victory was established by the victors, and not by the
defeated side.
It turns out that there were women-gladiators [589:1],
p.121. It is not surprising, since in the Trojan War there

were both men and women among the victors and the
defeated.
So, in the arenas of the circuses-churches the two groups
of Gladiators = Christ bearers came together. Some
represented the Hordians, the others their enemies.
They fought to the death. The gladiatorial games
originated within the Royal Christianity, practiced by the
czars, who succeeded Andronicus-Christ. At first in CzarGrad, and later in Russia-Horde after the capital of the
Empire was moved there in the XIII century. The Royal
Christianity is known to us today as 'ancient paganism',
when bloody sacrifice was practiced, including those of
humans. One of those sacrifices was the Gladiatorial =
Christ bearing Games, the religious pageants.
Today all the participants of the Games are called the
Gladiators. However, earlier, most likely, only those who
represented Horde Cossacks avenging Christ were
called thus. The warriors representing those people who
crucified Christ might have been called differently. It's for a
reason that the gladiators came under different
groups.The name of one of them Retiarii clearly points
to Rat' (army), Horde. The Retiarii probably represented
the Horde-avengers. Another group under the name of
Murmillones brings to mind the name of Myrmidon. Thus
were called the 'ancient' warriors Achilles-Svyatoslav, who
participated in the Trojan War [NOR]. In this way the very
names of the gladiator castes reflect the events of the
Trojan War.
The history of the Gladiator Games shows that they were
not GAMES in the modern meaning of the word. They
were not considered as a contest of agility. The

commentators correctly identified the key element of the

Games: 'Closer than anything else to the Gladiatorial
Games is the 'trial by combat', in which the guilt of the
accused was decided by way of armed combat. The
defeated had to admit his guilt or die. The victor was
considered not guilty. The combats were usually
conducted with the real weapons and in the presence of
an audience' [589:1], p.8-9.
Originally the Gladiator Games were replaying 'combat by
trial' between those guilty in the execution of AndronicusChrist and the crusaders. The Trojan War is the act of
revenge. There were both judges and accused. This war
could have been viewed as God's retribution to those
guilty.
From the descriptions of the Gladiator Games it is clear
that they were an important public event. Large
(sometimes enormous) sums of money were spent.
Special schools for gladiators were established. One can
see what a great importance the czars-khans of the
'Mongol' Empire placed on the Trojan War being
cemented in the people's memory, as it was the Trojan
War which prompted the emergence of this gigantic
Empire. The rulers constantly reminded their subjects of
that.
After the Battle of Kulikovo, when Dmitry Donskoi =
Constantine the Great gained victory over the Royal
Christianity, he made Apostolic Christianity the state
religion. The radical reform inflicted a blow to the Gladiator
Games too. They were declared 'pagan' and were banned:
'The end of the gladiator games is directly connected with
the adoption of Christianity (under Constantine Author)'

[589:1], p.22.
The Gladiator games were irrevocably banned under the
emperor Honorius. According to our analysis, it took place
in the late XIV early XV cc. Gradually the Gladiator
Games and the gladiators in general were forgotten. Up
until the middle of the XVIII century 'the gladiators were of
no interest and it's likely that very few people knew
anything about them at all. A new surge of interest
towards this subject was caused by the discovery of the
objects of gladiatorial weaponry in Pompeii in 1766'
[589:1], p.5.
Thus, the Gladiator Games were abolished as the 'relic of
paganism', i.e. of Royal Christianity. Human sacrifice was
forbidden in Apostolic Christianity. The enormous 'ancient'
circuses-churches were abandoned and began to
dilapidate. 'Pagan' Gladiator contests became a thing of
the past. They were replaced by the more peaceful
religious mystery plays. Where Christ's death was
represented with the conventional acting devices (red
paint in place of blood, etc.)
Besides the gladiator contests, where the two groups of
warriors would fight, on the circuses-churches' arenas
combat with animals took place lions, bulls, bears, wild
boars. Could it be that fighting animals was originally of a
religious nature?
The answer is probably as follows. In the XIII-XIV cc. the
emperors who followed Royal Christianity, persecuted the
Apostolic Christians. They were baited with animals and
set on fire, notably, in full view of the public. The
Scaligerian history speaks of it as the 'persecution of the
first Christians' allegedly in the I-II cc. In fact it took place

in the XIII century in the epoch of the Trojan War. That is

why when after some time the czars established the
religious Gladiator Games, there were two kinds of the
bloody performances provisioned for in them . The first
the fight between two groups of warriors representing
Passions of Christ, his execution and the Trojan War as
revenge. The second type the warriors fighting wild
animals. Here they represented the hunting of the
Apostolic Christians as admonition.
The reports from the 'ancient' sources become clear telling
us that 'frequently among the condemned (from whom the
gladiators were also recruited Author) were the
CHRISTIANS REFUSING TO BESTOW GOD LIKE
HONORS UPON THE EMPEROR' [589:1], p.163. It is all
clear. The Gladiator contests with the animals is a form of
execution of the Apostolic Christians who renounced the
divinity of the Roman emperors, beside Andronicus-Christ.
44. WHAT WE LEARNT ABOUT THE XVI-XVII CC.
FROM THE 'ANCIENT' SOURCES.
In fig.70 we sum up our studies of the 'ancient' epoch of
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
There is demonstrated an overlapping between the
Roman Emperors and the Russian czars and rulers [RI],
ch.12.
Galba <---> Simeon + Prince Dmitry (under Feodor
Ioannovich),
Otho <---> Boris Godunov,
Vitellius <---> False Dmitry I,
Vespasian <---> Vasilli Shuisky,

Titus <---> Skopin-Shuisky

Domitian <---> False Dmitry II + Mikhail Romanov and
also: King Herod + Andronicus-Christ.
Slanting broken arrows on the picture represent the
overlapping of the 'ancient' and Russian rulers. The
'ancient' biography of Domitian is split into four parts,
marked in fig.70 by the numbers 1,2,3,4.
Part 1 describes False Dmitry II, part 2 Mikhail
Romanov; part 3 describes King Herod from the XII
century; part 4 tells us of Andronicus-Christ from the XII
century.
Feodor Ioannovich is lightly reflected in the works of the
'ancient classics'. Possibly as a result of circumstances, is
made note of in the Romanov version as well. Feodor was
perceived as a weak ruler who was under the strong
influence of Boris Godunov. Probably for the 'ancient'
authors Feodor's reign was 'covered' with the reign of
Boris Godunov, who is reflected in their accounts under
the name of Emperor Otho. On the other hand during
Feodor's reign the infamous murder of Prince Dmitry took
place, which was brought to the notice of the 'ancient'
chroniclers and which was described by them in detail [RI].
As a result, Boris Godunov's strong personality and
Dmitry's death, which astounded many, obscured the
'fainter Feodor Ioannovich in the eyes of the 'ancient'
chroniclers.
In the epoch, reflected in fig.70, the correspondence
between the duration of the reigns is greatly distorted. It is
clear. As the subject matter is the Time of Troubles, the
descriptions of which are muddled up and also distorted
by the Romanov historians. Chaos in history bred chaos in

the chronicles. At the same time the overall duration of the

Time of Troubles approximately 30 years is the same
both in the 'ancient' and in the Russian sources. Here we
speak of the epoch of the 1584 -1613. After all the
chronology generally survives, though the details got
substantially deformed.
In fig.71 and fig.72 is represented a scheme of parallelism
found by us, between the Russian czars-khans of 15301620 and the 'Ancient' Roman emperors of the Second
Roman Empire of allegedly I century. We can clearly see
that beginning with Fedor Ioannovich Russia-Horde
plunges into the gravest strife. If prior to 1584 the
correspondence of the durations of the reigns on the
whole is not bad, then post 1584 the chroniclers start to
get seriously confused. In particular, they 'compress' in
time some of the reigns [RI], ch.12.
In fig.73 it is shown which epochs of the Russian-Horde
history are described by Suetonius and Tacitus. Above are
marked the reigns from Ivan IV to Mikhail Romanov.
Below is indicated under which names they were reflected
in works by Suetonius and Tacitus. Starting with a short
biography of Augustus, Tacitus in detail tells us the story
of the 'Ancient' Rome, i.e. Russia-Horde from the Seven
Boyars of the first half of the XVI century to Vasily Shuiskii
(Vespasian) and Skopin-Shuiskii (Titus). The Emperor
Mikhail Romanov (Domitian) is not reflected by Tacitus
any more. In other words, Cornelius Tacitus cut his
narration short approximately at the year 1610.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus spans a slightly longer time
interval. He begins with Julius Caesar and Augustus. Then
he moves on to Tiberius (Ivan the Terrible) and continues

his narration up to Domitian (Mikhail Romanov). Thus

Suetonius advances slightly further than Tacitus, about ten
years, and stops approximately at the year 1620, having
illuminated the first part of Mikhail Romanov's reign.
The two initial biographies of Julius Caesar and
Augustus in the book by Suetonius are represented on
the left in fig.73 by two triangles. In a similar way on the
right are marked the fragments from his book referring to
the last two plots from Domitian's 'biography'. To recap,
here are described King Herod and Andronicus-Christ. In
this place Suetonius skips back in time: from the XVII
century into the XII century.
Besides, in fig.73 there is also shown 'volume (in years) of
the description' by Suetonius of the various emperorsczars. To clarify. Suetonius' book consists of 12
'biographies', from Julius Caesar to Domitian. We
calculated the volume (in pages) of each 'biography'.
Having divided the resulting volume of life description by
the number of years which each given czar reigned
(according to the chronology of the Russian history) we
received an average number of pages allocated by
Suetonius for each year of his reign, fig.73. For example,
the volume of description about Tiberius is not great, but,
let's say, about Caligula rather large. Here we fall back
on the fact that the Roman emperors are the reflections of
the Russian czars. That is why, when calculating, the reign
duration was taken as specified in the Russian sources.
In the case with Tacitus we did not calculate the volume of
accounts, as in his work the life stories of the emperors
are closely intertwined, and it is difficult to calculate their
volume. That is why in fig.73 the chronological disposition

of Tacitus' work is represented by a horizontal line of

uniform thickness.
So, as it follows from fig.73, the main bulk of books by
Suetonius and Tacitus is dedicated to the second half of
the XVI early XVII century. Beyond this epoch remain
just the biographies of Caesar, Augustus and the last part
of Domitian's 'biography'. All these fragments date from
the second half of the XII to early XIII century.
We can see that for Suetonius, Tacitus and Flavius the
events of the XVI-XVII cc. were vital. They wrote keenly,
taking everything close to heart. It is understandable. They
lived in the turbulent times of the Reformation and the
events of their generations and the preceding one's were
of the utmost importance to them.
In fig.74 see the general picture of the parallelism which
we discovered [RI], ch.12. On the left are depicted the
Second Rome and the Third Roman Empires spanning the
period from the I century BC to the middle of the VI
century (in Scaligerian dating). On the right there is shown
the chronology of Czar-Grad and the Russian-Horde
Kingdom from 1000 to 1620. Between the dates on the
right and on the left there is an approximately 1050 years
shift. It is one of the main shifts discovered by
A.T.Fomenko [1v], [2v]. To remind, the Second Rome and
the Third Rome are the phantom reflections of the
'Mongol' Empire of the XIII-XVII cc. Therefore they
duplicate each other to a great extent.
In fig. 74 we can see that with a shift of approximately
1050 years the dates of the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380 and
the 'ancient' battle between Constantine and Maxentius of
allegedly 312 perfectly coincide [TsRIM], [ZA].

THE CONCLUSIONS. The 'Ancient' Roman history of the I

century is a phantom reflection of the events of the XVIXVII cc. unfolded in Russia-Horde, the metropoly of the
Great Empire. The Russian sovereign rulers 'Ivan the
Terrible', Dmitry, Godunov, 'False Dmitry', Vasily Shuisky,
Prince Skopin-Shuisky, czar Mikhail Romanov reflected
in the 'ancient world' are the famous emperors Tiberius,
Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius,
Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
The works of Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius
Tranquillus and Titus Flavius Josephus narrate the events
of the XVI-XVII cc. unfolding mainly in Russia-Horde and
Western Europe. These 'ancient writers' lived in the epoch
of the XVII century. The events of the Reformation
mattered deeply to them. They witnessed the grandiose
turning point in history the breakup of the Great Empire.
45. THE 'MOST ANCIENT' IRANIAN EPIC POEM
SHAHNAMEH IS THE CHRONICLE OF THE GREAT
EMPIRE OF XII-XVII CC.
The poet Ferdowsi is considered to be the author of the
'ancient' long epic poem Persian Shahnameh (six large
volumes in the academic edition) the crowning glory of
world culture. The surviving manuscripts of Shahnameh
happen to be written not earlier than the XIII-XIV cc
[ShAH], ch.1. The full text allegedly was created in the XV
century. Beginning with the XVI century allegedly the
Shahnameh epic poem becomes fairly well-known.
Europe became acquainted with the epic poem only in the

XVIII century. However, even in the XIX century various

versions of Shahnameh were still circulating. Taking into
account our knowledge of the dates shifting by 100, 300,
400 years, it appears that the epic poem Shahnameh was
compiled and eventually written down not earlier than the
XVI-XVII cc. It was based on the Persian legends of the
XII-XVI cc. We are told that the original sources, which
Shahnameh is based on, were 'for some reason'
destroyed. It is possible that the editors who were creating
Shahnameh in the XVII-XVIII cc. based it on the Old
Iranian chronicles and adapted them in the Reformist way.
We are already familiar with this by the example of
Herodotus, Plutarch, Thucydides, Tacitus, Titus Livy,
Suetonius, Xenophon, Aristophanes and others. After
editing, the old texts were either destroyed (in order to
conceal the true story), or were treated as worthless
rubbish, and therefore the chronicles were abandoned and
soon disintegrated.
The epic poem Shahnameh is sometimes called Iranian
and sometimes Persian. We use both terms without
disputing them.
We discovered that the beginning of Shahnameh consists
of the seven repeated accounts about one and the same
Emperor Andronicus-Christ. He is reflected as the 'ancient'
Iranian kings: Abu-Mansur, Keyumars, Siyamak, Jamshid,
Merdas, Zahhak, Fereydun. Whereas the Iranian king
Husheng is Achilles, aka Siegfried. To remind you,
Achilles and Siegfried are the reflections of the Grand
Prince Sviatoslav.

The Battle of Kulikovo of 1380 turns out to be one of the

most famous events in the Old Iranian chronicle of the
Empire. The 'ancient' Iranian king Fereydun is the
reflection of the Russian Prince Dmitry Donskoy.
Furthermore, the well-known inventor of gun powder
Berthold Schwarz is the reflection of The Venerable
Sergius of Radonezh (Sergey Radonezhsky), who
invented gunpowder and cannons, on the pages of the
Western-European chronicles. The legendary 'ancient'
Iranian Kave the Blacksmith is also the reflection of
Sergius of Radonezh.
'Ancient' Iranian heroes Zal and young Rustam are two
other partial reflections of the Emperor Andronicus-Christ
(Andrey Bogolyubskii) from the XII century. The legend of
Zal and Rudaba is a reflection of the legend of the Holy
Spirit, Christ and Virgin Mary Mother of God. The
Annunciation, Immaculate Conception and caesarean
section are all mentioned in the Shahnameh. The young
Rustam is described as the 'Greek Hercules',i.e once
again as Andronicus-Christ.
The four reflections of the story of Esther (Elena
Volshanka) from the XVI and also Ivan the Terrible's
Livonian War appeared on the pages of the 'ancient'
Persian epic poem Shahnameh. Besides, Ferdowsi
describes Andrey Kurbsky's betrayal and the construction
of Moscow as The Empire's capital. Where adult Rustam
is the reflection of Ivan the Terrible and his son Sohrab is
the reflection of Ivan the Young, Ivan the Terrible's son.

The story of Prince Kurbsky is given a detailed account by

Ferdowsi as a tale of 'Siyavush' who changed sides from
his king to his opponents. It takes place in the beginning of
the Livonian War between Ivan the Terrible and Western
Europe, which was reflected in Shahnameh. It also
describes the fear of Western Europe before the invasion
of Ivan the Terrible's army and the treachery of Prince
Kurbsky.
The construction of Moscow as a capital by Ivan the
Terrible is described in the Shahnameh as the creation of
the Turanian capital 'Gong', and also the building of the
city of 'Siavashgird' ("the round city of Siavash", and Gong
("Giant") Castle Tr.)
Furthermore the Livonian War and the Times of Troubles
in Russia in the XVI-XVII cc. are described by Ferdowsi as
the 'ancient' wars between Iran and Tiran. The Turanian
King Afrasiab is a reflection of Ivan the Terrible and Boris
Godunov. The Russian-Horde Prince Dmitry, falsely
declared by the Romanovs as an Impostor, is presented in
the Shahnameh as the rightful 'ancient' king Kai (or Kay)
Khosrow. Besides, information about Ivan the Terrible (=
Vasili the Blessed) are incorporated into the ending of the
story about Kai Khosrow once again. Several reflections of
the Livonian War and several reflections of the
correspondence between Ivan the Terrible and Andrey
Kurbsky on the pages of the Shahnameh are very
interesting.
The Madness of Kai Khosrow is the madness of Ivan the
Terrible = the biblical Nebuchadnezzar = the Emperor

Charles. King Khosrow displaying and then giving his

treasures away is a famous scene shortly preceding Ivan
the 'Terrible's death [ShAH], ch.6. The Iranian story of the
most 'ancient' king Gushtasp is another narration about
False Dmitry from the early XVII century [ShAH], ch.7. The
construction of the 'Crystal Town' under Persian king
Lohrasp (Ivan the 'Terrible') is the erection of the Moscow
Kremlin.
The 'ancient' Zoroastrianism is Royal Christianity of the
XII-XIII cc. and the Russian Orthodox Christianity up until
the XVII century. Presumably Zoro-astr = Czar of the East
is another reflection of Andronicus-Christ. Perhaps, the
name Zar=Astr was interpreted also as Czar-Star, as
ASTRA means a 'star'. It is appropriate for Christ, who
sometimes was called the Sun, and with whose Nativity
the flare of the Star of Bethlehem is associated. This star
was included in the symbol of Czar-Grad and later
became a part of the Symbolism of Islam: a crescent and
a star.
So, the ancient Persian (P-Russian) Cult of Fire originated
in Royal Christianity of the XII-XIII cc. and was an
important part of the Russian Orthodox Christianity up until
the XVII century. It was abolished after the XVII century
church reform in Russia. But in some provinces of the
Great Empire, in particular on the territory of modern Iran
(Persia), it has transformed, absorbed some local
traditions and existed up until the XIX-XX cc., giving rise to
the contemporary sects of Zoroastrianism. Today the
archaeologists and historians when discovering traces of

the cult in Iran and its neighbouring countries erroneously

date them to the deepest antiquity and think that it was
here that at some point that Zoroastianiam originated. It is
a misconception based on the incorrect Scaligerian
chronology and geography.
The Iranian Prince Goshtasp the son of Lohrasp (Ivan
the 'Terrible') is Prince Dmitry, who was later declared
by the Romanovs to be an Imposter. The Prince's flight
from his motherland to its enemies. The Prince's
wandering. The marriage of the fugitive prince to a
daughter of the foreign ruler. The 'ancient' Princess
Ketayun (or Myrin?) is Marina Mnishek from the XVII
century.
Unlike the Romanov version the Iranian Epos clearly
states that the fugitive Prince Goshtasp (Dmitry) was
never an imposter. He was a genuine prince, a son of the
king Lohrasp. This perfectly corresponds with our results,
according to which 'False' Dmitry was the true son of Ivan
the Terrible. Thus we yet again catch the Romanov editors
red handed. The distortion introduced by them vividly
surfaces when compared with the independent sources.
The beginning of the military invasion of Dmitry into
Russia in the XVII century is described in the Shahnameh
as the 'Goshtasp slaying a wolf-dragon', and also as the
'second fight of Goshtasp with the dragon'.
Prince Goshtasp returns to Iran, replaces Lohrasp and
becomes the King of Iran. Here is given an account of the
Time of Troubles in Russia: the sudden death of Boris

Godunov and seizure of power by False Dmitry. It could

also be a 'peculiar' handover of power to Simeon
Bekbulatovich.
Introduction of a new religion - Zoroastrianism - in Iran,
which bread disturbance and discontent among the
people. It is the reflection of the attempts to introduce
Catholicism to Russia in the early XVII century under
False Dmitry or the reflection of the story of Esther from
the XVI century, when power was seized by the heretics in
Russia.
The emergence of Iskandar = Alexander the Great in the
epoch of Goshtasp is the reflection of the sultan
Suleiman the Magnificent from the XVI century.
The 'ancient' Persian description of the life of Eskandar
(Alexander the Great) is the sum of several layers: first
Andronicus-Christ from the XII century, then biblical
Moses from the XV century and Sultan Mehmed the
Conqueror from the XV century, and finally Suleiman the
Magnificent from the XVI century.
The siege and conquest of biblical Jericho = Czar-Grad on
the Bosphorus with the use of cannons reflected in the life
description of Iskandar = Alexander the Great. At the
same time we found out what is the famous 'iron wall to
defend against Gog and Magog' built by Alexander the
Great?

The final part of the 'most ancient' Shahnameh narrates

about the events of the XVII-XVIII cc., fig.75, fig.76
[ShAH], ch.9.

46. FORTY NINE REFLECTIONS OF IVAN THE

TERRIBLE WHICH WE DISCOVERED IN THE
SCALIGERIAN HISTORY.
IVAN IV VASILIEVICH THE TERRIBLE 1533-1547-1584.
In fact under the one name the 'Terrible' there are four
Czars-Khans put together. They are Ivan IV 1547-1553,
then Dmitry 1553-1563, then Ivan V 1563-1572, and finally
Simeon (Sain-Bulat) Bekbulatovich (the royal name - Ivan)
1572-1584 [4v]. The following personas are the phantom
reflections.
1) IVAN III VASILIEVICH GROZNY (THE TERRIBLE)
THE GREAT 1462-1505.
2) VASILI BLAZHENY (BASIL THE BLESSED OR FOOL
FOR CHRIST) (aka PARFENII YURODIVY (THE HOLY
FOOL) allegedly Ivan The Terrible's pseudonym), i.e.
THE BLESSED CZAR (and also holy IVAN THE
BLESSED, Moscow miracle-worker is the reflection of
Ivan IV (1547-1553). Czar Ivan IV in the end of his life, in
1553, fell ill, withdrew from state affairs and became a
blessed fool. [4], [6v].
3) VSEVOLOD 1139-1146 in Kievan Rus' (Kiev Russia).
The reflection of Ivan IV 1547-1553. This is the first phase
of the 'Terrible Czar' [4v].

4) IZYASLAV 1146-1155 (1154) in Kievan Rus'. The

reflection of minor Dmitry 1553-1563. This is the second
phase of the 'Terrible Czar'.
6) YURI DOLGORUKIY 1148-1157 (partial) in Kievan
Rus'. The reflection of adolescent Czar Ivan; during his
reign the Zakharyin-Yurievs and the oprichnina 15631572. This is the third phase of the 'Terrible Czar'.
4) MSTISLAV IZYASLAVOVICH + IZYASLAV
DAVYDOVICH 1157-1169 in Kievan Rus'. The reflection
of Simeon-Ivan 1572-1584. This is the fourth and final
phase of the 'Terrible'.
5) VASILI III (partial) the Russian-Horde Czar-Khan, the
XV century [6v].
6) IVAN OVCHINA (Obolenskii-Telepnev) (partial), Elena
Glinskaya's favourite, the XV century [6v].
7) VSEVOLOD YAROSLAVICH, erroneously dated to the
XI century [4], [7v1].
8) CASIMIR LITOVSKY (CASIMIR OF LITHUANIA) [4v],
[7v1]. 9) CHARLES V 1519-1556 according to [304], v.3,
p.27, or 1519-1558 according to [76]. Allegedly 'WesternEuropean' Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire [6].
10) FERDINAND of HABSBURG 1558-1564 according to
[76].
11) MAXIMILLIAN II 1564-1576, the reflection of Khan
Simeon [7v1].

12) FREDERICK I BARBAROSSA the 'German'

Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, allegedly years 11251152-1190 [6v].
13) FREDERICK II the German Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire, allegedly years 1194-1211-1250 [6v].
14) FREDERICK III of HABSBURG 1440-1493 according
to [76], [7v1].
15) NEBUCHADNEZZAR a famous 'ancient' Assyrian
and Babylonian king, described in the Bible [6v].
16) ARTAXERXES I LONGIMANUS (= DOLGORUKII
(translates as LONG HAND) (his other names are:
ASVER, ASSWER (or Ahasverus? Achashverosh?
Ahasweros?) AND ASSUERUS) famous 'ancient' king of
Persia. Described in the Bible [6v].
17) ARTAXERXEX II MNEMON (ARSICAS, OARSES)
king of Persia, allegedly a 'grandson' of King Artaxerxes
Longimanus (Artaxerxes I). Described by Plutarch [6v].
18) PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHUS (partial) 'ancientEgypt' king [6v].
19) QUETZALCOATL Mediaeval king of the American
K'iche' Maya Indians and a Toltec king [ZA], ch.8.
20) BELSHAZZAR (OR BALTHAZAR) a king of Babylon
and Persia who 'saw the writing on the wall'. Described in
the Bible [6v]. 21) THE ELDER who made an attempt to

falsely accuse the beautiful Susanna of promiscuity (or

Shoshana). Described in the Bible Book of Daniel [6v].
22) TIMUR - TAMERLANE (partial) the famous
conqueror [6v].
23) MEHMED II THE CONQUEROR (partial, the XV
century [6v], [PRRK], ch.4.
24) HENRY II DUKE OF ORLEANS King of France, the
XVI century [7v1].
25) HENRY VIII (A BLUEBEARD) the English king
(1509-1547) [7v1], [ShEK], ch.5.
26) MAXIMILIAN II - as Western-European reflection of
Khan Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovich [7v1].
27) In the history of 'Ancient' Rome Ivan the Terrible is
reflected as a 'quartet'; of famous emperors: TIBERIUS +
CALIGULA + CLAUDIUS + NERO [1v]. Essentially
parallels between them are as follows; (though here and
there is some confusion), see paragraphs 28-31: Ivan
Blazhenny (the Blessed) 1547-1553; Dmitry Ivanovich
1553-1563; Ivan Ivanovich 1563-1572; Simeon-Ivan
Beckbulatovich 1572-1584. It appears that in the 'classic
ancient' literature they are reflected as:
28) TIERIUS, allegedly (years) 14-37,
29) CALIGULA, allegedly (years) 37-41,
30) CLAUDIUS, allegedly (years) 41-54,

31) NERO, allegedly (years) 54-68.

Certain elements of 'Ivan the Terrible's life descriptions are
fantastically played out between these four phantoms
sometimes in a contravention of chronology. But on the
whole the stream of the main events remained intact [RI].
32) HENRY IV, allegedly 1053-1106 [1v].
33) PARIKSHIT the 'ancient' Indian rajah, a king of the
Ikshvaku dynasty. Described in the Indian Epic the
Mahabharata [KAZ], ch.1.
34) CAMBYSES - a famous king of 'ancient' Persia (son of
Cyrus). Described by Herodotus [za], ch.5. To clarify.
Cambyses (or Cyrus), the king of Persia is Ivan the
Terrible or Ivan the Younger, and the Egyptian princess
Nitesis is Esther = Elena Voloshanka. The successful
Egyptian campaign of 'ancient' Cambyses is either the
conquest of Czar-Grad in 1453 or the conquest of Kazan
in 1552. The siege and crushing defeat of Memphis by
king Cambyses is the siege and defeat of Kazan by Ivan
the Terrible. The destiny of Psammetichus, king of Egypt
is the reflection of the fate of Khan Ediger of Kazan who
was captured by Ivan the Terrible. The treason of 'ancient'
Phanes is Prince Kurbskys treason. Cambyses' insanity is
the 'madness' of Ivan the Terrible. King Cambyses' failed
military campaigns is the unsuccessful Livonian War of
Ivan the Terrible. Death of Prince Dmitry Ivan the
Terrible's co-ruler is described by Herodotus as Smerdis'
death, who was seated at the royal throne in Cambyses'
'dream'. The story of the Russian metropolitan Phillip was

also vividly reflected on the pages of Herodotus'

'Histories'. Hordian False Dmitry from the early XVII
century and the beginning of the Times of Troubles in
Russia-Horde was described by Herodotus in
considerable detail.
It is curious that Herodotus' point of view on 'False' Dmitry
is close to that of the Romanovs'. It appears that the
Western-European Herodotus used a version invented by
the Romanovs for both external and domestic use. By the
way, Dmitry's mother, in monasticism Marfa, and Marina
Mnisheck from the XVII century, False Dmitry's wife, are
both described by 'classic' Herodotus in his famous
'Histories' under the same name of Fedima, the wife of
False Smerdis. Preksasp, an 'ancient' Persian, whom
Herodotus is telling us about, is also the reflection of Vasili
Shuisky and clerk Timofei Osipov from early XVII century.
Finally, the 'classic' story by Herodotus about the death of
a noble Persian Intaphrenes is a story about the death of
the famous Prince Skopin-Shuisky in 1610.
35) XERXES the famous 'ancient' Persian king (the king
of kings) [ZA], ch.7. The famous Greco-Persian war of
allegedly the V century BC and Xerxes' failed punitive
campaign in Hellas is the lost Livonian war of Ivan the
Terrible from the XVI century. Consequently the last three
books of the 'Histories' by Herodotus were devoted to the
second, but this time a more detailed account of Ivan the
Terrible's Livonian war.

To elaborate. The preliminary suppression of the revolt in

Egypt is Ivan the Terrible's conquest of Kazan. The
debates between Xerxes' councillors on the expedience of
the campaign in Hellas are the debates in Ivan the
Terrible's court on the subjects of the declaration of the
Livonian war. The short lived accession to the Russian
throne of Simeon Beckbulatovich is the temporary
accession to the Persian throne of Artabanus. Xerxes'
famous bridge crossing the Hellespont is Ivan the
Terrible's crossing of the Volga. The death of the 300
famous Spartans of king Leonidas is the death of the
Mediaeval detachment of the knights (the members of the
Livonian order) of commander-in-chief Philipp Bell.
'Ancient' Thermopylae is the Western-European Fellin
(Viljandi castle Tr.). Spartan King Leonidas is the
German commander in chief Philip Bell, and the perished
Spartans are perished German knights. 'Ancient' traitor
Demaratus at Xerxes' court is Prince Andrey Kurbsky who
betrayed Ivan the Terrible. The Spartan King Cleomenes
is another reflection of Ivan the Terrible.
The famous Cossack chieftain Yermak Timofeyev from the
second half of the XVI century was described by
Herodotus as a Spartan Prince Dorieus, a half-brother to
King Cleomenes = Ivan the Terrible. The heart of the
chronicle account of Yermak's conquest of Siberia is the
colonization of America by Russia and the Ottoman
Empire (Atamania) in the XV-XVI cc.
Xerxes' retreat from Hellas is Ivan the Terrible's army's
retreat from Livonia. The Persians' defeat in the Battle of

Plataea is the defeat of the Russians at Polotsk. Death of

the Persian general Mardonius is the death of notorious
Malyuta Skuratov. He is the very same biblical Holofernes.
The 'ancient' Persian Tiribaz during the rule of Artaxerxes
is another reflection of Prince Andrey Kurbsky in the
pages of Plutarch.
36) ARTABANUS the chief official of Xerxes, who was
temporarily enthroned by Xerxes, is a reflection of Khan
Simeon Beckbulatovich, i.e. 'the fourth period of the
Terrible Czar' [ZA], ch.7.
37) CLEOMENES 'ancient' Spartan king. Described by
Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.
38) JUAN (KHAN) MILLAN an old mad astrologer, who
authoritatively influenced' Governor Diego Velasquez
during the expedition of conquistador Cortes (Ataman
Yermak) to America [ZA], ch.8.
39) FRANCESCILIO 'an old lunatic' who 'strongly
influenced' the Governor Diego Velasquez. Mentioned by
Bernal Diaz [ZA], ch.8.
40) INCITATUS THE 'HORSE' of the Roman emperor
Caligula, which he 'introduced to the senate'. It is the
reflection of Khan Simeon Beckbulatovich (of Ivan the
Terrible) [RI], ch.5.
41) GALBA (partial) 'Ancient' Roman Emperor [RI], ch.7.

42) ROSTAM or RUSTAM (partial) is the epic Persian

'ancient' hero. Described in the Epic of Shahnameh
[ShAH], ch.5.
43) KEY KAVUS 'ancient' Iranian shah (a mythological
shah of Iran) [ShAH], ch.5.
44) AFRASIAB (partial) 'ancient' shah of Turan.
Described in the Epic Shahnameh [ShAH], ch.5.
45) KAI KHOSROW (OR KAY KHOSROW) 'ancient'
Iranian shah [ShAH], ch.5.
46) LOHRASP (partial) 'ancient' Iranian shah, Khan
Simeon Beckbulatovich's duplicate, i.e. the 'fourth period'
of Ivan the Terrible, ch.5.
47) KING LEAR (LEIR) 'ancient' English ruler described
by Geoffrey of Monmouth (Latin: Galfridus Monemutensis
Tr.) and Shakespeare [ShAK], ch.1.
48) THE FOOL, who accompanies King Lear is the
reflection of Parfeny Yurodivy (Parthenius the Fool-inChrist) - the name given to Ivan the Terrible at Baptising
(Vasily Blazhenny Basil the Blessed or Holy Fool for
Christ). Later the historians erroneously decided that this
name was Ivan the Terrible's 'pseudonym' [ShAK], ch.1.
49) DUKE OF ALBANY (partial) - a contemporary of King
Lear, [ShAK], ch.1.
47. FOURTEEN REFLECTIONS OF THE LAWFUL WIFE
OF IVAN THE TERRIBLE.

'Either Seven or six wives of Ivan the Terrible' (Anastasia

Zakharyina Romanova; Princess Kucenej, who after her
baptism into the Russian Orthodox Christianity, took the
name of Maria; Marfa Sobakina; Anna Koltovskaya; Anna
Vasilchikova; Vasilisa Melentyeva; Maria Dolgorukaya;
Maria Nagaya) are: ONE wife of Ivan IV the Terrible
Anastasia Romanova, b) THREE wives of his son Ivan
Ivanovich, c) ONE wife of Czar Fedor Irina Godunova, d)
ONE or TWO wives of Khan Simeon-Ivan. The following
characters are the phantom reflections:
1) SOFIA PALAIOLOGINA the wife of Ivan III the
Terrible, pushed aside by Elena Voloshanka [6v].
2) VASHTI the 'ancient' queen, the wife of the King
Artaxerxes of Persia, later she was pushed aside by
Esther [6v].
3) STATEIRA the first wife of Artaxerxes II Mnemon,
allegedly a 'grandson' of King Artaxerxes Makrocheir of
Persia. Described by Plutarch.
4) CATHERINE DE MEDICI the famous Queen consort
of the 'French' King Henry II, pushed aside by Diane de
Poitiers, XVI century [7v1].
5) ELIZABETH (I) TUDOR the famous 'English' queen,
1533-1603 [7v1].
6) CATHERINE OF ARAGON (1485 1536 Queen from
1509) wife of the 'English' King Henry III, pushed aside
by Anne Boleyn (Esther) [7v1], [ShEK], ch.5.

7) THE WIFE OF KING CAMBYSES I (OR CYRUS),

pushed aside by a young beautyhetaerae Nitesis
(Esther). Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5
8) (CLAUDIA) OCTAVIA a noble 'ancient' Roman lady,
loyal wife of Emperor Nero (Ivan the Terrible) [RI], ch.2.
9) PASIPHAE the wife of 'ancient' Cretan King Minos
[RI], ch.2.
10) AGRIPPINA the wife of Roman Emperor Tiberius
[RI], ch.3.
11) LAWFUL WIFE of Roman Emperor Caligula [RI], ch.5.
12) PLAUTIA URGULANILLA or AELIA PAETINA two
lawful wives of Roman Emperor Claudius, pushed aside
later on by the promiscuous Messalina [RI], ch.6.
13) JARIREH - a lawful wife of the 'ancient' Iranian
Siavash, pushed aside by Ferigees. Described in Epos
Shahnameh [ShAKh), ch.5.
14) CORDELIA King Lear's 'daughter', pushed aside by
her two 'sisters'. Described by Geoffrey of Monmouth and
Shakespeare [ShAK), ch.1.
48. THIRTY EIGHT REFLECTIONS OF ELENA
VOLOSHANKA = BIBLICAL ESTHER.
ELENA STEFANOVNA VOLOSHANKA wife of
Czarevich Ivan the Young, son of Czar Ivan III the Terrible
[6v]. Her phantom reflections are the following characters.

1)ESTHER (HADASSAH) a Jewess, adopted daughter

and a relative of Mordecai, a new wife of Artaxerxes after
the banishment of Queen Vashti. Described in the Bible
[6v].
2)ATOSSA the second wife of Artaxerxes Mnemnon
who replaced Statira. Replaced by Plutarch [6].
3)JUDITH a Jewess, who killed Assyrian general
Holofernes. Described in the Bible [6v].
4)YAEL a Jewess, who killed general Sisera(a duplicate
of Holofernes) having driven a tent peg (with a mallet)
through his temple. Described in the Bible [6v].
5)ELENA GLINSKAYA (partial), the wife of Russian CzarKhan Vasili III, a 'young Lithuanian' [6v].
6)WIFE OF YAROPOLK AND VLADIMIR, the Russian
princes, allegedly the X century [6v].
7)SUSANNA Biblical beauty, whose honour was
besmirched by the two old judges. Described in the Old
Testament Book of Daniel [6v].
8)JEZEBEL (partial) Queen of Israel. Described in the
Bible [7v1].
9)DIANE DE POITIERS, the former Countess de Brz,
the wife of the Grand Snchal of Normandy and later
the infamous lover of Henry II, who 'pushed aside'
Catherine de Medici [7v1].

10)MARY STUART well-known Queen of Scotland

(1542-1587)[7v1].
11)ANNE BOLEYN (1507-1536, Queen of England from
1533), originally a lady-in-waiting to Catherine of Aragon,
and then a lover and a wife of King Henry VIII 'of England'.
She replaced Catherine of Aragon [7v1], [ShAK].
12)FROG PRINCESS, at first a lover, and then a wife of
the 'Ancient' Indian maharaja Parikshit (= Ivan the
Terrible). Described in the Indian Epic the Mahabharata
[KAZ], ch.1.
13)ISTAR = ISHTAR (ASTARTE) THE 'Ancient'
Babylonian goddess, allegedly the third millennia BC
[KAZ], ch.1.
14)SUKANYA the ' Ancient' Indian princess, the honour
of which was attempted by the two demigods Ashwini
Kumaras. Described in the Indian Epos the Mahabharata
[KAZ], ch.1.
15)NITETIS a foreigner-Egyptian, who pushed aside the
wife of the King Cambyses (or Cyrus) and became his
concubine and wife. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5.
16)ATOSSA a cunning wife of the 'Ancient' Persian King
Cambyses II. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5.
17)'ANCIENT' NOBLE WOMAN, connected with the death
of a Persian military commander Mardonius in Xerxes'
army - is the Old Testament Judith, who killed the
Assyrioan Holofernes = Malyuta Skuratov [ZA], ch.7.

18) ARTAINTA lover of King Xerxes (a young wife of his

son Darius), for whom Xerxes sets aside his lawful wife.
Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.
19)ASENATH (ASENITH) WIFE OF THE Egyptian
courtier (a priest and a prince) Potiphar (Potipherah),
second in command after pharaoh in Ancient Egypt.
Asenath wished to seduce Biblical Joseph the Fair, but
failed. Described in the Bible. Some consider Asenath to
be a wife of Joseph and a daughter of Potiphar [PE], ch.5.
20)ZULEIKA or RA'IL wife of Kitfir or Itfir (Biblical
Potiphar). Slandered by her Joseph the Fair finds himself
in prison. Zuleika is a character from the Arabic and
Persian Epic Literature [PE], ch.5.
21)AGRIPPINA (partial) mother of Roman Emperor Nero
the reflection of Elena Glinskaya, mother of Ivan the
Terrible. She is also partially Esther [RI], ch.2.
22)POPPAEA SABINA 'Ancient' Roman noble woman,
who pushed aside Octavia, the lawful wife of Emperor
Nero (Ivan the Terrible) [RI), ch.2.
23)EUNUCH SPORUS 'wife' of Roman Emperor Nero [RI],
ch.2.
24)ARIADNE daughter of 'ancient' King Minos [RI], ch.2.
25)JULIA the second wife of Roman Emperor Tiberius,
who pushed aside his first wife Agrippina [RI], ch.3.

26)DRUSILLA lover and then wife to Emperor Tiberius,

his cousin [RI], ch.5.
27)(CASSIUS) CHAEREA Roman tribune with 'female
passwords', who organized a plot against Emperor
Caligula and murdered him. Duplicate of the story of
Judith who slayed Biblical Holofernes [RI], ch.5.
28)VALERIA MESSALINA well-known harlot, wife of
Emperor Claudius, who pushed aside his two previous
wives [RI], ch.6.
29)FAUSTA a cunning wife of Emperor Constantine the
Great [ShAKh], ch.3.
30)TACHMINA 'Ancient' Iranian princess, who seduced
Rostam the hero (Ivan the Terrible).Described in the
Iranian-Persian Epic Shahnameh.
31)GORDAFARID a cunning Iranian beauty- female
warrior, duplicate of Esther and Judith [ShAKh], ch.5.
32)TURANINA BEAUTY, mother of the hero Siavash.
Duplicate of the story of Susanna=Esther [ShAKh], ch.5.
33)SUDABEH wife of the Shah, Kay Kavus, who fell in
love with his son and unsuccessfully tries to seduce
Siavash. Duplicate of the Biblical story of Joseph the Fair
[ShAKh], ch.5.
34)FERIGEES a new Turanian wife of Iranian Prince
Siavash, who pushed aside his lawful wife [ShAKh], ch.5.

35)MENIJEH beloved of 'Ancient' Iranian knight Bijan

[ShAKh], ch.5.
36)GONERIL AND REGAN the two 'daughters' of King
Lear correspond with a 'bad couple': Elene Voloshanka
(aka Biblical Esther) and Ivan the Young, the son of Ivan
the Terrible. Here the English chroniclers 'turned' (on
paper) a man into a woman [ShAK], ch.1.
37)The last years of CORDELIA'S rule (partial) in the
description by Geoffrey of Monmouth (but not by
Shakespeare!) is a version of the story of Elena
Glinskaya, i.e. the reflection of Esther (Elena Voloshanka)
[ShAK], ch.1.
38) GERTRUDE (partial) mother of Prince Hamlet.
Described by Saxo Grammaticus and William
Shakespeare [ShAK], ch.2.

49. ELEVEN REFLECTIONS OF ANDREY KURBSKY.

Prince ANDREY KURBSKY, originally a friend, but later
the enemy of Ivan IV the Terrible. The following characters
are his phantom reflections.
1)ACHIOR Assyrian military official who betrayed
Nebuchadnezzar and general Holophernes. Described in
the Bible in the Book of Judith [6v].

2)MAURICE OF SAXONY Elector. At first he was one of

the closest supporters of Emperor Charles V, but later
became his enemy [7v1].
3)PHANES a military commander of the 'Ancient'
Persian King Cambyses, who betrayed him during the
conquest of Egypt. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.5.
4)DEMARATUS 'ancient' courtier, traitor in the court of
King Xerxes of Persia. He betrayed the king during the
war between the Persians and the Greeks [ZA], ch.7.
5)DEMARATUS, the son of Ariston, the second Spartan
King, who was at the head of the Lacedaemonian army
together with Cleomenes (= Ivan the Terrible). Later
Demaratus became the enemy of King Cleomenes.
Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.
6)TIRIBAZ 'ancient' Persian courtier under Artaxerxes,
who betrayed the king. Described by Herodotus [ZA], ch.7.
7)CORBULO 'Ancient' Roman military commander in the
army of Emperor Nero during the seizure of Artaxata ( =
Kazan) [RI], ch.2.
8)And once again CORBULO, but this time in the
biography of Emperor Claudius, yet another reflection of
Ivan the Terrible [RI], ch.6.
9)VINDEX 'ancient' military commander, who betrayed
Nero [RI], ch.2.

10)ARTABANUS (partial) King of Parthia. His

correspondence with Tiberius [RI], ch.3.
11)SIAVASH (PARTIAL) Iranian Prince, defecting from
his king to his enemies. Correspondence between Siavash
(=Kurbsky) and the Shah Kay Kavus (= Ivan the Terrible)
[ShAKh], ch.5.
50. THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
1. (1513) HERCULES ZODIAC GP TWELVE LABOURS
OF HERCULES. It appears that the 'classical' descriptions
of labours of Hercules recorded the details of the location
of the planets in the Zodiac. The Myths of Europa,
allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 17-21 November 1513 [GRK],
ch.2.
2. (1524) ZODIAC PD OF GIUSTO FROM PADUA = THE
BAPTISTERY
ZODIAC.
Depicted on the Christian fresco, which is a part of the
painting in the dome drum of the Baptistery. Italy, Padua,
the Baptistery, allegedly 1378. In fact: the 7 March 1524
[TsRIM]ch.1.
3. (1526) ZODIAV PG OF IVAN IV THE TERRIBLE.
Russia, Moscow. The zodiac is depicted on the Czar's
throne. It is portable royal throne in the form of an
armchair with armrests entirely covered with carved plates
of ivory. The throne is kept in the Armoury Chamber of the
Moscow Kremlin. The astronomical dating of the

horoscope: 9 February 1526 [RI], ch.2, [ERIZ]. Compiling

Birthday horoscopes was popular in XVI-XVII cc. in
Western Europe. The astrologers were exceptionally
zealous in compiling horoscopes for the rulers. That is why
it is most likely that in this case on the Czar's throne a
horoscope for his birthday is also depicted. It appears that
Czar Ivan IV was born on the 9 February 1526. But then it
emerges that Ivan IV was born four years earlier than is
thought today. This fact points out that the Russian
chronicles in existence today are the later editions
manufactured in the XVII-XVIII cc. amongst the narrow
circle of forgers. The Romanovs, the usurpers, required
such a version of Russian history, one which would justify
their right to the throne and would simultaneously
compliment the all European programme of historical
distortion. The Romanovs of the XVII-XVIII cc. were the
Western minions on the Russian throne and depended
entirely on West Europe.
4. (1546) ZODIAC DP OF HENRY II AND DIANE DE
POITIERS. Depicted on the old French Gobelin tapestry.
France, allegedly circa 1550. Astronomical dating: 28
February 1 March 1546 [ERIZ].
5. (1586 or 1289) ZODIAC RS FROM PHARAOH
RAMSES VI TOMB. The image on the ceiling of the burial
chamber. 'Ancient' Egypt, Luxor, the Valley of the Kings,
allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact the first solution: 4-5
February 1289; the second solution: 20-21 February
according to Julian Calendar 1586 [NHE].

1. THE FAILED ATTEMPT OF THE RESTORATION AND

THE NEW HEIGHT OF THE UNREST. THE ROMANOVS
RISE TO POWER.
For some time the revolt in Russia-Horde is worn down.
The Oprichnina is destroyed and the Horde power is
temporarily, for approximately 25-30 years, restored under
the rule of the branch of the old Horde dynasty. It
comprises Simeon-Ivan, followed by Feodor Ivanovich,
and then Boris 'Godunov'.
However it was too late. The Protestants firmly established
themselves at the Russian-Horde royal court. It is shortly
followed by a new large scale revolt of the early XVII c.
The Protestant party regains power once again. The royal
throne is seized by the Romanovs, their undisguised
minion. But resistance of the remnants of Russia-Horde
continues up until the end of the XVIII c. (Pugachev's
Rebellion).
Horde's penultimate attempt to return to power was the so
called 'Razin Uprising', which in fact was a war between
the two splinter-states of the former Empire. Namely
between Moscow state, where the Romanovs (the rebel
boyars) were already in power, and the South Russian
Astrakhan state, where the descendants of the Horde
dynasty still remained in command. Stepan Timofeyevich
Razin was Commander of the Astrakhan Horde army. The
Romanovs heavily relied on the military support of
Western Europe. Their most reliable troops were Reiter
regiments, streltsy (riflemen) comprised of Western
mercenaries [4v1], ch.9:4. The war ends with the defeat of
the Horde army and the incorporation of the Astrakhan

Czardom to Moscow. Nevertheless there still remained a

vast Russian Horde Kingdom cutting across the whole of
Siberia, the Far East and the most significant part of the
North American continent. It was called Muscovite (or
Russian) Tartary. It was conquered by the Romanovs and
the United States only at the end of the XVIII c., following
the Romanovs' victory over 'Pugachev' [4v1], ch.11:2.
Thus, in 1605 The Time of Troubles began in Russia. In
1613 a sharp turning point took place the pro-Western
dynasty of the Romanovs-Zakharyin-Yurievs' ascent to the
throne.
The Romanovs banished the Cossack Horde from
Moscovy. This was the end of the Old Russian dynasty.
The remains of the defiant troops of the Old Empire were
pushed away from Moscovy. As a result today we see the
Cossack regions not in the centre of Russia, but far away.
All of these Cossack regions are the legacy of RussiaHorde. For example, Kazakhstan is simply Cossack-Stan,
i.e. a Cossack region, a Cossack site.
As a result of the Romanovs' open pro-Western policy and
the weakening of Russia itself, the 'Mongol' Empire splits
into several states Russia, Turkey, Austria, Germany,
Italy, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, France, Spain,
Egypt, England, Middle East, Persia, China, Japan, India,
America and some other European, Asian and African
countries, fig.77.
2. THE TURNING OF THE ROMANOVS' RUSSIA AND
TURKEY AGAINST EACH OTHER AS THE TWO
HALVES OF THE FORMER EMPIRE.

But for Western Europe there still existed the danger of

overcoming the crisis in Russia. The success of the
Reformation rebellion was not secured and largely
depended on the caprice of the Moscow Czar Romanov,
though he was the ally of Western Europe. He might be a
supporter today, but tomorrow he might change his mind.
Besides there is still Turkey, which wasn't subjected to any
damaging defeat at all.
Western Europe the epicentre of the rebellion does its
best not to allow even a possibility of the restoration of the
Great Empire. Not being capable of succeeding it via a
military route, the Western politicians emphasised the
diplomatic work. They wanted to split the former union of
Russia and the Ottoman Empire (Atamania), and to set
them against each other.
Let us recall that Russia and The Ottoman Empire up until
the XVII c. were parts of the same state. In particular,
Zaporozhean Cossacks freely moved between Russia and
Turkey serving in turn the Czar or the sultan, without
considering such changes to be treacherous.
In the end the relations between Russia and Turkey got
spoiled, but not in the least on religious grounds. In
Russia, prior to the Romanovs, Muslims were not
persecuted, and the Russian Orthodox were not
persecuted in The Ottoman Empire. But as soon as the
Romanovs' regime strengthened, they started the wars
with Turkey which lasted with intervals over the entire 300
years of the Romanovs' reign. It was for the purpose of the
ideological support of these wars that the slogan
'archetypal religious discord' between the two countries
was introduced.

Let's remember that the famous Turkish Janissaries, the

elite infantry units that formed the Ottoman Sultan's
household troops, consisted mainly of the Balkan Slavs
[4v1]. The popular belief, that allegedly they were 'taken
captive as infants', is not accurate. As in Russia at that
time, the conscription of one tenth of the population into
the Cossack army was a lawful 'tagma' a part of the
national service, similar rules presumably applied in the
Ottoman Empire. 'Taken captives' has nothing to do with
it.
3. DIPLOMATIC SUCCESS OF THE REFORMATION.
So, the Romanovs come to power in Russia. The tension
of Russian military pressure on Western Europe is lifted.
Peter I is 'cutting a window through to Europe' and
subjects life in Russia to the Western fashion in many
ways. The idea of the Western superiority over Russia is
being embedded into the consciousness of the Russian
population. In the field of science, culture, etc. The
German historians of the late XIX c. wrote: 'Peter
interfered even into the family and public life. He banned
FEMALE TOWER-CHAMBERS ('TEREM') and wouldn't
tolerate the former CUSTOM OF WOMEN COVERING
THEIR FACES. He demanded that women were not kept
under lock and key in an Asiatic manner, but would walk
about freely in the European manner He also introduced
European customs in Public life and arranged balls and
assemblies according to the French fashion. Moreover he
commanded the boyars to wear Western-European
clothes in order to transform both their domestic and social

life TO CHANGE THE NATION'S ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE

according to one of the English diplomats, and to make his
people truly European, or, according to Peter's OWN
EXPRESSION in the presence of the Danish ambassador
Jens Juel in 1710: 'TO TURN CATTLE INTO PEOPLE'
in a nutshell, THERE HARDLY EXISTED ANY CUSTOM
WHICH PETER WOULD NOT WISH TO TRANSFORM
in order to shock his people out of its barbaric state' as
soon as possible. [336], v.5, p.569-570.
Beginning with the XVIII c. various 'educators'
continuously hammer in to us: it is necessary to turn cattle
into people. Along the way we shall note that there are
many reasons to believe that the authentic zar Peter I
was replaced during his well-known 'journey to the West'.
See our book 'Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great: the
Czar fictitious and the Czar false'.
The Romanovs re-wrote the history of Russia. In
particular, the Russian-Horde army was declared to be an
evil foreign power, which conquered not just Western
Europe now it is only mentioned in passing but
allegedly Russia itself. The descendants of the Mighty =
the 'Mongols' = the Scythians, in England were
respectfully called the Scots (Scots Scythians), i.e. the
very noble Scottish [4v2], ch.6:11. But in occupied Russia
the triumphant victors squeamishly called the population
bestial, i.e. filthy beasts.
At the same time they try to consign to oblivion those facts
clearly showing that in the epoch of the XIII-XIV cc.
Western Europe was still a sparsely populated and
undeveloped land see Ioannes Malalas and Mauro

Orbini. All these lands were colonized and populated by

Russia-Horde during the 'Mongol' conquest. Only then
there started developing industrial crafts, science, culture,
hygiene; see in [5v1], ch.12:4.4, a chapter called: 'When
did they begin to wash hands before eating?' In it we cite
some information put forward by the historians on this
interesting subject. Apparently, they started to wash hands
before eating comparatively recently, only with the arrival
of the 'Mongols' [457:1], p.216-217.
4. BY DISTORTING HISTORY THE WESTERN
CHRONOLOGISTS MOVE THE UNPLEASANT EVENTS
INTO THE PAST.
Following the retreat of the Horde and Ottoman Empire
from Western Europe, the chronologists attempted to
erase from the historical memory all the still fresh but, from
a European standpoint, unpalatable recollections. These
events were pushed back into the distant past, where they
would be less painful.
Ultimately, it's as if the historians were saying that
anything could have occurred in the past. But since then
no one at any time conquered Europe in such a barbaric
way. And even if they did have to pay tax, it was mainly
done by some very ancient Romans to some very ancient
Goths and the long gone, more ancient Huns. And
anyway, is it even worth recollecting? Since then
everything has changed. The mediaeval and modern
Europe is culture, progress and finesse and the East
remained the same wild Horde as it was before.
And in order for the public opinion to come to terms with

these 'truths' for many years they devised historic literary

and film epics. Visually and persuasively making us
understand how, for example, 'the early mediaeval
Eastern barbarian Attila the Hun only through his
ignorance dared to challenge The Great Western Rome.
But in the very end having marvelled at Italian culture, and
cowed by Roman might, he turns back, shamefully fleeing
to the refuge of the barren steppes.
According to the Romanovs' version of Russian history, a
huge gap appeared in place of the XV century. It was filled
up with duplicates from the XVI century. The historians
'plugged the hole' which appeared during the editorial
cleansing of the chronicles. This is precisely why the life
story of Ivan III the Terrible is to a great degree the
reflection of the events which took place a century later,
under Ivan IV the Terrible.
The word NATION originated most likely from a Russian
word NASHI (meaning OURS). After the split, the Empire
was thus called 'our own', i.e. the people who found
themselves inside one fragment of the Empire often
hostile to the world around it. That is exactly the time when
'insiders' and 'outsiders' appeared. Earlier, in the 'Mongol'
time there was nothing of the kind. Everyone was a
subject of one Empire and obeyed one Khan-emperor. But
following the Time of Troubles the terms 'insiders' and
'outsiders' acquired a special meaning. A battle for the
vast Imperial succession commences. Rivers of blood are
shed. Political and religious boundaries emerge dividing
the nations. Until now, for instance, in English there is a
word spelled NATION, i.e. 'NASHI'. The English
NATIONALITY = national identity, citizenship, nation,

allegiance; it could have originated from the Russian:

NASHI LYUDI = OUR PEOPLE. It well corresponds with
the definition of 'national identity' [7v2].
5. THE LAST EMPERORS OF THE GREAT EMPIRE =
THE RUSSIAN CZARS-KHANS OF THE EARLY XVII
CENTURY.
&& BORIS GODUNOV.
BORIS FEDOROVICH 'GODUNOV' 1598-1605
ACCORDING TO [362]. He was a son of the previous
Czar Fedor Ivanovich. Godunov's story is badly distorted
by the Romanovs [4v1]. Czar Boris 'Godunov' is not at all
an old experienced politician. He is still a very young
person. His characteristics, ascribed to him by the
Romanovs and so familiar to us today, should refer not to
him, but to Dmitry Godunov, his uncle on his mother's
side. According to our reconstruction it was Dmitry
Godunov who was a brother of Irina Godunov, the wife of
Czar Fedor Ioannovich. Czaritsa Irina was not the sister of
Boris 'Godunov', but HIS MOTHER. Thus, Boris
Fedorovich 'Godunov' is the LEGITIMATE SON AND
HEIR of Czar Fedor Ivanovich.
Initially it was a peaceful reign with no major domestic
revolts. The government of Boris Fedorovich tries to
succeed in the Livonian war via diplomatic means, being
supported, in particular, by England.
Then the Troubles begin. Czar Boris is poisoned and dies
young, leaving an heir an infant son, Fedor Borisovich,
his wife Maria and their daughter Ksenia. The conspirators
count on Dmitry Ivanovich, the son of Czar Ivan Ivanovich,

who was removed from power in 1572. Dmitry Ivanovich

was forced to become a monk, but managed to escape to
Poland. He tried to seize the power by military means with
the assistance of the Polish mercenaries, but was
defeated by the army of Boris Fedorovich. However the
plotters poisoned Czar Boris Godunov in the capital and
cleared the way to the throne for Dmitry Ivanovich.
&& FEDOR BORISOVICH.
FEDOR BORISOVICH, 1605. As a boy became the Czar
after the death of his father Boris Fedorovich. Was soon
murdered together with his mother by the plotters.
&& DMITRY IVANOVICH, 'FALSE DMITRY'.
DMITRY IVANOVICH (FALSE DMITRY) THE
'IMPOSTER', 'THIEF' 1605-1610. A son of Czar Ivan
Ivanovich who was stripped of his authority in 1572. He
was forced to take monastic vows, but escaped to Poland
and began his struggle for power. He seized the throne as
a result of the plot and the palace coup d'tat. A year later,
in 1606, he was deposed by the supporters of Vasily
Ivanovich Shuisky, also a member of the royal house. The
reign of Dmitry Ivanovich and the simultaneous reign of
Vasily Shuisky is the epoch of the largest dynastic revolt in
Russia, the civil war and chaos. In the Romanov history
Dmitry is called an 'imposter' and a 'thief'. Notably the
'imposter' and the 'thief' are presented as two separate
people. He was murdered in 1610.
The infamous story of Dmitry the 'Imposter' always
produced a strange impression on researchers [183], v.2,
p.97. Everything becomes clear in the New Chronology.

This person was indeed a Czarevich (a prince) and his

name was in fact Dmitry Ivanovich. He was a son of Czar
Ivan Ivanovich, who reigned from 1563 to 1572 and was
then deposed. Czar Ivan Ivanovich was brought up in the
Zakharyin-Romanovs family, who ruled the state on his
behalf, as Ivan Ivanovich himself was still very young (see
above). As we can see the son of Ivan Ivanovich,
Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich (the future 'False Dmitry') was
also brought up in the family of the Romanovs. In order to
prevent Dmitry ascending the throne, he was forced to
take monastic vows, as the becoming a monk, according
to the old Russian tradition, denied the right to take the
throne.
But a reader might object Czarevich Dmitry, as it's
well-known, was murdered in Uglich. Does it mean that
under the name of Dmitry Ivanovich there was still an
imposter? No, it does not.
It is thought that under Ivan the 'Terrible', there were
allegedly TWO separate princes with the same name:
Dmitry Ivanovich. They were both children of Ivan the
'Terrible'. One death occurred due to a nurses' negligence,
who drowned the child in 1563. The second the
infamous Uglich tragedy allegedly of 1591 [4v].
In our opinion there was ONLY ONE death of Czarevich
Dmitry Ivanovich in 1563. However subsequently, during
the rule of Vasily Shuisky, a false version of Czarevich
Dmitry's murder in Uglich in 1591 (generally accepted
today) was set in motion. The purpose of this fabrication is
clear. Czar Vasily Shuisky endeavoured to present his
rival Dmitry Ivanovich as an 'IMPOSTER'. To achieve this
it was declared that the true Czarevich Dmitry was

allegedly murdered as a boy in Uglich. Therefore the Czar,

who fights against Shuisky is none other, but an imposter.
In fact it was a completely different Czarevich Dmitry
Ivanovich who died he was the son of Czar Ivan
Vasilievich and a brother to Czar Ivan Ivanovich, the father
of 'False Dmitry'. He was an uncle to his namesake the
'imposter' Dmitry Ivanovich, whom Shuisky was fighting
against. Using the coincidence between the names, the
death of one of them was attributed to the other. Thus the
true Czar Dmitry Ivanovich was declared an 'IMPOSTER'.
The entire story of Czarevich Dmitry's death could have
been composed in Moscow. 'There are reasons to believe
that Uglich's source became a victim to a retrospective
appraisal of events [777], p.72. To put it simply, it was a
FORGERY.
We'll elaborate. The falsification was based on a crafty
SUBSTITUTION. The Shuiskys deliberately mixed up (on
paper) Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich, who died in 1563, and
Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich the 'Imposter', who by no
means died as a child, but on the contrary jostled with
Vasily Shuisky for power at that very time. The exchange
was cunning. The thing is, that Czarevich Dmitry, who died
in 1563, as we show in our book 'The Expulsion of the
Czars' ('Izgnaniye Czarei'), WAS ALREADY A
CONSECRATED SAINT AND POPULAR AMONG THE
PEOPLE by the time of this fraud. The Shuiskys SLYLY
used the identical names of the two princes the dead
and the living one. They attributed the holy name of Saint
Dmitry Ivanovich which was widely popular among the
people and who died in 1563, to their contemporary
Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. Shifting (on paper) the death

of Saint Czarevich approximately 30 years forward from

1563 to allegedly 1591. Thus they turned (again on paper)
their living and healthy rival Dmitry Ivanovich into the
Czarevich who allegedly had died in childhood. Following
which the living Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich naturally
turned into an 'Imposter' (according to them). As he
allegedly had already died a long time ago!
At first this fraud was necessary for Czar Vasily Shuisky in
1606. But later the Romanovs used it very cunningly.
Moreover, they directly participated in this fraud. It was
none other, but Feodor Nikitich Romanov, the future
Patriarch Filaret, who went to Uglich to unveil Czarevich
Dmitry's remains [988:00], article 'Filaret, the Russian
patriarch'.
In the Cathedral of the Archangel of the Moscow Kremlin
there was allegedly a fragment kept of the grave-stone of
Czarevich Dmitry Ivanovich. It was most likely a modern
replica. Please see our theory on the burial of Czarevich
Dmitry in Egypt in [5v2], ch.7:5. We are referring to the
famous 'pharaoh' Tutankhamun burial site discovered by
Howard Carter in the first quarter of the XX century. Most
likely the young Tutankhamun is the very Dmitry, buried in
the Horde Imperial cemetery in the early XVII century. It
was one of the last burials of the Russian Horde khans
there.
&& VASILY SHUYISKY AND THE ROMANOVS.
VASILY IVANOVICH SHUISKY 1606-1610 according to
[362]. Ascended the throne in 1606 as the result of the plot
and rebellion against Czar Dmitry Ivanovich. There were
two Royal courts formed in the country one of Vasily

Ivanovich in Moscow and the other the court of Dmitry

Ivanovich not far from Moscow, in Tushino. Dynastic
embroilment and chaos stirred. Shuisky made an attempt
to establish a new dynasty as a branch of the Old
Russian Horde dynasty, which the Shuiskys belonged to.
This attempt failed.
Thus, 'False Dmitry I' is the true Czarevich Dmitry, the
son of Czar Ivan. From the very beginning of Dmitry's
struggle for the throne EVERYONE WHO SAW TOOK
HIM FOR CZAREVICH. The Polish aristocracy, the Polish
King, the Russian boyars, crowds of people in Putyvl and
other cities and at last his own mother Czaritsa Maria
Nagaya, by this time the nun Marfa [777], [183], v.2.
But the historians do not believe the numerous claims of
the contemporaries that Dmitry is the real son of Czar
Ivan, and proclaim all of the eyewitnesses to be either
gullible simpletons or pretenders. Russian history was
finalised under the Romanovs. They purposefully declared
Dmitry to be the imposter and 'False Dmitry'. Why? The
answer is simple. It appeared that Dmitry, who did become
a Czar and who was of the royal descent, HAD A SON.
The Romanov historians dubbed him a 'little thief'.
Following Dmitry's death his son should have succeeded
him. But the Romanovs were very keen on grasping power
themselves. They usurped the throne even while Dmitry's
son was still alive. Hence ELECTING MIKHAIL
ROMANOV TO BECOME THE CZAR HAPPENED
SIMPLY TO BE UNLAWFUL, as the son of the actual
former Czar was still alive. There was only one way out for
the Romanovs to declare Dmitry as an 'imposter', which
was immediately done. However, there still remained one

more obstacle Dmitry's living son. The problem was

easily solved. The Romanovs cold bloodedly hanged the
boy on the Spassky Gate.
It is indeed a complicated point in Russian history. And for
the Romanovs dynasty it is the key moment. The
Romanovs needed a proof of the legitimacy of their
enthronement. They solved the problem via means which
were clear and readily available to them.
We have mentioned above that Czarevich Dmitry was
enthroned as a result of the boyars' plot which deposed
Czar Boris. However the boyars regarded the Czarevich
only as interim figure. The head of the plot was Shuisky,
who himself was striving for power. That is why Czarevich
Dmitry was merely in the way. Soon after Dmitry's
coronation the palace coup d'tat took place. It is thought
that as a result Dmitry was killed. Vasily Shuisky ascends
to the throne.
In this plot the Romanovs acted most likely on Shuisky's
side, as Feodor Romanov, the future Patriarch Philaret,
brought back from exile, was appointed Patriarch of
Moscow.
Our point of view: CZAR DMITRY WAS NOT KILLED AND
MANAGED TO ESCAPE. Czaritsa Marfa was presented
with someone else's body. That is why it was disfigured, in
order for it to be impossible to identify the murdered
person. And in order to irreversibly remove traces, the
body was burnt [436], p.288.
Thus Czar Dmitry remained alive after the coup. It should
be expected that he will take centre stage once again.
Indeed, soon in the very same town of Putyvl, which was
previously Dmitry the first's headquarters, there

EMERGES 'FALSE DMITRY II'. The first time 'FALSE

DMITRY' was seen by crowds of people. It appears that
the same crowds of people having seen 'False Dmitry II'
'ONCE AGAIN RECOGNISED HIM AS CZAR DMITRY!
'Having gathered the people in Putyvl, Shakhovskoy
presented a new contender and claimed that in Moscow
the traitors had MURDERED SOME GERMAN INSTEAD
OF DMITRY AND DMITRY IS STILL ALIVE, and that the
people should rebel against Shuisky' [183], v.2, p.125.
'FALSE DMITRY II' IS THE VERY SAME CZAR DMITRY,
AKA 'FALSE DMITRY I'. Soon after Marina Mnishek gave
birth to a son of 'False Dmitry II', whom the Romanovs
were quick to call a 'little thief'. 'False Dmitry II' himself was
nicknamed 'Tushinsky Thief'. Thus acknowledging that it
was 'False Dmitry's II' son. It was this very child who was
later killed by the Romanovs and hanged from the
Spassky Gate. In order to eliminate the legitimate
successor to Czar Dmitry.
Marina Mnishek's behaviour becomes clear. After the
death of 'False Dmitry II' SHE DID NOT LEAVE RUSSIA
AND STAYED BY HER SON'S SIDE, CONTINUED TO
FIGHT FOR THE RUSSIAN THRONE with the aid of the
troops loyal to her, headed by Zarutsky. No wonder. She
knew for sure that her son was a legitimate successor to
the Russian Czar Dmitry. But if he was a son of some
rootless 'Tushinsky thief' then it would have been more
sensible to immediately leave the tumultuous country. In
which Mikhail Romanov had already assumed power. She
ought to have fled to her native Poland. She had such an
opportunity. But instead she set off to Volga, Don, Yaik
River, TO JOIN THE COSSACKS [1.83], v.2, p.158. The

brave woman was fighting for her own rights and for the
rights of her son the legitimate heir to the Horde throne.
A war between Zarutsky and Marina with the Romanovs
began. This is one of the most obscure parts in Russian
history. It is most likely that the description of this war
known today was invented by the victorious Romanovs
who won this war [436, p.769-778. Represented by the
Romanov historians it looks like a battle of the Romanovs,
the legitimate rulers 'against the thieves'.
It is possible that Czar Dmitry Ivanovich had not yet been
killed at this point. In which case he was executed by the
Romanovs later. His execution was later passed off as the
execution of Zarutzky. The suspicion increases by the fact,
that following Zarutsky's execution there immediately
emerges allegedly the second Zarutsky, about whom
nothing was known earlier for some reason. More
specifically, onstage enters the ataman of The Cherkasy
Malorosy Cossacks, 'A certain Zakhar Zarutsky, possibly a
brother or a relative of Ivan' [436], p.779. Most likely there
was nonetheless just the one Zarutsky, and Horde Czar
Dmitry Ivanovich was there with Marina Mnishek, whom
later on the Romanovs cunningly called Zarutsky, in order
to avert suspicion of regicide, which clearly suggests itself.
The army of Zarutsky (Czar Dmitry?) and Marina Mnishek
were crushed by the Romanovs.
6. THE CROSS AND THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A
STAR.
The crescent moon with a star is an old symbol of CzarGrad [6v1]. It owes its origin to the blaze of the star of

Bethlehem and to the solar eclipse which are associated

with the Nativity of Christ and the crucifixion of Andronicus
Christ. Today the crescent moon with a star is perceived
exclusively as a Muslim symbol. However, up until the end
of the XVII century a crescent moon with a star adorned,
for example, the spire of the huge Christian St. Stephen's
Cathedral in Vienna. The crescent moon was removed
from the spire (and replaced with a cross) only in 1685
[6v1], ch.5.
A star inscribed into a crescent moon was a form of the
Christian cross, pic.13. A cross in the shape of a star 8or 6-pointed, for example, - is known in mediaeval
iconography. Such images of the crosses-stars can be
seen on the walls of the famous St. Sophia Cathedral in
Kiev. It turns out that a cross with a crescent moon on the
domes of the Russian cathedrals and a Turkish crescent
moon with a star, symbolising a cross, are just the
VARIOUS FORMS OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN SYMBOL!
The universal symbol of the Great Empire acquired a
slightly different form in Russia and Turkey. When the
Empire fragmented in the XVII century the Christian cross
remained with the Christians and the Christian crescent
moon with a star with the Muslims. The Christian sixpointed star with the Jews.
Is there a crescent moon present in the old Russian coat
of arms? For example, in the coat of arms of the Russian
cities? Many readers would probably think that nothing of
the kind existed in Russia, as today it is very rarely that
one might see such a Russian coat of arms.
Nevertheless let us open a fundamental edition [162]
dedicated to the coats of arms of the Russian cities

entered into the complete body of laws of the Russian

Empire from 1649 to 1900. A book [162] for each coat of
arms indicates the date of it being established. The
majority of the dates refer to the XVII-XIX cc., however,
reportedly, the majority of the coats of arms date back to
an earlier age.
It appears that in the old coats of arms of the Russian
cities the symbol of the crescent moon with a cross = a
star was present. Notably, very vividly expressed. For
example, the coats of arms of several cities in the
Chernigov region consists of a large crescent moon with a
cross inserted in it. Sometimes there is a star placed near
a cross. There are quite a few such examples we
counted at least 29 coats of arms [4v1], ch.10. The
crosses with the crescent moons, i.e. the crescent moons
with a star = cross (see fig.13, bottom left) are, for
example, high on the domes of the Moscow Kremlin. Now
the presence of numerous crescent moons with a cross (a
star) on the domes of the Christian churches becomes
clear.
7. THE DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE AND THE
CRESCENT MOON WITH A STAR-CROSS.
Why did a two-headed eagle become the symbol of the
Empire? After all, the two-headed creatures very rarely
occur in nature, except as an anomaly. It is clear, that the
symbol of the Imperial two-headed eagle was determined
by some reasons far removed from the study of nature.
Let us refer to the exceptional and fascinating engravings
by Albrecht Drer, comprising his famous Arch of

Maximilian I , known as Ehrenpforte [1067]. In fig.78 there

is presented one of the coats of arms on Drer's
Ehrenpforte. It is perfectly clear, that here is depicted a
crescent moon with rays emanating from it. At the same
time it is apparent that these are the upturned wings of an
eagle. The rays are the feathers of a bird. There is no
head of an eagle here. So, THE TWO-HEADED EAGLE,
MOST LIKELY, SYMBOLISES THE CRESCENT MOON
WITH A STAR, OR, THE CRESCENT MOON WITH A
CROSS, WHICH IS THE SAME THING, as a star was
often depicted in the form of a cross. The two heads of the
eagle looking in opposite directions is one of the forms
of a star-cross, resting on the crescent-wings of the eagle,
fig.79, fig.80. See [4v2], ch.2. The two-headed eagle with
the wings raised upwards - is one of the forms of the
Christian cross, 8- or 6-ended. Aka, we'll repeat, - the
Ottoman crescent moon with a star.
8. THE ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS ON RUSSIAN
WEAPONRY.
Before the end of the XVI century Russia, Ottoman Empire
and Persia were all parts of the single Horde Empire. That
is why there surely must have existed common cultural
traditions. In particular, the similar weaponry production
and ornamentation techniques. Despite the emerging
religious split between Christianity and Islam in the XVI
century, the state and military traditions of the XVI-XVII cc.
must have still been very close.
Sure enough up until the middle of the XVII century, i.e.
already in the epoch of the Romanovs, THE RUSSIAN

CRAFTSMEN still decorated the weapons even the

Royal ones! with ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS. It was only in
the second half of the XVII century they were probably told
that they were no longer allowed to do so. After that the
Russian weapons with Arabic inscriptions disappeared.
However, Russian Royal weaponry with Arabic
inscriptions emblazoned with gold, diamonds and other
precious stones produced by the best craftsmen of the
Armoury Chamber, were preserved, in view of its material
value. But most of the 'Russian-Arabic' weaponry were
moved to the storerooms, see Appendix 5 in [6v3]. But
today, when all of this is forgotten, some of this 'dangerous
weaponry' is displayed in the museums. For instance, in
the Kremlin Armoury Chamber. Here, for example, is the
ceremonial helmet of the Moscow Czars made of
damascene steel called 'Jericho cap' ('State helmet' Tr.),
i.e. Jericho cap, fig.81. However, in order to see the
ARABIC INSCRIPTION ON THE RUSSIAN WEAPONRY
you have to be very attentive. As the explanatory signs
don't say anything about such 'improper' engravings. And
the exhibits are often displayed in such a way that the
Arabic engravings are barely discernible [4v2], ch.1.
Weapons with the Arabic inscriptions were being forged
not only, and quite possibly, not as much in Turkey. In the
Christian Russia UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE XVII
CENTURY they liked to ornament the weaponry with the
Arabic script. The sabre of Prince Mstislavsky, who was
Ivan the Terrible's commander, was adorned with Arabic
aphorisms [187], p.207. One of the aphorisms goes:
'There will be strong protection in the battle' [187], p.207.
There is also a Russian inscription on the sabre stating the

identity of the owner [187], p.207.

So why today are the Russian weaponry with the Arabic
inscriptions always attributed to a non-Russian origin,
usually Turkish or Persian? In those cases, when the
Russian work is completely obvious, it is considered that
the inexperienced and ignorant Russian craftsmen copied
the wonderful Eastern and Western pieces in an
apprentice-like fashion. Alleging that they mechanically
transferred them, like some 'beautiful pictures' onto the
magnificent weapons of the Russian Czars and
commanders without understanding their meaning. And
they proudly wore and showed off those strange
aphorisms which were incomprehensible to them.
Accompanied by the reserved and incredulous smiles of
the learned Arabs and even more learned Europeans.
This is not true. In the epoch of the XVI and even the XVII
cc. a great many of the Russian-Horde weaponry with the
Arabic engravings were produced, it seems, in RussiaHorde, which in the XV-XVI cc. constituted a whole with
the Ottoman Empire=Atamania. Later, a considerable part
of the weaponry made in Moscow, Tula, Urals and the
Russian weapons in general was cunningly declared to be
either 'damascene', 'Eastern' or 'Western'. An opinion
formed, that allegedly in that epoch the Russians carried
mainly foreign weapons. As, purportedly, there were very,
very little home-made weapons and they were of poor
quality, though it is obvious that any military power fought
using its home grown weaponry. That said, they forgot that
Mediaeval Damascus was T-Moscow, i.e. the name of
Moscow with the definite article T (denoting respect).
They also made weaponry with LATIN inscriptions in

Russia. Or at least they used the Latin letters. As, for

example, the precious Damask steel sabre made by the
RUSSIAN craftsman Ilya Prosvit in 1618 [187], p.156-157.
The historians reassure us that the Arabic inscriptions are
present on the old Russian weapons only because they
were presented as the gifts to the Russian Czars and the
Russian warriors by foreigners, who wrote in Arabic. This
explanation is incorrect. Moreover, it appears that THE
RUSSIAN CZARS THEMSELVES PRESENTED THE
FOREIGNERS WITH GIFTS OF WEAPONRY ADORNED
WITH ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS [4v2], ch.1.
Everything said about the Arabic inscriptions on the
Russian weaponry does not only refer to the Kremlin
Armoury Chamber. For example, in the museum of
Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, the modern town of Alexandrov
in the Raspyatskaya (the Crucifixion) Church-belfry there
is exhibited the armoury of a Russian warrior chain mail,
a shield, a helmet, fig.82. The museum sign informs us,
that this is Russian armour. Indeed, the entire helmet is
covered with the depiction of exotic animals, horsemen,
birds carried out in the Russian style, reminiscent of the
famous engravings on the walls of the white-stone
cathedrals of Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. The nose guard
of the helmet ends above with a 4-ended - cross. All of
which unmistakably points to the Russian origin of the
helmet. At the same time there is a clear wide band
inscription in Arabic running round it. Next to the helmet
there is the shield. Once again there is a wide band
inscription in Arabic running along the edge of the shield
[4v2], ch.1. And this is a Russian shield!
The same sort of thing is in Moscow museum-reserve

'Kolomenskoye'. There are exhibited two old Russian

military helmets [4v2], ch.1. Both of them have the
inscriptions in Arabic and only in Arabic! And so on.
So, on the Russian Mediaeval weapons the inscriptions
survived, which today are perceived as Arabic. Should you
pay attention to it just once, you immediately begin to
stumble across such examples at every step. This
astonishing fact does not fit into the traditional version of
the Romanov history. Just this one fact is enough to
understand that the history of Russia of the pre-Romanov
epoch was completely different than it is presented to us
today.
9. EVEN IN THE XVII CENTURY THE RUSSIAN TEXTS
WERE SOMETIMES WRITTEN WITH ARABIC
LETTERS.
Even in the XVII c. in Russia they still used a variety of
alphabets to write down the Russian texts. The perfect
example is the travelling notes, 'kept by Paul of Aleppo'
(Paul, Archdeacon of Aleppo) the talented ecclesiastical
writer of the mid XVII century, who accompanied his father
everywhere,
Patriarch Macarios III of Antioch. In 1656 the Patriarch
visited Russia for the first time and was in Moscow On
the invitation of Czar Alexey Mikhailovich the Primate of
the Antioch Church he visited The Savvino-Storozhevsky
Monastery' [422], p.94.
When accompanying the Patriarch, Paul of Aleppo made
detailed notes, a trip report of a kind. Maybe such were
the rules of the Patriarchy in that time. The notes survive

to our day and are considered as remarkably valuable

testimonies of the epoch of Alexey Mikhailovich [422].
The question is what language was the text written in? For
our contemporaries brought up on the ScaligerianRomanov history the answer would seem to be obvious.
One must suppose that Orthodox Christian Paul of
Aleppo, the son of the Orthodox Christian Patriarch of
Antioch, who arrived to Orthodox Christian Russia to visit
Orthodox Christian Czar Alexey Mikhailovich would write
his report either in Russian or in Greek. At the very least in
Latin. Which, admittedly would have been odd. But
apparently the ACCOUNTS ARE WRITTEN IN ARABIC
[422], p.95.
Further on it becomes even more intriguing. The Orthodox
author of the XVII century freely alternates between Arabic
and Russian, but at the same time he writes down a
RUSSIAN TEXT WITH ARABIC LETTERS [422], p.98-99.
Thus it unexpectedly becomes clear that in the epoch of
Alexey Mikhailovich a RUSSIAN TEXT COULD HAVE
EASILY BEEN WRITTEN DOWN IN RUSSIAN, BUT
USING ARABIC LETTERS.
The very fact, that Paul Aleppo's accounts, written in
Arabic and Russian, but using Arabic letters survive,
means that it was carefully preserved as an important
official document.
But today we are assured that the writing of such
documents in Arabic must definitely indicate their Muslim
origin. At the same time the Antioch Patriarchy was
considered one of the most important centres of the
Orthodox Church. We can see that in the XVII century the
picture was different from the way it is presented to us

today [4v2], ch.1.

Another example is the famous writing - The Journey
Beyond Three Seas (Khozheniye za tri morya) by Afanasy
Nikitin. The text was written by an Orthodox Christian. 'The
Journey' was mainly written in Russian. However from
time to time Afanasy Nikitin freely and fluently changes
into Turkic and even Arabic languages. Then, in the
equally flowing way he changes back to the Russian
language [4v2], ch.1. It is obvious, that he himself, as do
his readers, knows several languages. But this is not the
main thing. The main thing this is that the Turkic or the
Arabic languages are used by Afanasy Nikitin for the
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PRAYERS! Or, if you
will, for the Islamic-Orthodox Christian prayers. However
strange this combination of words may sound in our times.
10. THE RUSSIAN BILINGUAL COINS.
Apparently on the 'Heads' side (of the Russian coins of the
XIV century Auth.) there is ALWAYS A COPY FROM
THE TATAR COIN On the reverse side of these coins
there is ALWAYS an inscription the 'Grand Prince's seal'
or 'Prince's seal and the image of the sealing wax itself.
Possibly, soon after, they started adding the name of a
Grand Prince Hence it is necessary to conclude that
ALL THE FIRST RUSSIAN COINS HAD TWO NAMES
ON THEM' [309], P.33.
The numismatic historians call these coins 'double
named'. I.e. on one side there is a name of a Tatar Khan,
and on the other of a Russian prince. It's true though,
that, allegedly, due to their illiteracy the Russian money

makers often put down the name of a wrong Khan [309],

p.33.
Our explanation is simple. All of these coins are not
double named, but bilingual. Meaning that on the coin
there was printed a name of one ruler who was
simultaneously a Khan and a grand prince. But it was
written in two languages Russian and Tatar.
11. THE HORDE EMPIRE BROKE UP.
The 1610-1613 strife lasted for three years. The change of
dynasties takes place. Mikhail Romanov mounts the
throne, 1613-1645. The very name of a new dynasty the
Romanovs probably meant at that point NEW ROME. It is
likely the new rulers tried to emphasise the difference from
ROME OLD, i.e. from the Russian-Horde Empire of the
XIV-XVI cc.
In Western Europe the former 'Mongol' governors who had
split off from the metropoly enter a fierce battle for lands
and dominance. Wars break out which today are known to
us as the 'Reformation wars'. During this epoch, instead of
the previous point of view: 'All the lands in one and
undivided Empire belong to the Czar-Khan and are divided
by him', a new ideology of the split emerges: 'This is our
territory, we are the masters here and do not take orders
from anyone '; 'We are better than the others'; 'We have
lived here before you, so return these lands to us'; 'Our
achievements are better than yours (our ships are better
than yours, our science is better than yours)'; 'We are
sophisticated, you are 'ignorant', etc. The new
unscrupulous ideology of the reformers was reflected in

the cynical book 'The Prince' attributed to Machiavelli. A

frenzied acrimonious carve up of the territories of the
legacy of the Great Empire stretched on for decades.
Rivers of blood were spilt. Today the true reason for the
carve up - fight is forgotten. The historians bring the entire
matter down to alleged religious squabbling.
The network of the 'Mongol' fortifications, which for a long
time provided stability and order in the Empire, is
destroyed. Primarily the reformers struck the blow on the
Cathar = Scythian castles of the West Europe and on the
Crusader castles-fortifications of the Middle East in
Syria, etc. They preferred to destroy the former mighty
military fortifications in the Imperial provinces seething
with revolt, fearing that in a few days they might fall in the
hands of their enemies once again. The mighty Hordian
castles were blown up with gun powder.
12. THE ANNIHILATION OF THE CATHARSSCYTHIANS.
The struggle of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc. with
the splinters of the Horde Empire is very well illustrated by
the annihilation of the Cathars in France. The history of
the Cathars is one of the most breath-taking and
mysterious chapters of the Middle Ages.
Allegedly in the X-XI cc. in Western Europe and in
particular in France there emerged a new Christian
movement, the supporters of which became known as the
Cathars (the Cathari), and also the Albigenses (or
Albigeois). It is thought that the religion of the Cathars was
Christian [6.2], ch.1. However, it differs from the Orthodox

Christianity and Catholicism of today in its details. It was

declared to be heretical.
It is widely thought that the Cathar heresy widely spread
and met with the opposition from the Catholic Church. In
the first half of allegedly the XIII century the crusades were
organised against the Cathars. They fought back tooth
and claw, but they were defeated, their mighty fortresses
were destroyed. Allegedly since the XIV c. they 'exit the
stage'. However up until now the south of France is called
'Cathar Country'. Very little remains from them today. But
whatever is left is very impressive. In the first place the
mighty castles-fortresses in the cities, on top of the
mountains and cliffs which controlled the trade and military
routes. The magnificent fortifications received the name of
the 'Cathar Castles'.
As we demonstrate in [6v2], ch.1, the Cathars are the
Scythians of the Volga river, who came to France in the
XIV c. from Russia-Horde during the 'Mongol' conquest.
They settled down here and, as the colonizers, created the
ruling class. Their religion was Christian.
In the epoch of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. the Cathars
= Scythians, having partially mixed with the local
population, created a unique culture, built the cities,
cathedrals, fortresses, some of which are still called
Cathar. In the end of the XVI- beginning of the XVII cc.
during the revolt of the Reformation in West Europe, the
Cathars Scythians were defeated in a gruelling war.
Later they story was 'transported' from the XIV-XVI cc. into
the XI-XIII cc. In addition it was declared that the Cathar =
Scythian Gothic cathedrals starting as early as the XIII
century, i.e. from the very start of their construction,

allegedly were 'genuinely Catholic'. In its later Reformation

sense. This was a falsification. The Bulgarian = Volga
Orthodox Christian religion of the Cathars = Scythians was
proclaimed to be 'heresy'.
The dramatic events of the history of the Cathars =
Scythians found their way onto the pages of the Bible. For
example the story of Count Simon (Osman) de Montfort,
(Earl of Leicester) (aka 'ancient' Pyrrhus) under the name
of ABIMELECH, is briefly described in the Old Testament
Book of Judges, ch.9. Various 'ancient' authors of the XVIXVII cc. gave their account of it. For example, Plutarch =
Petrarch [6v2], ch.1.
Some of the Empire's provinces resisted the split and tried
to restore the former unity. Siberia, the Far East and a part
of the North America were governed by the Horde up until
the middle of the XVIII century. In the West the
conservative Imperial climate was particularly strong in
Spain and England. In the East and South, where there
was no rebellion, the former Imperial regions took up an
antagonistic position towards the West and the proWestern Romanovs. We mean Siberia, the Far East,
America, China, Japan, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and
Hindustan.
13. THE REBELS STRIVE TO PREVENT THE
RESURRECTION OF THE GREAT EMPIRE.
Aiming to establish their rights to the territory ceased and
divided between themselves, the usurpers-rebels in
Europe and the Romanovs in Russia re-write history. The
Great Empire is wiped off the pages of the chronicles. The

adulterated Scaligerian chronology is being created

making the dates of a great number of events artificially
older. Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) and Dionysius
Petavius (1583-1652) are considered to be its creators.
Though it is not very clear if in fact they were the authors
of the works attributed to them or their names were
cunningly made use of. Creating a self-serving version of
history, the new authorities strived to prove their allegedly
'ancient origins' and non-existent alleged hereditary rights
to the throne. A great many newly-minted Crowns, which
were declared 'independent from time immemorial'
appeared in the XVIIc on the ruins of the Empire in
France, Germany, Italy, England, etc. They were in conflict
with each other for a long time.
The theory of the Indo-European languages originating
from the distant India occupies an important place in the
Scaligerian history. Where India is perceived in the
modern sense, as a country situated on the Hindustan
peninsula (the Indian Subcontinent). It is considered that
the proto-languages originated here and permeate many
countries. We do not see any reasons for objections
except one. Where was that 'ancient India' situated in
reality, where did the Indo-European languages originate
from? And when? According to our results it is RussiaHorde of the XIV-XVI cc.
The reformists quickly invent and energetically introduce
the new languages based on the former Imperial state
Church-Slavonic language and the local dialects in the
provinces which acquired their independence. For
example, French, German, Spanish, English and also
'ancient' Latin and 'ancient' Greek. This allowed the rebels

to build language barriers between the populations of the

newly-formed states. Their purpose is clear: to destroy the
unity between the nations of the Empire. In the face of the
newly established religious and linguistic barriers, former
bonds began to break. It is all described in the Bible as
'the confusion of tongues' following 'the Babel
pandemonium'. The invention of the new languages
allowed the reformists to speed up the process of the
casting into oblivion of the memory of the Great Empire to
prevent its restoration. But as these new languages
inevitably incorporated a significant layer from the former
Imperial state Slavonic language, the numerous Slavonic
traces can be found in them even today [7v2].
The process of the dissimilation of languages was also
spurred on by the state activities. The settled Imperial
governors began to introduce the alphabets into their
territories, change grammar, invent new fonts and vowel
marking, new reading rules. For example, in some places
they introduced the way of reading 'not the way it is
spelled. A great example of this is French. Let's say it is
spelled Foix the name of the Cathar city (a town not far
from Toulouse, pronounced as Fwa. They strived to
distance themselves as soon as possible from the
Slavonic language and Slavonic writing.
In schools they introduced the study of the recently
invented languages and in a generation or two the old
language and writing were forgotten by the majority of the
population. The old books written in Slavonic language
with the old characters became incomprehensible. Not
being reproduced they gradually became obsolete. In the
West things were happening particularly fast, as this

process was brought to the level of a national programme.

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

14. HOW THE ROMANOVS DESTROYED THE

HISTORY OF THE HORDE.
The Cathedral of the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin
could have told us a lot of things about the old Russian
history, as it was declared to be the official burial vault of
the Russian Grand Princes and Czars including the first
Romanovs. Today there are approximately 50 tombs in
the cathedral. It is thought that here were buried all the
Moscow Grand Dukes beginning with Ivan Kalita.
However those tombs, which today can be seen in the
cathedral, are the brick tombstones made in the XVII
century under the first Romanovs [552], p.24. I.e. at the
time when the old frescos removed from the cathedral
walls and vaults and new ones were painted in their place.
It is thought that 'burials were made in white stone
sarcophaguses, which were lowered into the ground under
the floor. In the first half of the XVII century at the burial
site they erected brick tombstones with white stone slabs
ornamented with Slavonic inscriptions. At the beginning of
the XX century the tombstones were placed in glazed
cases made of bronze' [552], p.25-26.
Thus the old tombstones slabs, beneath which there were
supposed to be the burial site, were bricked up! At the
same time they assure us that the inscriptions on the old
slabs were reproduced precisely on the brick tombstones
made by the Romanovs. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to
verify this. To do so would require dismantling the massive
modern constructions. It is only natural to question the
authenticity of these 'royal burials' after the facts we have

learnt about the barbaric destruction of the cathedral's

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

arrived at the monastery cemetery and decide to turn it

into the alleged cemetery of the 'pre-Romanov queens'.
The name signs of the nuns were cut off. The tombstones
bearing the new 'appropriate signs' were placed on top.
Then they buried under each tombstone an old coffin. But
as the coffins were buried, the officers-executants who
were fulfilling this task didn't make those signs very
thoroughly. Is it worth trying so hard if all of it was to be
immediately buried under the ground?! In some cases
they altogether forgot to make a sign on the tomb. In two
cases they have missed, possibly by an oversight, the
names of the simple nuns scratched with a nail on the old
coffins. Thus, with such audacity there was created a false
'necropolis of the queens' in the Moscow Kremlin. We will
repeat that there was no necropolis in Moscow in the preRomanov epoch. The Russian-Horde Czars and Czaritzas
of the XIV-XVI cc. were transported to African Egypt to be
buried in the Imperial cemetery.
The less distinguished ones were buried in Russia. But
having assumed power the Romanovs did their best to
destroy those old sarcophaguses which could have
revealed the true story of the pre-Romanov Russia-Horde.
What we are presented with today as 'antiquity' is either
the Romanov modern replicas or the poor coffins of
common people, presented by the Romanov historians as
the 'Royal burial sites'.
Moreover, the Romanovs started using the old Russian
white stoned tombs as building materials [62], p.297;
[4v2], ch.2. This was a clear manifestation of the

Romanovs' attitude towards Russian history. In everyday

life builders would hardly go to a cemetery in search for
the building materials and take the tombstones for that
purpose, in order to build an apartment block out of them.
Would you want to live in a building like that? Such things
were always considered an insult to the memory of the
deceased. It did happen sometimes, but exactly as a
token of the disrespect towards those who were buried
beneath those gravestones. This is amply demonstrated in
the Romanovs' actions.
Apparently between 1632 and 1636 there the CHANGES
IN THE TYPE OF BURIALS THAT OCCURRED IN
RUSSIA. This refers at least to the royal burials. Before
1632 the first Romanovs still buried their queens
according to the old tradition customary in Russia-Horde.
But then, as we show in [4v2], ch.2., the Romanovs
change the type of burial. Starting with 1636 they were
burying in a different way. So we unexpectedly came
across a serious fact. The change in the type of the burial
is a major religious-social reform. It signifies the
fundamental turning point in the life of the Russian society
in the middle of the XVII century. Surprisingly nothing is
said about this major event in Russian history.
Thus we come across the very same borderline the XVII
century, which separates the falsified history from the
more or less accurate one. It is extremely difficult to
surmount the barrier of the XVII century very little true
archaeological evidence and written records from earlier
than the XVII century survive. In the colonies of the Great

Empire, in Western Europe, the former imperial cathedrals

and constructions were on the whole also destroyed.
However the Western reformers who came to power
decided to preserve the Gothic architectural style of the
'Mongol' temples in their own new buildings, having only
declared it to be ancient and exclusively their own,
allegedly purely Western-European [4v2], ch.2:47. A
shock wave of the historical reconstruction with the total
'elimination of all traces' swept through occupied Russia of
the XVII century. Not only the architectural style was
changed, but also the very nature of the burials.
15. WHY THE NAME OF 'NOVGOROD' TAKEN AWAY
FROM YAROSLAVL WAS MOVED TO THE NORTHWEST, TO LAKE ILMEN?
As we have already said the Veliky Novgorod of the
chronicles is Yaroslavl upon Volga. To be precise, the
name of the entire region including a number of cities,
Rostov and Suzdal in particular. But in the epoch of the
XVII century the name 'Novgorod' was taken away from
Yaroslavl and given to a small town, a former town-district,
a small fort in the North West of Russia, by lake Ilmen, by
the mouth of the river called VOLKHOV. Why was it here
that the famous name of Novgorod was moved to on
paper and on the maps and at the time the name of
VOLGA with it? As it is absolutely clear that VOLKHOV is
a slightly distorted version of the name VOLGA.
The answers may differ. However, there is one that
appears worthy of serious consideration. Let us turn to the
old maps of Moscow drawn by the Western cartographers

and travellers of the XVI-XVII cc. There emerges a curious

fact. Northern Dvina River and its vicinities are rather well
depicted on these maps [TsRIM], ch.1. It is clear that the
Western cartographers knew those regions, where the
Western merchants and trading ships would arrive via the
Northern shipping route, quite well. They went up Dvina
River and the other rivers of that region, eventually
reaching Yaroslavl the major centre of that epoch.
But Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, the suburbs of Moscow
and the territories to the South and West of Yaroslavl on
the whole, the Western cartographers had noticeably
poorer knowledge of. They had difficulties even with
Moscow. I.e. the capital of Russia in the XVI century! For
instance, on that very map by S.Herberstein, allegedly of
the year 1546, the city of Moscow is not indicated at all.
There was written only the name of the land
MOSCOWIA [TsRIM], ch.1. A city near the Moscow river
was drawn, but without a name. The other cities, however,
were indicated and named.
It proves that the Western cartographers of the XVI
century were getting confused about the location of
Moscow, the capital of Russia. They knew roughly that it
was situated 'somewhere there, far away', but they had
trouble telling where exactly. That is why they nominally
drew a large territory 'Moscowia'. Inside this territory they
tentatively depicted a town, not quite understanding where
exactly it was located. The same story was with Vladimir,
another old capital of Russia-Horde.

Most likely in the epoch of the XIV-XVI c. the RussianHorde authorities simply didn't allow the foreigners inside
the country further than Yaroslavl and the merchant cities
along the Volga river. The Horde acted in a
comprehensible way. You are welcome to come and
trade, but your entrance into the land where the Czar's
quarters is situated is either forbidden or highly restricted.
As the regions to the South and West of Yaroslavl were
Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, the metropoly of the Empire.
These lands were strictly guarded.
That is why the Western cartographers had to use on the
whole only some vague stories about which towns, rivers
and lakes are situated in the vast metropoly of the Empire,
which was inaccessible to them. To draw a map based on
such conversations was not simple of course. So Vladimir
and Suzdal Russia on the maps of S.Herberstein and the
other cartographers were possibly drawn in the quiet of
European offices based on the snippets of the incidental
information.
Let's go back to the 'problem of Novgorod'. Let's have a
look at the map of S.Herberstein, fig.83. We can see that
the Mologa river is shown INCORRECTLY. Instead of a
'loop' the Western Europeans depicted the river practically
as a straight line starting not far from the lake Ilmen and
flowing straight towards the Volga river. This is a first-rate
blunder. In fact the Mologa meanders in a loop beginning
in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia and flowing into the Volga
river a little bit above Yaroslavl [TsRIM], ch.1. At the same
time S.Herberstein says correctly, that THE MOLOGA

RIVER 'FLOWS FROM THE LANDS OF VELIKY

NOVGOROD' [161], p.153.
That is why the Western merchants and travellers having
arrived to Volga at the mouth of Mologa near Kholopii
Gorod (Town of Serves) understood that going up the
Mologa river they would soon find themselves in the
Czar's quarters of Velikii Novgorod. S Novgorod was not
just another town, but an entire region of towns. That is
why if you go up the Mologa river, at first you need to
move TOWARDS THE NORTH WEST. However later,
going up Mologa further, you need to turn South or even
East, and as a result the ship will return to the Yaroslavl,
i.e. Novgorod lands.
Thus the Westerners CORRECTLY informed their
cartographers, that the Czar's headquarters in Velikii
Novgorod was situated upstream of the Mologa river. The
only thing left to do was to draw this river on the map. That
is where the cartographers were faced with difficulties.
They knew for sure that going upstream on the Mologa
from Volga, the ship would at first go NORTH WEST. But
they had no idea how the river would act further. They
were not allowed as far as that. So the cartographers
decided to merely CONTINUE THE LINE OF THE RIVER
STRAIGHT TO THE NORTH WEST. The way it is drawn
on the map of Herberstein. Having made this fundamental
mistake, the cartographers 'stretched' the Mologa river as
far as the lake Ilmen. And they erroneously decided that
Mologa's source is located there. After that they
confidently DREW HERE THE CZAR's VELIKI

NOVGOROD, 'at the riverhead of Mologa'. Thus the

annalistic royal Novgorod was 'driven back' far to the
North West.
The Romanovs dynasty was pro-western not only by
blood, but also by their original spirit. That is why the
Western chronicles and maps, which replaced either the
destroyed or the edited chronicles and maps of the
'Mongol' Empire, provided the basis to the Romanov
geography and history. As we can see on the Western
maps Velikii Novgorod is erroneously drawn near the lake
Ilmen. There was nothing left for the Romanov historians
to do, but to place here 'on the ground' the geographical
Novgorodian names, which they have read from the
Russian chronicles. In particular, they had to call a shabby
town-district with a prison 'Velikii Novgorod'. This was an
isolated place, desolate swampland, wolves, frogs, snakes
and mosquitos. The mistake once firmly consolidated, it
acquired an authoritative appearance, and overgrew with
the other distortions. In the XX century Moscow
archaeologists arrived here in order to 'even better confirm
the chronicles'. To see the outcome of this 'activity' see
[4v1], ch.2:11-12.
16. THE COAT OF ARMS OF THE RUSSIAN-HORDE
EMPIRE OF THE XVI CENTURY.
The coat of arms of the Russian Empire has changed over
the course of time. It is interesting to see what it looked
like in the XVI-XVII cc., during the epoch of the Horde
Empire and immediately after its break up in the XVII
century. According to [162] four old depictions survive of

the Imperial emblem of the XVI-XVII cc. [4v2], ch.2.

Namely:
1) The state seal of Czar Ivan the Terrible (Ioann Grozny).
Here surrounding the two headed eagle on the face side
of the seal there are 12 emblem-seals [162], p. VIII and
[568], p.161. See fig.84, fig.85.
2) The depiction of the coat-of-arms on the throne of
Mikhail Fedorovich.
3) The coat-of arms on the silver plate of the Czar Aleksey
Mikhailovich.
4) The depiction of the coat of arms of the Empire from the
diary of Korb (Joanne Georgio Korb 'DNEVNIK
PUTESHESTVIYA V MOSKOVIYU'- "A Diary of the Travel
to Moscovy [Russia]") (1698 and 1699)) who in 1698-1699
accompanied the Austrian ambassador of the Habsburgs,
sent to Moscow. Here are already depicted the 32 coat-ofarms of the Czardom, not including the Moscow coat-ofarms, fig.86.
Let's look at the national coat of arms of the Horde Empire
of the XVI century, fig.84. It is considered to be the earliest
of the four previously mentioned. The 12 regionskingdoms surrounding the two headed eagle on this
emblem are intriguing. They are listed in the inscription
[161], p.VIII:
'Grand Sovereign Czar and Grand Prince of All Russia
Ivan Vasilyevich ,Czar of Vladimir, Grand Prince of
Moscow, and Novgorod; Czar of Kazan; Czar of

Astrakhan; sovereign of Pskov; Grand Prince of

Smolensk; Grand Prince of Tver; Grand Prince of Yugra
region, Grand Prince of Perm, Grand Prince of Vyatka,
Grand Prince of Bulgaria and the other territories,
Sovereign and Grand Prince of Novai Gorod (New Town)
of the Nizovskii Zemli (Nizovskii Lands); Sovereign and
Grand Prince of Chernigov'.
It turns out that the entire Empire consisted of 12
Czardom-regions, reflected in the Bible as the 12 tribes of
Israel [6]. It was exactly the 12 Israeli tribes = files who set
off for the conquest of 'The Promised Land'. As it is shown
in [6v1], ch.5, it took place in the XV century. These 12
tribes originated in Russia and the Ottoman Empire and
settled across the world. I.e.in Southern and Western
Europe, Africa, Asia and America.
Among the 12 kingdom-regions there were also the
indigenous Russian-Hordian ones. For example, Velikii
Novgorod, which in the coat-of-arms is rightly combined
with Moscow and Vladimir. Or,for example, the Kazan
Czardom, the Astrakhan kingdom, Smolensk Grand
Duchy, etc.
An interesting question arises. Shouldn't there also be the
territories of Western and Southern Europe as well as
Constantinople conquered by the Ottomans comprising
the 'Mongol' Empire? I.e. Asia Minor, Egypt and other
neighbouring countries. Where are they in the coat of
arms of the Russian-Horde Empire of the XVI century?
Could it be that we have stumbled across a contradiction?
No, it turns out that everything is fine.

17. TWELVE CZARDOM - TRIBES IN THE RUSSIAN

COAT OF ARMS OF THE XVI CENTURY ON THE MAP
OF EUROPE.
In [4v2], ch.2, we were able establish which territories of
the Empire corresponded with the emblems specified on
the state seal of the XVI century. We will mark those
places on the map of Europe where the capitals of the 12
Czardom -regions indicated on the face side of the seal
were situated, fig.87. The dots and figures in bold
represent the 12 Czardoms-tribes positioned around the
two-headed eagle.
1) Velikii Novgorod, including Vladimir and Moscow. I.e.
Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. 2) Czardom of Kazan 3)
Astrakhan Czardom. 3) Pskov republic = Prussia, Central
and North Germany. 5) Grand Principality of Smolensk. 6)
The Principality of Great Perm = Tiverian Principality with
its capital in Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus. 7) Grand
Principality of Yugra = Hungary 8) The Principality of Great
Perm = German-Austrian. 9) Grand Principality of Vyatka
= Spanish-Vatican. 10) Grand Principality of Bulgaria. 11)
Grand Principality of Nizovye = Nizhegorodskoye
Principality. 12) Grand Principality of Chernigov.
In fig.87 you can see that these Biblical kingdoms-tribes
are arranged in groups. Except for the last two tribes,
added to the Coat of Arms after the words 'and the other
territories'.
1st group are the Czardoms along the Volga river: Velikii
Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan.

2nd group is West Russia: Pskov or Pleskov = Prussia,

Smolensk = White Russia (Belya Rus) or Blue Russia
(Blue Rus).
3rd group is West and South Europe: Czar-Grad,
Hungary, Austria, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria.
4th group two more Russian Princedoms Nizhnii
Novgorod and Chernigov.
Thus in the coat of arms of Russia-Horde of the XVI
century there is depicted a significant part of the Empire.
But not all of it. Some of the Northern provinces were not
included (Sweden, for example), distant Eastern lands
(Japan, for example) and the distant Western territories
(England, for example). The overseas colonies in America
also were not included [6v2], ch.6. However, England and
Sweden are included in the other Russian emblems.
In fig.86 we see the Russian emblem of the Romanov
epoch of the end of the XVII century [162], p.XI. On the
eagle's wings from left to right there are the Coats of Arms
of: Kiev, Novgorod, Astrakhan, Moscow, Siberia, Kazan,
Vladimir. Inside the oval clockwise from the top are the
Coats of Arms of: Pskovsky, Tverskoi, Podolsky, Permsky,
Bulgarsky, Chernigovsky, Polotsky, Yaroslavsky, Udorsky,
Kondiisky, Mstislavsky, Iversky, Kabardinsky, of Chersky
and Gorsky Territories, Cartalinsky, Sveisky, Vitebsky,
Obdorsky, Belozersky, Rostovsky, Ryazansky, NovgorodNizovsky, yatsky, Yugorsky, Volynsky, Smolensky.
Here the number of the Coats of Arms is significantly

greater than in the 'Mongol' emblem of the XVI century.

There appear mysterious Czardoms, such as Udorsky,
Kondiisky and Obdorsky. Besides, the princedoms Iversky
and Cartalinsky are named. One of them - Cartalinsky
Czardom is, possibly, Georgia. In which case Iversky
Czardom is Spain. We don't mean to say that at the end of
the XVII century Spain still belonged to the Russian
Empire. The Romanovs, quite simply, took the old Hordian
Coat of Arms, where among others were named the
distant Czardoms which used to belong to Russia-Horde
in the XV-XVI cc. This 'Mongol' emblem was more detailed
than the one we have discussed earlier.
That is why we can see here such well-known Czardoms
as Sveysky, i.e. Swiss (Sweden). It is followed by Iversky,
i.e. Spain. Then there is Yugorsky Czardom, i.e. Hungary.
Then - Bulgarian. And lastly there is Permsky, i.e. Austrian
Czardom.
Let's go back to the three new, at first glance unclear
names in the 'Mongol' emblem: Udorsky, Kondiisky and
Obdorsky princedoms. As we show in [4v2], ch.2, the
answer is as follows:
The mysterious Udorsky Prinsdim is 'the Mongolian' lands
on the border of the present day Germany and Poland,
where the river Oder flows.
The British Isles = England, or the Isle of Crete are named
as Kontiisky island on the coat of arms of Russia-Horde.
Mysterious Obdora is a town and may be even the entire
territory in Spain. Or in Thrace. And it could also possibly
be in France, if we remember that THRACE and FRANCE

are just the two versions of the same name. Latin C would
read as TS or K.
18. ON THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
As we have shown in [4v2], the 'ancient' chronicles in
existence today describe the Czar-Grad Czardom of the
XII-XV cc. and the Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. The
historians erroneously date these chronicles as deep
'antiquity', earlier than the XII century. Roughly speaking
the 'ancient' English chronicles are the Romaic and
'Mongol' chronicles transferred to England during its
conquest by the Horde and interweaved into the insular
English history.
The actual written history of England which provides the
accounts of the events SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ISLAND,
begins only in the XI century. There are very few
fragments of the XI-XIII century which survive. Then on
top there was applied a layer of the events telling us about
Czar-Grad and the Great Empire. The combination of the
insular-English and Romaic-'Mongolian' layers gave us the
modern textbook of the history of England of the XI-XVI
cc.
The history of England as we know it today which truly
reflects the native English insular events, only begins with
the XVI-XVII cc. i.e. unalloyed with the Czar-Grad or
Mongolian' events. Roughly speaking beginning with the
XVI-XVII cc. the Scaligerian version of the history of
England is more or less correct, see fig.88.

In the XIII century the waves of the Crusades overwhelm

Romea. The Crusader states emerge here. Both the local
population and the crusaders get mixed up in them.
Cultural life flourishes, the chronicles are written.
At the beginning of the XIV century the 'Mongol' conquest
takes place. Then, in 1453 under the attack of the
Ottomans who came from Russia-Horde, Constantinople
fell. Byzantium is destroyed; crowds of its people leave the
country. Many rich people, intellectuals and aristocrats
leave for Europe, including for the island of England.
These fugitives of the XIV-XV cc. take with them the CzarGrad chronicles as a memory of the true history of Romea
and Horde. In the XIV century a gigantic Horde Empire
emerges. On the island of England appears another of its
provinces with its governors subordinate to Russia and the
Ottoman Empire. The chronicles which are written during
this time on the island reflect not so much the local events,
as the life of the whole Empire and its Hordian metropoly.
Some time passes. They start writing THEIR OWN history
on the island of England, and in the XVI-XVII cc. the 'new'
history of 'ancient' England is created. This is a part of
global 'Reformation'. The old chronicles are being rewritten in England as well. A lot of the true history of the
XIV-XVI cc. has been forgotten. The English historians of
the XVI-XVII cc. declare the old Romaic and HordianOttomanian chronicles edited by them to be the
documents of the allegedly insular English history. They
make them the basis for the 'ancient' history of the British
Isles. Big chunks of the history of Romea and the 'Mongol'

Empire which unfolded on the vast territories of Eurasia,

are transferred on paper to the comparatively small British
Isles and their surroundings. Many major events inevitably
become smaller, as if shrunk in size. The Hordian Czars of
the Empire turn under the quill of the English editors into
the local island rulers. The Great Empire disappears from
the pages of the edited chronicles. And those accounts
which they didn't succeed in destroying, are moved to the
past with the aid of the false chronology, transforming
them into the 'most ancient myths'.
As a result in the XVI-XVII cc. there emerge the English
chronicles in the style of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 'The
History of the Britons' by Nennius, etc. Soon this fresh
version of the 'ancient' English history solidifies like a
monument. In the XIX-XX cc. it becomes only slightly
clarified and lacquered over. And today, when discovering
with the aid of mathematical methods astonishing
duplicates inside the 'English textbook', we begin to
understand that the actual English history is considerably
shorter [4v2].
It is possible that the Reformers moved the stolen treasury
of the Empire to England. They didn't want to take a
chance of keeping it in Europe, weary of the restoration of
Russia-Horde. At first they tried to create a new metropoly
in Vienna, Austria by installing their string puppets there
under the pompous name of the 'Habsburgs'. Nothing
came of it. This 'Empire' was short-lived. That is why the
Hordian money was taken as far away as possible to the
distant English isles (where under Ivan the Terrible Elena

Voloshanka = Esther = Mary Stuart was exiled to and

executed). Having seized the vast treasures of the Horde,
the English rebels acquired influence and created the
'English Empire', which existed for some time.
19. HOW THE LATER WESTERN EUROPEANS BEGAN
TO DEPICT THE HORDIANS.
In the XVI-XVII cc. they began re-writing the history. The
attitude towards the 'Tatar Mongols' also changed. They
were now painted purely with black colours. In fig.89.there
is shown an illumination from The Chronica Majora by
Matthew Parris, allegedly of the XIII century. It depicts a
leisurely dinner of the 'Tatar Mongols'. Under the picture
there is a caption: 'The Tatars are eating human flesh'.
They are roasting a human corpse on a turnspit. Next to it
there are cut off human heads and arms. Indicating that
such are the 'Mongolian' customs. Savages, cannibals. A
far cry from the enlightened and sensitive Western
Europeans [4v2], ch.6.
Just about the same was said about the 'Tatar Mongols',
calling them the Scythians. Thus, for example, Solinus
Gaius Julius reasons with confidence: 'The Scythians of
the inland regions lead a rough lifestyle, they live in
caves They love battles. They drink blood from the
wounds of the slayed. Glory grows with the number of
murders, and not to kill anyone is a disgrace'. Quoted from
[953], p.219.
All such provocative leaflets like these are the Western
European propaganda of the Reformation epoch. Among

the same kind of 'horror stories' is the creation of the

character of a wicked Russian bear intimidating Europe. In
regards to the name of URSUS under which the bear is
depicted in the old maps, the historians inform us: 'The
Hereford Mappa Mundi could probably shed the light onto
the origin of the English stereotype of the 'Russian bear'
which was widely spread during the Elizabethan epoch
There were attempts to raise this Elizabethan stereotype
to the symbolism of the early Christian tradition, WHERE
BOTH THE NORTH AND THE BEAR WERE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDEA OF EVIL Finally, both
filthy beasts (a bear and a monkey Author) are the
components of the diet of the 'TURKOMEN OF THE GOG
AND MAGOG DESCENT'' [953], p.230. The very name of
the bear itself URSUS is just one of the versions of the
pronunciation of the word RUSS, Russian.
20. WHEN THE WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO DURER
WERE CREATED.
In [5v1], ch.14:3, we show that the works of art attributed
to the artist of allegedly the XV-XVI cc. Albrecht Durer
were most likely created a century later in the XVII
century. It appears that EXACTLY IN THE XVII CENTURY
OCCURS THE PEAK OF DISCOVERING BOTH THE
ORIGINAL WORKS OF DURER AND THE NUMEROUS
'COPIES' AND 'IMITATIONS'. They write: 'Not long before
1600 the demand on Durer's prints (his engravings
Author) became so great, that the market was swamped
with the engravings and other imitations. This copying
carried on almost continually during the 18th century'

[1117], p.130. It emerges that the first list of Durer's

graphic art appears only in the XVIII century (!) by
(Heinrich Hsgen, 1745-1847).
The Reformers of the XVII century were destroying not
only the state structures of the Horde Empire, but its
manifestations in art, sculpture, literature and science. A
sweeping blow was also dealt on the legacy of the
Imperial artist A.Durer. Something similar was inflicted on
the cartographer Gerardus Mercator [7v1], ch.7.
Later the fire of the coup died down, emotions were
placated. Following the success of the Reformation there
was a need in the new Germany of the XVII century to
create the 'great German history', allegedly independent
from the former one the 'Mongolian'. They decided also
to create a new history of art, literature and architecture.
Free of the 'detrimental' tradition of the Horde Empire.
They remembered of A.Durer and decided to create on the
basis of the glorious, but already forgotten name, a 'new
Durer of the Reformation'. His earlier paintings perished.
Burnt in the fires of the Reformation. Oh well, said the
Reformers, it's for the best, as they were improper. We will
paint the new proper ones. 'Durer's second birth' was
naturally cleared of the memories of the 'Mongol' Empire.
As envisioned by the Reformers Durer was supposed to
become a 'typical European' in the 'progressive' meaning
of the XVII century. So Durer was declared the 'great
supporter of the Reformation' [1117],p.104. They kept
repeating it until present day. But is it true? Durer, the
Empire's artist of the XVI century, hardly supported the

anti-government coup, aimed primarily against the Empire,

which he served faithfully all his life [5v1], ch.14:3.
21. THE ALMAGEST BY CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY.
Of course as it has already been said, the important result
of the New Chronology is as follows. The star catalogue of
the famous 'Almagest' by Ptolemy was created in the
interval between year 600 to year 1300, and by no means
in the II century [3v1].
The dating method which we suggested was successfully
tested on a number of the well-known star catalogues, in
particular those of - Ulugh Beg, Al-Sufi, Tycho Brahe and
Johannes Hevelius. In all cases the traditionally known
dating of the old catalogues with the exception of the
Almagest catalogue were confirmed by our method. The
Almagest catalogue turned out to be the single exception.
It means that the traditional dating of Ptolemy's life
contains an error of several hundred or even more, a
thousand years.
Almagest is an encyclopaedia, where several hundred
years' worth of astronomical observations are collected.
The earliest of them date to the epoch not earlier than the
X century. The observations up until the XVI century could
have been included in the Almagest. This encyclopaedia
reflects the current and changing state of astronomical
science. The final version was published in the XVI
century.

Editions of the Almagest prior to the XVI century, even if

they existed, didn't reach us. In the XVII century, during
the falsification of history, the Almagest, which was
important for the chronology, was significantly re-worked.
It was published 'post factum', listing erroneous dates. It
included the fabricated 'ancient observations', which in fact
were the results of the THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS
ACCORDING TO THE MEDIAEVAL ASTRONOMICAL
THEORY OF THE XVII CENTURY. It is presented in the
Almagest. Thus one of the whales of the Scaligeraian
chronology was created.
The coordinates of the planets, position of the Sun, the
Moon and etc. were calculated into the past. Then the
calculated astronomical phenomenon were declared to be
'observed' and were included into the Almagest: 'A suchand-such astronomer in a such-and-such (calculated!)
year observed this and that'. But as the astronomical
theory of the XVII century was not so precise as today, the
evaluations made according to the modern formulas
reveal the fraud. As was discovered by the well-known
astrophysicist Robert Newton [3v1].
So, THE ALMAGEST AS WE KNOW IT TODAY WAS
CREATED IN THE XVII CENTURY. Its creators presented
this book to be 'ancient' in order to lay it as a foundation of
the Scaligerian chronology which was in the process of
being created in precisely that very epoch. THAT IS WHY
THOSE ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENA WHICH COULD
HAVE BEEN COMPUTED INTO THE PAST ACCORDING
TO THE THEORY OF THE XVII CENTURY WERE

DATED IN THE ALMAGEST ALREADY IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHRONOLOGY OF
SCALIGER. Naturally, with the precision which could have
been achieved with the flawed astronomical theory of the
XVII century. That is why it is necessary to refer to
Almagest data with great caution, when we wish to use it
for the purpose of chronology. Only the data which could
not have been computed in the XVII century should be
used. For example the solar eclipses, the precise phases
of the lunar eclipses, the star positions. However, the
falsifiers of the XVII century naturally did their best so
there were no such possible data left in the Almagest at
our disposal. For example, 'for some reason' no solar
eclipses are mentioned in the Almagest.
Going forward. The famous 'classical' astronomer
Hipparchus, who lived allegedly in the II century BC [797],
p.307 is, to a great extent, a phantom reflection of the
famous astronomer Tycho Brahe, who lived in the XVI
century. In the beginning of the XVII century, when filling
the 'distant antiquity' with the phantoms of the Mediaeval
events, the historians 'split' Tycho Brahe into two as well.
One of the versions of his biography was cast away into
the past and there was created the 'great astronomer
Hipparchus'. Besides, in [VAT], part 1, ch.1. we show that
the life description of Hipparchus also includes the ancient
information about the astronomer from the XI century.
Ptolemey's Almagest was finally edited and finished only
AFTER Tycho Brahe, in the epoch of Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630). I.e. the Almagest, including its star

catalogue, was being edited up until the beginning of the

XVII century. As a result the following picture is forming.
# At first there emerged a comparatively small catalogue
of Tycho Brahe the most ancient among the star
catalogues which survive to the present time.
# Followed by a more complete 'ancient' catalogue of
Claudius Ptolemy, to be more precise its surviving
version.
# Then the even more complete catalogue of Johann
Hevelius.
# And finally the even more complete catalogue of John
Flamsteed.
The catalogue of Tycho Brahe appears to be the earliest
and therefore the most sparse from the point of view of the
quantity of stars recorded in it. Then Ptolemey or the
editors of his catalogue increase the number of the
observed stars. And only after that an even larger quantity
of stars appear in the catalogues of Hevelius and
Flamsteed.
Can we date the Almagest based on the Ptolemy's
descriptions of the 21 lunar eclipses? They allegedly were
observed by the astronomers in the duration of 850 years.
The serious analysis of these lunar eclipses was
conducted by Robert Newton [3v1]. He discovered a lot of
evidence supporting the fact that MOST OF THEM ARE
FORGED. Therefore we cannot consider the lunar
eclipses from the Almagest to be trustworthy material for

astronomical dating. Most likely this forged 'ancient list'

was manufactured in the XVI-XVII cc. in order to lay the
grounds for the Almagest's 'antiquity'.
THE CONCLUSION. The surviving version of the
Almagest was created not by some single authorobserver, but is a collective 'textbook on astronomy'. It is a
collection of many individual observations, various
theories, calculations and exercises on chronology
belonging to different astronomers of the XI-XVII cc. The
star catalogue could have been compiled by one observer
in the epoch of the X-XIII cc. But the final text of the
Almagest is by other authors of the XVI-XVII cc.
22. THE FLOURISHING, STAGNATION AND RE FLOURISHING IN THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY.
The Scaligerian history claims that 'ancient' astronomy
enjoyed an unprecedented rise. However later, 'during the
next three centuries after the death of Hipparchus, it was
as if the history of astronomy became enshrouded in
darkness' [65], p.63. Purporting that the epoch of the
greatest stagnation has started. Practically the only
outburst during 300 years in the 'darkening' Greek
astronomy is considered to be Ptolemy's Almagest. Today
he is regarded as the 'last chord of ancient astronomy'. IT
IS FOLLOWED BY A PERIOD OF PROFOUND SILENCE
AND DARKNESS IN THE SCALIGERIAN HISTORY OF
ASTRONOMY.

They write: 'CLASSICAL CULTURE IN DECLINE'. After

the breath-taking rise of the classical culture there began a
PROLONGED PERIOD OF SOME STAGNATION AND,
IN SOME CASES, REGRESSION in the European
continent a timespan of more than 1000 years, which is
commonly referred to as the Middle Ages AND OVER
THESE 1000 YEARS THERE WAS MADE NO
SIGNIFICANT ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERY' [395],
P.73.
Our thought is simple. These 'dark ages', 'dips', 'centuries
of complete silence', 'global catastrophes' appear only
because the historians of the science use the incorrect
chronology. In which there exist the 'ancient' miragereflections and the 'dark ages' between 'Classical
Antiquity' and the 'Renaissance'. The new chronology
removes these 'gaps' and 'sinusoids' in the development
of the science and culture. So.
In the Scaligerian history of astronomy there occurs a
strange phenomenon: a magnificent blossoming of the
'ancient classical' astronomy, followed by a deep millennial
regression, followed by the repeated rise beginning with
the XIII century.
We are assured that practically all the main breakthroughs
in astronomy of the XIV-XVI cc. have been 'already
discovered' more than 1000 years prior to that, in the
'Classical antiquity'. But later in some mysterious way
were forgotten. Let's list the fundamental ideas allegedly
discovered a long time ago by the 'classical ancient'
astronomers.

Ecliptic and equatorial coordinates, methods of their

calculation. Determination of the principal elements of the
relative planetary inter-motion in the Solar system.
Heliocentrism - essentially the heliocentric theory of the
planetary system. Calculation of the relative distances in
the Solar system Earth Moon planets stars. The
forecast of the Lunar eclipses. Compilation of star
catalogues. Celestial globes design. Discovery of
precession. Professional astronomical instruments:
astrolabe, etc. Computing the length of the sidereal year
and the tropical year. Allocation of the constellation of
stars, recording of their 'image'. The question of the
existence of proper motion stars.
These discoveries were made in the XII-XVII cc. But later
their duplicates were dated back into the past by the
incorrect chronology. There were no major 'regressions' in
the history of science and culture.
23. GEOCENTRISM, OR THE PTOLEMAIC SYSTEM
AND THE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM BY TYCHO BRAHE
(AND COPERNICUS).
The World system according to Tycho Brahe is shown in
fig.90. In the centre of the world there is the Earth around
which revolves the Sun. However, the rest of the planets
are already revolving round the Sun. This is the reason
why today Tycho Brahe's (Tychonic) system is called GeoHeliocentric [395], p.132. BUT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR,
THAT IT DIFFERS FROM THE 'COPERNICUS SYSTEM'
ONLY BY THE CHOICE OF THE ORIGIN OF THE
COORDINATES. That's all! For, as we know from school,

change of origin does not change the system of bodies in

motion. Only the coordinate system changes, the point at
which the observer is placed. The 'picture' changes, but
not the core of the matter [3v1], ch.11.
From the point of view of kinematics, the system of Tycho
Brahe (Hipparchus) is quite heliocentric. But only the
centre of the coordinate system is placed at Earth. After
all, the centre of the coordinates can be connected with
any astronomical body of the system. IF WE MOVE THE
STARTING POINT OF THE REFERENCE SYSTEM ON
TYCHO BRAHE'S CHART INTO THE SUN, THEN
WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY CHANGING ANYTHING WE
WILL GET A 'COPERNICAN' SYSTEM'. Earth will start
revolving around the Sun. Where all the other planets,
according to Tycho Brahe, already revolve around the
Sun. All that's missing to complete the picture according to
Kepler is only the mild orbital ellipticity. Brahe still has his
planets' orbits as circular. As, incidentally, does
Copernicus. But this is the 'second order' effect. That is
why, we will repeat, Tycho Brahe's system is in fact as
good as the Copernican system. But with a different
starting point of the reference system. The observer is
placed at Earth, but not at the Sun.
It is clear that the idea by Tycho Brahe (Hipparchus)
preceded or co-existed with the idea by Copernicus. The
'Copernican system' evolutionally follows the system by
Tycho Brahe or is contemporary to it, but not at all
preceding it. The final 'model' of the heliocentric system
was most likely suggested only AFTER TYCHO BRAHE,
in the epoch of his student Johannes Kepler. And

Copernicus of the XV-XVI cc. was accredited with its

invention post factum. Thus the true chronological order of
the 'world system' is as follows.
First the Ptolemy's geocentric system. Its complex model
of epicycles was formed most likely in the XV-XVI cc.
Earth was placed at the centre of the universe. Based on
the idea of the epicycles, stating that Earth is a fixed point,
it was necessary to create a complex model of the
epicycles in order to explain the movement of the planets
visible from Earth. This world system was based on the
'royal' star catalogue of the XII century. Its creation is
connected with the Birth of Jesus Christ in the XII century
and with the flaring up of the supernova circa 1152, i.e. the
Star of Bethlehem. It is possible that the first astronomers
created the star catalogue in honour of Jesus. Hence the
origin of the great authority of the catalogue. It existed in
its more or less unchanged form until the epoch of the XVI
century.
The star catalogue included by Copernicus in his book and
called 'Copernicus' star catalogue', IS IN FACT THE
VERY SAME PTOLEMAIC STAR CATALOGUE,
HOWEVER MODIFIED FOR ANOTHER EPOCH BY
CHOOSING A DIFFERENT LONGITUDE REFERENCE
POINT. The Astronomy historians became aware of this
fact a long time ago [395], p.109. This indicates that the
astronomers of the Middle Ages kept shifting zero
longitude, moving the 'catalogue date according to
precession' into the epoch they required, for one reason or
another. In the XV-XVI cc. the astronomers made the next

step and began to develop the theory of the planets'

motion, Earth and the Sun. The 'Ptolemaic system'
appeared. The historians of astronomy note, that
'according to its composition the book by Copernicus
GREATLY RESEMBLES the Almagest' [395], p.105. It's
all correct. It was in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. when
the final edition of the Almagest was created.
1) Simultaneously with Ptolemy's concept, in the second
half of the XVI century the system of Tycho Brahe =
'ancient Hipparchus'. It is practically heliocentric. The
planetary motion, apart from the Moon, is circular with the
Sun in the centre. The coordinate origin is connected to
Earth.
2) And finally, the heliocentric system with the coordinate
origin in the Sun. There is a new idea here, but it has
nothing to do with the crux of the matter. The idea is that it
is not necessary to place the coordinate origin at the very
same point where the observer is located. I.e. on the
Earth. It could be the Sun. For the public and school
education the 'picture' was simplified.
This system entered the astronomical practices possibly in
the XVII century, in the epoch of Kepler. It was attributed
post factum to the astronomer of the XV-XVI cc. by the
name of Copernicus. He was most likely a remarkable
astronomer. He could have been the first to express in its
'raw' form the heliocentric idea with the zero point at the
Sun, and not at the Earth. However, today it is very difficult
to be sure what exactly he was doing. The only thing to go

by on Copernicus' life and work are the XVII century texts,

i.e. written 60-100 years after his death.
Most likely, both systems by Claudius Ptolemy and by
Tycho Brahe belong to the same epoch. The systems
were in competition with each other and were discussed
by the astronomers. Until finally they realised that the
heliocentric system by Tycho Brahe is the only correct
one. However the historians unceremoniously took this
fundamental discovery from Tycho Brahe and attributed it
to the 'earlier' Copernicus.
24. IN THE XVIV-XVI CC. EUROPE RESPECTFULLY
'LOOKED UP TO' THE DISTANT AND MIGHTY CZARKHAN OF THE HORDE.
We were taught that allegedly in the XIV-XVI cc. as
indeed always Western Europe looked at Russia in a
condescending manner. And allegedly deservedly so.
Indeed, in the West there is civilization and culture. And
Russia is a backward and ignorant country, only having
crawled out from under the Tartar and Mongol yoke with
great difficulty. Of course, there is a lot of honey, bread,
bacon and hemp. That is why they sometimes succeeded
in luring in some skilful overseas artisans here, so they
could relent and mercifully build something extraordinary
in this, backward, dim Russia. The cathedrals, the
palaces, the factories and the ships. The Russians naively
marvelled at the craftsmanship of the foreigners, realising
that they would never be able to reach such dizzy heights
in those skills. Only after Peter I (the Great) the Russian
mechanical and industrial arts started to develop at last,

generally still being second rate. Not to mention that the

Western Royal courts gazed condescendingly at the
Moscow Czar, the Asiatic barbarian on the throne.
However, it was quite the reverse. In the XIV-XVI cc. there
emerged the 'Mongol' Empire which included, in particular,
all the West-European territories. The local rulers were the
vassals to the Horde Czar-khan. The traces of their
subservient state survive in the testimonies of their
contemporaries [6v3], ch.1:16. Despite the fact that they
underwent tendentious editing in the XVII-XVIII cc.
The remote regions of the Empire were in a different
situation from the metropoly, i.e. Russia and the Ottoman
Empire. The centre of the Empire was generally occupied
with military matters and the development of military
capability necessary to keep the vast territories under its
rule. It was necessary to supress, appease, and arbitrate.
A big army was necessary for this. A lot of energy was
required to maintain the routes of communication. It was
required to collect taxes, to regulate trade between the
Imperial territories. That is why generally the metropoly
required military servicemen and civil servants and a large
administrative apparatus.
The life of the remote provinces was different. The
Hordian Czar-Khan was far away. The governors ruled as
his representatives. The Cossack garrisons were located
nearby to maintain order. The focus was not only on the
local issues, but the necessity to win favour from the
metropoly. A lot depended on that. For example, the

superiority over a neighbour could be achieved not only by

crushing it's military detachment, but also by sending fine
gifts to the Horde. If the gifts were fine, than the CzarKhan could graciously allow seizure of the neighbour's
land. Especially if the latter didn't please the 'Mongol'
Khan. For example, either the tax was not paid regularly
by that neighbour, or the gifts he sent were unsatisfactory.
In Western Europe they were developing arts and
sciences. Including those aimed at entertainment. Their
industry was being created especially in the resort
provinces of the Empire where the climate was favourable.
In Italy, France and Spain. In Italy there developed:
architecture, literature, history and singing. In England
shipbuilding. In France its own palette. And so on (etc.)
The Hordian court of the Czar-Khan considered all of it to
be its own, at their disposal. If the building of a new fleet
was required, the request was sent to England. From
there the best ship builders were sent to Russia.
Otherwise the Imperial ships were built in England
outright. If a skilful physician was required they would
call for a Frenchman, for example. If there was an urgent
need to build a cathedral in Moscow the architects from
Italy were called for, as it was during the construction of
the Moscow Kremlin. The architects would come straight
away. Refusal was not an option. Having received the
Imperial order they would answer 'Yes, Sir!' execute the
order and send the specialists to the metropoly. From
Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, Africa, Asia

At the Czar-Khan's court in Yaroslavl and later in Moscow

there were probably parties of representatives from
various provinces: of Englishmen, French, Germans
They fought for the right to be the first to gain the lucrative
contracts. Vouching to the great Khan and his
administration that their specialists were the best. The
victorious party would rejoice. The significance of that
province in the eyes of the Khan administration would thus
increase.
Following the split of the Great Empire, when the Western
territories declared themselves independent, the efforts of
the local governors were aimed at 'proving' that 'it was
always the way it is today'. As if purporting that the
Western rulers were always independent. They wanted to
wipe out the memory of the revolt, about the fact that they
came to power by illegal means from the point of view of
the ideology of that time. They came up with a false
chronology which has cast into the past the 'Mongol'
conquest under the name of the Great Transmigration of
Peoples, the Slavic conquest of Europe allegedly of the
IV-V cc. The recent Europe was hastily wiped out off the
world map. They appropriated for themselves the history
of the 'Mongol' dynasty of the XIV-XVI cc. under the name
of the 'Western-European Habsburgs' [7v2], ch.3. Here,
they said, are our former emperors. And we were
altogether never under the authority of Moscow. Such an
absurd and politically detrimental idea should not even
enter one's head.

This activity coincided with the desire of the pro-Western

Romanovs, who had seized the power in Russia. That is
why the actions of the Romanovs and the new rulers of
Europe were coordinated. And against the Ottoman
Empire which was in the way of this civilizing process, it
was necessary to organise the Crusade. With Russian
hands and Russian blood.
The revision of the texts, chronicles and memoires was
carried out. Many foreigners visited Russia in the XIV-XVI
cc. That is why there still remained many original
documents in Western Europe. They were sought,
destroyed, edited. Then they were printed. The 'old dates'
were put onto them in order to vindicate the new
perspective.
But many things survived. Various details escaped the
attention of the editors. Not all of them understood the task
equally well, not all of them were astute. And indeed the
perceptions themselves of how history should appear 'in
reality' were only gradually developed by the falsifiers.
That is why much of the stuff the later historians of the
XIX-XX cc. would decisively cross out from an old
document, the earlier editors of the XVII-XVIII cc. could
have missed. Which they did!
That is why some of the works of the Western Europeans
of the XVI century about Russia seem today somewhat
strange. Even after being edited they do not fit the ideas
which are instilled in us. Such as, for example, the wellknown 'Notes on Russia' by Jerome Horsey. See details in
[6v3], ch.1.

25. WHAT ARE THE 'SEVEN WONDERS OF THE

ANCIENT WORLD' AND WHERE THEY WERE
LOCATED.
The famous seven wonders of the world are often
recalled. We are persuaded that they, with the exception
of the Egyptian
pyramids, were destroyed in the Middle Ages. 'The seven
wonders' are [572], p.135:
1) The PYRAMIDS OF Egypt: survive. 2) Hanging
Gardens of Semiramida, i.e. Hanging Gardens of Babylon:
destroyed. 3) Temple of Artemis at Ephesus: destroyed. 4)
Statue of Zeus at Olympia: destroyed. 5) Mausoleum at
Halicarnassus: destroyed.6) Colossus of Rhodes:
destroyed. 7) Colossus of Rhodes in Pharos: destroyed.
What wonders of the world did the 'ancient classical'
authors speak of? They wrote, as we understand it, in the
XVI-XVII cc. We managed to identify the 'seven wonders'
with the constructions of the Middle Ages. For example,
the 'Hanging Gardens of Semiramida, created in Moscow
in the XVI century, already existed in the XVII-XVIII cc
[6v2], ch.2:4.14. It appears that the rest of the 'wonders of
the world' either exist until today, or were destroyed quite
recently. So.

1) PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT

In regards to the Egyptian pyramids we do not have any

differences with the Scaligerian version. Except for the
dating, of course. These gigantic constructions rightfully
head the list of the 'Seven Wonders of the Ancient World'.
2) THE HANGING GARDENS OF SERMIRAMIDA.
We spoke about the 'gardens of Semiramida', or about the
Hanging Gardens of Babylon, in [6v2], ch.10:4.14. They
are THE FAMOUS ROYAL GARDENS ARRANGED ON
THE ROOF OF THE KREMLIN PALACE IN MOSCOW
(XVI-XVIII cc.). The historians and archaeologists cannot
present us today with any remnants of the 'hanging
gardens of Semiramida' in Asia, where Biblical Babylon
was erroneously placed. They were searched for long and
hard. But in vain. Having come to a standstill they
declared several semi-covered earth trenches near a
small town in modern Iraq to be the remains of the
'gardens of Semiramida [572], p.41. By the way, what do
the hanging gardens have to do with it? Given that the
gardens of Semiramida were 'hanging in the air', but did
not grow in the ground.
3) TEMPLE OF ARTEMIS AT EPHESUS.
It is considered that this enormous temple, whose glory
echoed throughout the ancient world, was built in
Ephesus, a city in Asia Minor. But this hypothesis is
erroneous. It's no coincidence that the historians and
archaeologists cannot point out any distinguishable traces
of the famous temple close to a place in the south of
Turkey, which was precariously declared in the XIX

century to be 'the great ancient Ephesus' -572], p.58. In

the end, having found no remnants of the temple of
Artemis projected above the surface of the ground the
archaeologists began excavating.
Frankly, in seven years they haven't found much. They
write this: 'THE REMAINS OF THE BEST OF THE
EPHESUS BUILDINGS ARTEMISIONA APPEARED
TO BE INSIGNIFICANTLY SMALL The statue of the
goddess did not survive either, its appearance is being
reconstructed based on the image on a coin and using a
copy found in 1956. The archaeologists and architects
recreated only the plan of the famous temple with any
certainty' [572], p.59.
The idea occurs to look for the famous temple of Artemis
in a different place. Could it still exist? As well as the great
trading city of Ephesus itself. It is likely that THE TEMPLE
OF ARTEMIS AT EPHESUS IS THE FAMOUS GIGANTIC
TEMPLE OF HAGIA SOPHIA IN ISTANBUL. This
magnificent construction, as we have explained above,
was the first experiment in massive temple building. The
huge Sophia built, most likely in the XV-XVI cc. made a
strong impression on contemporaries [6v]. Even today the
magnificence of the temple is striking. It is possible that in
the name EPHESUS there might be the sound of the
name SOPHIA if read backwards: EPHESUS SOPHIA.
There is one other possibility to determine the place of the
Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which was also called the
Temple of DIANA. It is cape Fiolent near Sevastopol.
Legends circulated about the Temple of Diana in Crimea.

In the beginning of the XIX century A.S.Pushkin was

searching for its traces and found them near Saint George
Monastery in Cape Fiolent. As we have found out, the
genuine Grotto of the Nativity is located there [XP]. In
1152 Christ was born there. Pushkin, naturally, did not
know anything about it. But it was near Saint George
Monastery where he found the remains of a large 'pagan'
temple and suggested that it was the Temple of Diana. In
light of our discovery, the Pushkin hypothesis is even
more plausible. It is precisely here, in the birth place of
Christ where the majestic temple of the Blessed Virgin
Mary should have stood. It is highly unlikely that the Czargods of the Great Empire, Christ's relatives, wouldn't have
erected an appropriate temple to Diana-Mother of God
near the Grotto of the Nativity. To remind you, Diana was
one of the names of the Mother of God in the times of the
'Royal' Christianity.
Today there are no remains of the Temple of Diana found
near the Saint George Monastery. There are only the
legends left that here once upon a time there used to be
the Temple of Diana and also her grotto. Notably Diana's
Grotto really exists. It is the Grotto of the Nativity, where
she gave birth to Christ. Today there is the Church of the
Nativity situated in the grotto. It's altar, according to the
legend, was set by Apostle Andrew the First-called (St.
Andrew the Apostle). I.e. by Christ himself. [TsRS].
4) THE STATUE OF ZEUS AT OLYMPIA.
What is Olympus and what kind of gods dwelled there, we
discuss in [4v2], ch.2:22. 'The Olympic gods' are the Czars

of the 'Mongol' Empire = Biblical Assyria = Israel. In the

distant provinces people made up legends about their
distant and mysterious rulers. Thus emerged the 'Ancient'
Greek myths about the Olympian gods.
The 'Ancient' Greek Olympia is Velikii Novgorod =
Yaroslavl of the XIV-XVI cc. Therefore the 'statue of Zeus'
in Olympia is some holy object situated in Yaroslavl or
nearby. The legends about this 'statue' most likely
originated from the stories of the Western merchants and
travellers, who visited the trade-fairs of Velikii Novgorod.
It is thought, that the 'main relic of Olympia was the
legendary Temple of Zeus with the statue of the supreme
god, created by one of the most genius Greek sculptors
Phidias (i.e. a certain Feodor, Fedya Author)' [572], p.62.
We would like to draw your attention to the fact, that the
'statue' was situated inside the temple. This simplifies the
answer to the puzzle. The interior decoration of the
Russian churches indeed contained an object which was
known only in Russia and made the Russian cathedrals
different from all the other ones. It is the iconostasis. In a
large cathedral it is a huge construction. It rises in height
to the cathedral vaults. Iconostasis separates the altar
approximately one third of cathedral's length from the
rest of a cathedral. Some of the Russian iconostases were
exuberant. The iconostasis surface, free of the icons, was
covered with golden engraving leaf-gold on wood. In the
main Russian cathedrals the lower rows of the icons had
the golden icon plating with the precious stones, wrought
silver, filigree work, gold seeded into enamel.

In the other countries the chancel screens were either not

made at all, or, like in Greece, for example, it was the
iconostasis which served as a chancel screen, but a rather
low rising wall or a simple SCREEN (ZAVESA in Russian).
There are Holy doors made in an iconostasis furnished
with a SCREEN (ZAVESA). Hence the entire iconostasis
could have been perceived as a STANDING SCREEN
(ZAVESA) OR STATUE-ZAVESA. Which could have
easily in the telling the legends turned into the STATUE
OF ZEVESA, i.e. STATUE OF ZEUS.
The historians put forward a hypothesis, that the 'Ancient
Olympia was located in Greece'. However, 'there were no
remnants of the legendary statue of Zeus discovered
among the numerous architectural and sculptural pieces in
Olympia. And nor indeed could they have been found, as it
is well-known that the statue of Zeus was completely
destroyed in the fire' [572], p.64.
But if the statue was completely destroyed in the fire, then,
most likely, it was wooden. It is all correct. The
iconostases were made of wood and adorned with gold
over the wooden carving. During the fire the iconostasis
could have been completely incinerated.
5) THE MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS
It is thought that this enormous temple-mausoleum was
built in the city of Halicarnassus on the coast of Asia Minor
as the family burial chamber for the King Mausolus and his
wife Artemisia. 'Mausolus accumulated great wealth. This
overabundance allowed him to build a tomb-temple for

himself, it was so magnificent that it survived in the

people's memory until the present day as THE
UNSURPASSED EXAMPLE OF FUNERARY
ARCHITECTURE. Its reputation was so great, that the
Ancient Romans called all the grand monumental
constructions mausoleums As envisioned by the
architects the burial tomb of the King Mausolus WAS THE
MOST LUXURIANT AND REMARKABLE STRUCTURE
IN HALICARNASSUS HAD TO BE SITUATED IN THE
CENTRE OF THE CITY AND BE ITS MAIN
ADORNMENT' [572], P.78-79.
It is thought that the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was
destroyed. And the 'most wealthy and beautiful city' itself
indeed turned into wasteland [572], p.77. Later 'in place of
the ancient Halicarnassus and the mediaeval fortresscastle of St. Peter there emerged the Turkish fortress of
Bodrum' [572], p.85.
So, in the XVIII century the historians suggested that
'ancient Halicarnassus' was located somewhere in Asia
Minor. They began their search. There are a lot of 'ancient
classical' ruins. They declared one of such places, namely
Turkish Bodrum to be 'the ruins of ancient Halicarnassus'.
They began to 'dig up proof'. However without much luck.
Could it be that the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus is the
gigantic temple-reliquary of the Magi, Cologne Cathedral
in the German city of Cologne [6v1], ch.3.? It was built as
a mausoleum for Balthazar, Melchior and Caspar. The first
two were the Magi-Kings and Caspar was inferior in rank
so to speak. Could it be that Balthazar and Melchior were

Mausolus and Artemisia of the 'ancient classical' writers?

Incidentally the name HALICARNASSUS or
HALICARNASSUS (as R and L converted into each other)
is close to HALI-COLOGNE. It could have meant HOLY
COLOGNE = COLONY or LIGHT COLOGNE = COLONY,
as in German 'Heilig' means Holy, and 'Hell'- light, clear,
bright. Alternatively HALI-COLOGNE meant GALLIC
COLOGNE, or GALLIC COLONY.
It is also quite possible, that the mausoleum in HaliCARNASSUS is a colossal Ancient Egyptian temple at
KARNAK [6v3], ch.1. The temple comprises three parts,
the middle of which occupies an area of approximately 30
hectares! It is possibly the largest temple in the world.
According to our findings, the Temple at Karnak was the
MAIN FUNERARY TEMPLE OF THE GREAT EMPIRE
[6v3]. That is why it fully deserved to be called a wonder of
the world. The name HALICARNASSUS or HALICARNASSUS itself might mean 'Sunny Karnak'. To clarify,
HALI = HELIOS is the name of the God of Sun. The name
of CARNASSUS can convert into KARNAK on account of
the ambiguity in pronunciation of the letter 'C', which could
be pronounced as [S], [K] or [Ts].
6) THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES
According to the descriptions of the 'ancients' the
Colossus of Rhodes is a gigantic structure cast in bronze.
The word COLOSSAL, i.e. very big, originated from the
word COLOSSUS.

The Colossus was made like this. At first a large mould of

clay was prepared in an EARTHEN PIT. 'Creating cast
bronze statues was a very labour intensive process
requiring great mastery and technical skills. At first the
sculptor moulded in clay an exact copy of his bronze
statue. The clay figure was a kind of nucleus, the basis of
which was covered by a layer of wax, the thickness of
which the sculptor wished his bronze to be When the
wax surface was ready it was again covered over with clay
in such a way that the upper layer closely adhered to the
wax and matched the inner nucleus exactly After which
the mould would be heated up, causing the wax to flow out
through the outlets which were left open Bronze flowed
inside the clay filling the space freed by the wax and
evenly enveloping the clay nucleus It took 500 talents of
bronze and 300 talents of iron, i.e. approximately 13
tonnes of bronze and 7,8 tonnes of iron to make the
Colossus' [572], p.94-95, 101.
Our thought is simple. 'The Colossus of Rhodes' is
RADNY (RADA) BELL, i.e. VECHE BELL. The word
RADA = assembly is the same as VECHE = assembly.
The 'ancient classics' turned the word Rada in to Rhodes.
All the details of casting the Colossus perfectly correspond
with bell casting technology. And indeed the word
'COLOSSUS' itself is probably a slightly distorted Russian
word KOLOKOL (OR COLOCOL) (meaning BELL in
Russian Translator's note). As the Latin C was
pronounced both as K and as Ts, C.

The fact, that an enormous veche bell (watch bell, radny

bell) Russian bell amazed the foreigners, is
understandable. It was in Russia, in the metropoly of the
Empire where the cast the largest bells in the world. It is
clear why 'ancient' Philo of Byzantium, who probably wrote
his works in the XVI-XVII cc., pays main attention to the
installation of a bronze giant. It is very difficult to remove a
large bell from a pit and raise it high. For example, they
failed to fit the gigantic Czar-bell on display in the Moscow
Kremlin, though the casting itself was successful. But the
other huge bells were successfully lifted and smoothly
installed.
7) LIGHTHOUSE OF ALEXANDRIA IN PHAROS.
The seventh wonder of the world is a lighthouse on the
island of Pharos, allegedly not far from Alexandria in
Egypt. It is thought that it was built under the Ptolemaic
Kings and was later destroyed. 'The lighthouse was
simultaneously a fortress, where a large military garrison
was located. An enormous cistern with drinking water was
housed in the underground part of the tower in the event
of a siege. The lighthouse was also an observation point,
as the ingenious system of metallic mirrors allowed to
keep the ocean space under surveillance from the tower's
apex and to detect enemy ships long before they
appeared in close proximity to the city. The octagonal
tower was adorned with the bronze statues (bells?
Author) Allegedly there also was a statue which pointed
with its hand or arm towards the sea in the event of the
emerging hostile fleet and produced a warning signal

when the enemy was approaching the harbour (a bronze

bell or a cannon? Author) This incredible structure
stood until the XIV century This monument excited the
admiration of the Arabic writers, who noted the beauty and
grandeur of the ruins of this grandiose construction' [572],
p.111-112, 118.
As we have already said earlier, the famous 'ancient
classical' Pharos (Etrusscan) Lighthouse is the well-known
Ivan The Great Bell Tower in Moscow [RI], ch.7. So this
wonder of the world indeed exists in present day. The
Moscow 'Pillar of Ivan the Great' was described by the
'ancient classics' as well as the 'Ancient' Roman Military
Column and as the famous Tower of Babel.
26. ABOVE GROUND AND UNDERGROUND MOSCOW
IN THE TIME OF THE ROMANOVS.
The remains of the vast underground city called
'underground Moscow' still exist. Throughout several
centuries this construction has been surrounded by
legends. Numerous underground corridors, tunnels, ample
chambers, storage facilities, wells, staircases, connecting
passages, hiding places, caved chambers, walled-up
doors, flooded passages Many of them were lined with
white stone. It is thought that somewhere about here there
is hidden the famous library of Ivan the Terrible and that it
is possible to travel long distances along the underground
tunnels below Moscow. That having entered under the
ground in the city centre, it is possible to exit it far outside
of Moscow. There exists a specialised occupation

Moscow diggers. They have been exploring the

underground city for many years.
TODAY THE OLD PLANS AND CHARTS OF
UNDERGROUND MOSCOW ARE MISSING. More
importantly the Romanovs didn't have them either. It
appears that to begin with the first Romanovs HAD A
VERY VAGUE IDEA ABOUT THE MASSIVE SCALE OF
THE UNDERGROUND CITY [851:1]. Only later the
exploration and speculative excavations were begun in
hope to stumble across either the treasures buried there
or the royal archives, or the library of Ivan the terrible. The
history of underground Moscow is described in the book
by I.Y.Stelletsky [815:1].
According to our results, the Russian Czar-Khans of the
XIV-XVI cc. were the Egyptian pharaohs of the Bible. Ivan
the Terrible's capital in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda was
presumably called Alexandria of Egypt. That is why the
information about the famous 'ancient classical'
(Alexandriiskaya) library of Alexandria could have been
connected with it. Namely about the widely known library
of Ivan the Terrible, which probably for some period of
time was kept in Aleandrovskaya Sloboda [6v]. In which
case the destruction of the 'ancient classical' library of
Alexandria in the fire could be reflecting the true event of
the destruction of Alexandrovskaya Sloboda in the
Romanov epoch of the XVII century. Most likely Ivan the
Terrible's library was destroyed, burnt down during the
Romanov rule.

Moscow's construction as the new capital of Russia-Horde

began only in the XVI century, under Ivan the 'Terrible'.
Prior to that a small settlement was located there, which
emerged in the place of the Battle of Kulikovo [4v1], ch.6.
The battle site was considered to be holy. Here, near the
mass graves of the warriors, monasteries and churches
were probably initially built to commemorate the battle.
The people would come here to worship. The emerged
settlement didn't develop that much. There was no capital
here for a long time. Over time various cities acted as
such.
The Imperial capital was moved here either from Yaroslavl
(Novgorod, Biblical Nineveh) or from Suzdal (Biblical Susa
or Shushan) in the middle of the XVI century due to the
deep split within the ruling class of the Empire [6v1], ch.67. The location choice was not accidental. As the place of
the Battle of Kulikovo it was considered to be holy. Here,
'over the spilt blood', on the Moscow river bank, they
decided to erect a new mighty capital of the Third Rome =
Israel.
Most likely they began with using the open-mining or cut
and cover method, they dug out 'deep cut and cover'
tunnels, arcades, service areas, chambers, wells, etc. The
construction was grandiose. When the huge bulk of the
soil was removed, they began to build floors. They stoned
the walls of the construction pits the future premises with white stone. Above the stone floor - ceilings were
erected. Above them the next underground storey with
rooms lodgings was constructed. And so on. The

underground ant-hill was growing. Its 'roof' gradually rose

up until it reached ground level.
In the first place the builders pursued defensive goals. It
was possible to hide in the underground city during a war
or a siege. As the enemies did not know the exits from the
underground passages, the appearance of the Hordians
'from beneath the earth' was completely unexpected. The
system of the underground pathways was most likely top
secret. The architects-creators disappeared 'into nowhere'.
So they didn't breathe a word of this. The maps-plans of
the underground city were a state secret. During the
seizure of power by the pro-Western-Romanovs the plans
were either lost during the Times of Troubles, or the
Hordians destroyed them in order to leave the enemy with
no advantage. In the XVII century the underground
Moscow was engulfed in the gloom of oblivion. Having
come into power the first Romanovs had a vague idea
about underground Moscow. A chance discovery of a part
of the Horde archives there was a complete revelation to
them.
Having finished with the underground labyrinth the
builders started the construction of the above ground
'visible' Moscow. In the centre there was erected the stone
Kremlin surrounded by a mighty triple band of walls (today
only one row survives). Some distance from it,
surrounding the Kremlin, was the second row of strong
fortifications of Kitay-gorod. The third row is known as Bely
Gorod (White Town) (there is Bulvarnoye Koltso
(Boulevard Ring) in its place). Then the fortifications of

Zemlyanoy Gorod ("earthworks town") were created,

which encompassed all the previous ones. Nothing
survived from the walls of Zemlyanoy Gorod; today there
is Sadovoye coltso (Garden Ring) in its place [6v3], ch.3.
Today over ground Moscow has changed a lot in
comparison with the way it looked in the XVI-XVIII cc. The
system of the ring defensive constructions was entirely
razed. Only their names and the old plans are left.
Nothing of the kind has been done before. The capital of
the Great Empire which encompassed Eurasia, Africa and
America was being created. The capital which was
described in the Bible as the New Jerusalem, which was
restored after the destruction of the first Gospel Jerusalem
[6v2], ch.2.
27. UNDERGROUND MOSCOW OF THE XVI CENTURY
IS THE FAMOUS EGYPTIAN LABYRINTH DESCRIBED
BY 'ANCIENT' HERODOTUS AND STRABO.
The intricate underground construction of Moscow clearly
was perceived by contemporaries as a miraculous and
mysterious Labyrinth, having entered which it was
impossible to leave. It was dangerous to travel along the
underground passages without some kind of map. The
legends about this constructions spread all over the world
at that time. It was underground Moscow which was
described by the 'ancient' authors as the 'Egyptian
Labyrinth' [6v3], ch.3. We will remind you, that Biblical
Egypt is Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc [6v1], ch.4.

'Ancient' Herodotus considered the Labyrinth as the most

grandiose construction in Egypt, surpassing even the
pyramids. As we are starting to understand, he was right.
Herodotus describes underground and above ground
Moscow of the XVI century. Its scale exceeds everything
which was erected in the Empire before. [6v3], ch.3.
Later they started to construct their own 'small labyrinths'
in some remote regions of the 'Mongol' Empire imitating
the metropoly. The Hordian governors could have
demanded from their builders the creation of something
similar to the Main Labyrinth of the Empire. In [6v3], ch.3
we have talked about one such imitation in African Egypt.
It is possible, that in the XVII-XVIII cc. they indeed
constructed something 'resembling the Main Labyrinth'.
But not a very strong resemblance.
Another imitation was constructed on the island of Crete.
Today it is thought, that the ancient palace in the town of
Knossos was built 'in the likeness of the Labyrinth'.
Notably the Greeks called it specifically the 'Labyrinth'.
The historians date its construction as the deepest
antiquity the XXI century BC. There is nothing
resembling the vast unground constructions of Moscow
whatsoever. Indeed there was less money in the province
of the Empire than in the metropoly. And anyway it's not
befitting to construct in the periphery anything more
impressive than in the capital. The Khan could have been
very surprised by such pompous provincial pride. So the
'Mongol' governors were cautious.

There were also some other imitations-labyrinths in the

provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire. For example, the
Egyptian Labyrinth (near Faiyum in North Egypt),
Labyrinth of Samos, Italic Labyrinth (cuniculi) in a town of
Clusium (modern Chiusi). Strabo also mentions some
other labyrinths: 'Close to Nauplia there were caverns with
the LABYRINTHS built in them, which were called
Cyclopia' [819], viii: 6:2, p.351.
They were all built as pale imitations which couldn't hold
any comparison with the capital's Main Labyrinth.
28. WHAT IS 'THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWER
OF BABEL' DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE?
This 'composite' topic is concise and is of a generally
symbolic character. Therefore we will give just a
hypothesis.
The Biblical legend about the construction of the Tower of
Babel is known to everyone. It is dated by the historians
as deepest antiquity. In the books [2v1], ch.5 and [6v2],
ch.1:10, ch.3:5 we pointed out that the mediaeval events
are partial; reflected in this legend. In the Book of Genesis
it intertwined into one 'knot'.
Firstly here is reflected the Trojan War of the XII century.
Secondly, here it is reminiscent of the 'Mongol' conquest
of the world in the XIV century and the second Ottoman
conquest of the Promised Land in the XV century.

Thirdly, these are the events of the Reformation of the

XVI-XVII cc.,the Times of Troubles in Russia and the split
of the 'Mongol' Empire.
In the Scaligerian history of the XVIII-XIX cc. the Biblical
Babylon (Babel) was 'lost'. They write the following: 'In the
beginning of the X century (allegedly Author) to the
Arabic geographer Babylon was known JUST AS A
SMALL SETTLEMENT WHICH EMERGED IN PLACE OF
THE ONCE MAGNIFICENT CAPITAL. For the scholars
Babylon became merely a name, some kind of symbol, the
location of which they, apparently, had the vaguest idea
about [391:1], p.29.
In the New Chronology, having identified the Biblical
'Tower of Babel' with the Heops Pyramid in Egypt and
Moscow-Labyrinth, we present the largest constructions of
the Middle Ages which exist today. Of course, they are
partially damaged.
29. THE BOOK OF DANIEL TELLS US THE 'STORY OF
ESTHER' IN RUSSIA-HORDE OF THE XVI CENTURY.
Apparently the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, under
which the prophet Daniel is acting, is the Czar-Khan Ivan
IV the Terrible. Thus the Book of Daniel gives us an
account of the turbulent events of the XVI century in
Russia-Horde, the metropoly of the Empire. The famous
sun eclipse described in the Book of Daniel which rang the
death knell for Belshazzar (aka Balthazar) the king of
Babylon, is a comet appearing before Ivan the Terrible's
death in 1584.

It appears that all the paintings, frescos, miniature pictures

on the subject of the Book of Daniel were created not
earlier than the second half of the XVI century. Here, for
example, 'Hartmann Shedel's 'World Chronicle' allegedly
of 1493 [1396:1]. In it we see three Jewish youths burning
in the furnaces and the prophet Daniel [1396:1], list LV, on
the reverse side, meaning that the 'Chronicle' was not
written until the XVI century.
The famous writing on the wall (cited in the Book of
Daniel): 'Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin', ringing the death
knell for Belshazzar, is probably a distorted Slavonic
expression 'Znameniye Gorysheye P-Rusinam' The main
word here is ZNAMENIYE (meaning sign of things to
come, portent in Russian)(Mene, Mene). The letters 'Z'
and 'M' differ only in the line placement : ZNA-MENIYE =
Mene-Mene. It is specified that the sign is burning (fakel
meaning 'torch' in Russian) = Tekel) and it was given to Prusinam (Upharsin). The portent-comet was 'burning' and
appeared to the Russians. There survive some depictions
where the sign is reproduced in short form : 'Mene, Mene'.
For example a German picture allegedly of the beginning
of the XVI century [6v3], ch.4.
It appears, that the German painter of the XVI century
depicting a Slavonic word ZNAMENIYE as slightly
distorted MENE, MENE, knew Slavonic. Therefore
Slavonic language was also understood by the spectators,
the connoisseurs of his art. Could it be that the majority of
the wider public spoke Slavonic? From the point of view of
Scaligerian history it is strange. But according to the new

chronology it is only natural. In Western Europe of the

XIV-XVI cc. Slavonic language was the state Imperial
language.
Next Belshazzar ordered the vessels of gold that were
taken from the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar in Jerusalem
to be brought to the banquet (for a thousand of his lords
so that everyone can drink wine from them). The order
was carried out and the Holy relics were set forth for all to
see. At that point God was enraged and punished
Belshazzar with death. So, the Jerusalem's treasures of
Nebuchadnezzar are the richest treasures of Ivan IV the
Terrible, displayed by him to his guests and the public
before his death [6v3], ch.4.
The fighting of the Babylonian priests with the Prophet
Daniel and his supporters is the fighting of the Russian
Orthodox Church with the heresy of the Judaizers under
Ivan the IV=III the Terrible.
The Book of Daniel also mentions the 'Story of Esther', i.e.
the heresy spreading in the Russian-Hordian court in the
XVI century. In the Book of Daniel it is the 'Story of
Susanna'.
To remind you, the wife of the Czar's son turns out to be a
secret Jewess and astrologer. The Czar-Khan himself
becomes very fond of her. Family conflict erupts. The Czar
sends away his first wife. Her place is taken by Esther,
aka Elena Voloshanka, aka Elena Glinskaya, aka Biblical
Judith, aka Biblical Jael. The Czar's son dies. The throne
is surrounded by a tight ring of Esther's supporters the

Judaizers, Protestants, 'Latini'. The Czar takes their side in

supporting heresy. The Russian Orthodox Church strongly
opposes it. The ecclesiastical conflict grows and turns into
a state revolt. In the second place in the state, next to the
Czar-Khan appears one of the heretics. The split in the
society emerges. It is the well-known Oprichnina of the
XVI century. The Czar is compelled to leave the former
capital of Russia-Horde and move it to a new place.
Moscow is built, described in the bible as the New
Jerusalem (in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah).
Enjoying the support of the Czar-Khan, the heretics crush
the enemies, named in the Bible as the 'Persians', i.e. PRussians, the White Russians. In honour of their victory
the famous Jewish celebration of Purim is established. But
later the Hordian Czar-Khan repents. The Church Council
is held where the heresy is condemned. The main heretics
are captured, burned and exiled. The Khan's court returns
to the Russian Orthodoxy. However there were serious
consequences after the coup d'tat in the court of CzarKhan. In the beginning of the XVII century Rus-Horde
descends into the Time of Troubles. Horde loses its
control over Protestant, 'Latin', Western Europe. In the
centre of Empire the pro-Western Romanovs are eager to
cease power. The Empire breaks up. The RussianHordian dynasty is being cut down at the grassroots. In
Europe, Asia, Africa, South and North America ferocious
internecine feuds flare up between the Imperial governors
and between the fragments of 'Mongolia'.

The Book of Judith recounts the same events, but through

the eyes of the Western 'Mongol' governors. The punitive
troops of the Assyrian king lead by Holofernes invade the
West in order to quell the unrest. The Jewess by the name
of Judith (i.e. simply the 'Jewess') arrives to the Assyrian
camp. She penetrates Holofernes' tent and, having put
him off his guard by deceit, decapitates him. The Assyrian
army is demoralised and is defeated. The countries of the
West are saved. Just about the same thing is told in
chapter 4 of the Book of Judges in the story about the
commander Sisera (i.e. simply a Czar and Jael (i.e.
Elena), a woman who treacherously slayed him [6v1],
ch.8:13.
The Book of Daniel also describes a story of Esther (as a
story of Susanna), however from the ecclesiastic, religious
point of view. Roughly speaking we can say that the Book
of Daniel is an 'ecclesiastic' one, the Book of Esther is an
'inter-court' one, and the Book of Judith is a 'military' one.
They highlight the same exceptionally important event
from the different points of view.
It appears that under the name of Daniel here is presented
DANIEL, metropolitan of Moscow and of all Russia.
Understandably the Book of the Old Testament pays great
attention to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. As
in the basis of the events lay the religion-church conflict.
The role of a women-heretic was muffled.
One of the famous stories in the Book of Daniel is an
attempt to burn three Jewish youths in the 'fiery furnace'

by the Babylonians. What event in Russian history can this

refer to? Apparently this refers to the three main heretics
burnt in a cage in Moscow in the epoch of fight against
heresy of the Judaizers. These events of the XVI century
with a shift of approximately a hundred years are artificially
'spread thinly' along the entire XVI century and even made
it into the end of the XV century [6v1], ch. 7.
The burning of specifically three people and specifically in
a 'furnace' for their faith under Ivan the Terrible is among
most famous events in Russian history of the XV-XVI cc.
The peak of the struggle of the Russian Orthodox Church
against heresy was the sobor (church council) in 1504.
'The main denunciator of the Judaizers was Joseph
(Volotsky Auth.). THE CHIEF PERPETRATORS Feodor
Kuritsyn diak (secretary) Volk Kuritsyn, Dmitry Konoplev
and Ivan Maksimov were given in charge of civil court
AND THEN BURNT AT THE STAKE IN A CAGE on the
28th December in Moscow ' [578], book 2, v.3, p.211.
This burning of the THREE HERETICS IN A CAGE also
reflected in the Book of Daniel as 'burning in the fiery
furnace of the three YOUTHS (OTROK IN Russian)'
(HERETICS?).
Besides the main burning at the stake of the three leaders
of the heresy in 1504, there were also other executions of
the minor sectarians. But they were less striking. 'The blow
against heresy delivered by church council in 1504 was

very strong, but however didn't root it out terminally' [578],

book 2, v.3, p. 211.
Describing the burning of the three Jews, the Book of
Daniel insists on all three of them allegedly miraculously
surviving. The flames did not touch them, though the fire
was burning all around. So how was it possible? Could it
be that the Biblical authors feeling compassionate towards
the three youths symbolically depicted the matter in such a
way, as if God helped them? However, it is most likely that
here the two events were intertwined in the Russian
history of the XVI century. We have talked about one of
them. To
clarify which other event is mentioned in the Bible, we will
go a little bit back, to the end of allegedly XV century.
Venerable St. Joseph Volotsky (Joseph of Volokolamsk)
and metropolitan Gennady of Novgorod opposed the
emerging heresy of the Judaizers. That said Ivan III the
Terrible and a part of his court practically sabotaged the
struggle against heresy standing in the way of the
investigation. However under the pressure from the
Russian Orthodox Church the inquiry was pushing forward
albeit with difficulty.
'After such a great noise raised around the affair of the
uncovering heresy, the prosecutor and investigative
network was able to catch MERELY NINE PEOPLE in the
whole of Novgorod and Moscow', v.1, p.496.
The Sobor's (Council's) verdict was seen considered as
strangely mild. The Czar himself intervened on behalf of

the heretics. Instead some kind of showcase, theatrical

performance was organised. This time no one was burnt.
Just several 'heretical hats' were symbolically singed onto
some heads. Most likely they did their best so that no one
came to any harm. It is not difficult to do. As the hats were
made of birch bark. Birch bark burns fast. It's enough to
dampen the hair or to put some kind of a cap under the
birch bark hat so the head remained unharmed.
But the show itself gave a handle to colourful literary
descriptions. One of them is in the Biblical Book of Daniel.
The burning hats turned into the 'fiery furnace' (gluing this
storyline onto a later one, the real burning of the three
heretics in the scorching cage). But having done so it was
rightly stated that the fire was burning AROUND THE
CONDEMNED. In fact the birch bark was burning around
the head. The fire kind of surrounded the people. And they
'walked inside it without being burnt'. The literary image
was later heightened. Purporting that the fire which
surrounded the youths burnt the 'bad people',
Babylonians, who had stirred the flames. Those who
opposed the heresy. That's what Bible says as well.
The Book of Daniel's benevolence towards the prophet
and his supporters contrasts with the negative position of
the Russian Orthodox Church towards the heresy of the
Judaizers in Russia. It is possible that the Book of Daniel
was created by the heretics surrounding the throne of the
Hordian Czar-Khan, who supported the heretics for quite a
long time. To put it plainly 'The Book of Daniel' was written
in Russian by the Judaizers in (of) the XVI century.

As we've already said under the name of Daniel there was

described Daniel the Metropolitan of Moscow and All of
Russia. He occupied the highest post in the Imperial
church hierarchy of the Empire and, so to say, the second
place after the Czar-Khan. The metropolitan Daniel's
activities correspond well with the description in the Bible
[6v3], ch.4.
'The story of Esther' 1553-1584 is reflected in the past in a
phantom like way. Her main duplicates are: the epoch of
Ivan III the Terrible (and Elena Voloshanka) 1462-1505,
and the epoch of Vasili III (and Elena Glinskaya) 15051533. Metropolitan Daniel's activities fall exactly to (at) the
time of Vasili III.
Let's discus the 'story of Susanna' in the Book of Daniel.
This book is ecclesiastical and describes the struggle of
the Russian Orthodox Church with the heresy of the
Judaizers in the XVI century. The canonical part of the
Book of Daniel doesn't say anything about Esther = Elena
Voloshanka = Elena Glinskaya. There is no sexual story in
the 'official' twelve chapters of the Book of Daniel at all. It
appears that the ecclesiastical authors considered the
'female storyline' as an inter-court one, domestic,
concerning only the private life of the Hordian Czar-Khan.
Nevertheless the trace of a 'woman Esther' in the Book of
Daniel is still present. The 13th chapter (13) about
Susanna which was not considered canonical is included
in the end of the Book [936], v.1, p.461. At a first glance it
has nothing to do with the main theme of the Book.
However here is told, although in a distorted way, a part of

the story of Esther. Where the storyline had a distinctly

sexual emphasis.
Susanna refused to fulfil the erotic desires of the two old
judges. As a revenge they tried to smear her reputation in
front of the people and declared that allegedly 'a young
man came to her and lay with her. We were in the
corner of the garden and saw them lie together' (Book of
Daniel 13:37-39. However the young boy Daniel
intervened on behalf of Susanna to defend her honour,
uncovered the secret scheming and lies of the old judges.
Both of the corrupt judges were condemned and executed.
Thus the 'female aspect of the story of Esther' is reflected
in the Book of Daniel, though very vaguely. Nevertheless
here is presented one of the main storylines of the family
drama of the XVI century at the court of the Hordian CzarKhan and his co-ruler son. The sexual scene in secluded
lodgings where both rulers found themselves in the young
woman's bedroom in an ambiguous situation in an effort to
possess her.
The particular attention of the Bible commentators towards
Susanna is rather strange. What could be so especially
attractive in this story? The two judges-rulers lusted after a
young woman. They entered by stealth inside her place,
then they besmirched her reputation, for which they were
justly punished. But there are other much more important
stories in the Bible which nevertheless didn't favour such
close attention from the artists and authors of the XVIIXVIII cc. But for some reason they loved the story of
Susanna. Now it is clear why. She was a part of the 'story

of Esther' famous in certain circles, which played an

important role in the split of the 'Mongol' Empire. Thus the
West European artists painted the 'noble Susanna' fighting
the two 'very bad' old judges. At first the commentators
remembered the true meaning of the story. Then it was
forgotten, but they were still obediently continued to praise
Susanna by force of habit. The congregation was made to
forget that in the image of Susanna there was the
celebrated heretic Esther, aka a Jew Elena Voloshanka.
The Scaligerian historians date the Biblical Book of Daniel
as 605-536 BC [936], v.1, p.461. They were mistaken by
approximately 2100 years. The correct dating is the end of
the XVI century.
Thus within the basis of the Old Testament Book of Daniel
are the events in Russia-Horde of the XVI century. This is
consistent with the fact that precisely in the XVI century
the Russian Orthodox Church for the first time introduced
the ceremonial rite of 'peshnoye deystvo' a grand
spectacular theatrical production held in a church
celebrating the miraculous salvation of the three Jewish
Youths from the fiery furnace.
Everything now falls into place. As we have already said
the three leading Judaizing heretics were burnt at the
stake on the 27th (28th) DECEMBER of allegedly 1504
[372], v.1, p.500. That is why the church connected the
theatricalised 'burning of the three young men' with the
Nativity of Christ also celebrated in DECEMBER. The fact
that 'peshnyie' performances (costume devotions)

originated exactly in the XVI century can be also explained

very well. It was the time when the 'story of Esther' and the
struggle of the Russian Orthodox Church against heresy
has unfolded. The Church decided to commemorate it its
rites 'pesnyie deistva' (Costume devotion of Fiery Furnace
before Christmas Liturgy in Russian Orthodox Church).
Originally the meaning of those pageants was austerely
instructive. Via them in the XVI century the Russian
Orthodox Church, which temporarily won, was warning its
congregation in all the churches of the Empire against the
re-emergence of heresy. They demonstrated punishment
for state rebellion and the derogation from Orthodoxy.
Punishment by fire in a cage! But later, when the
Romanovs usurped the throne they reversed the meaning
of the 'peshnyie deistva'. The pageant remained, but now
they began to highlight the miraculous element of the
salvation of the Jewish youths from the fire as God
Himself was on their side. Black became white.
(The word 'Youth in Russian 'otrok' can sound like the
Russian word for Heretic 'Eretik', translators note)
Under the Romanovs 'The Book of Daniel' which had just
been written was considered as giving an account of the
events in Russia-Horde, which practically brought the new
dynasty into power. Namely (i.e.) about the events
pleasant to the Romanovs. In the XVII century The Book
of Daniel was edited, in the required key, as important
propaganda material which should be impressed on the
minds of the congregation. The evaluation of the events of
the XVI century were swapped. The heretics were
declared good and the representatives of the Imperial
Orthodox Church who were fighting against the heresy of

the Judaizers were cast in a negative light.

As time went by in the XVIII-XIX cc. the relevance of the
story faded. The 'story of Esther' became a thing of the
past, forgotten. Today they don't perform 'peshnyie
deistviya' in the Orthodox Church. But the instructive
tableau and illustrations to the Bibles on the theme of the
'fiery furnace' were painted up until the end of the XIX
century.
30. GOTHIC CATHEDRALS AND HORDIAN TEMPLES
AND MOSQUES.
In [4v2], ch.2:47 we talk about how the style of temples
which today are known as 'gothic' are based on the
architecture of the old Russian-Horde cathedrals of the
XIV-XVI cc. which formed later in Western Europe. Fig.91
shows the Church of Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
and St. Nicholas Cathedral on Ladoga. We can see that
the Hordian tradition to build cathedrals in the old 'Mongol'
style, i.e. in a form of a long building with a gable roof on
one side out of which rises a tower, was still alive in
Russia for a long time. Some of the Islamic mosques are
still built in this style, for example in Tatarstan. And also
the Western 'Gothic', i.e. Goth cathedrals. They were
modelled on the cathedrals of the metropoly, i.e. RussiaHorde. However, after the Romanov take-over the style of
the Russian churches was replaced by a new one the
domed style, which was called the 'old Gothic' style. But in
Western Europe the old Hordian style survived. Under the
name of the 'Old Gothic'. Thus its initial 'Mongol' origins

were obscured. Following the split of a united Christianity

into several branches these architectural styles began to
be considered independent. It is not true. They date back
to the mutual Hordian source.
31. ONCE MORE ABOUT HERODOTUS.
Here is an important conclusion we arrived at while
analysing the 'Ancient' Greek chronicles and above all the
famous 'Histories' by Herodotus. It turns out that there we
find a vivid reflection of the epochs numbered 1,2,3,5 in
fig.92 [GR].
1: The epoch of Andronicus-Christ of the late XII century.
2: The epoch after Christ, when Russia-Horde and the
regions of the Romaic Empire allied with it and took
revenge on Czar-Grad = Jerusalem and its inhabitants =
the residents of Judaea, for the crucifixion of Christ in
1185. This is the time of the Crusades of the early XIII
century followed by the 'Mongol' conquest of the late XIIearly XIV cc.
3: The epoch of the second Baptism of Russia-Horde and
of the entire 'Mongol' Empire at the end of the XIV century,
following the Battle of Kulikovo. In this battle the Apostolic
Christianity led by Dmitry Donskoy, aka Emperor
Constantine I the Great, won a victory over the Royal
Ancestral Christianity led by Khan Mamai aka Ivan
Veniaminov or Velyaminov.
4: The Ottoman conquest is reflected exceptionally
sparingly in the 'ancient' sources.

5. The epoch of the Reformation of the late XVI century

early XVII century, when the split of the Great Empire
began. The unsuccessful Livonian War; the coup d'etat in
the capital of the Empire, i.e. the story of Esther-Judith;
the separation of Western Europe from the metropoly of
the Empire.
In fig.92 between the epochs 3 and 5 there is the epoch 4
the Ottoman conquest. The curious thing is that the
'ancient' Greek authors Thucydides, Herodotus, Plutarch
and some others omit it. They sparsely, 'through gritted
teeth' speak of this second conquest of Europe by the
Ottoman Empire and Russia, i.e. about the conquest of
the Promised Land according to the Bible. The Western
authors, which were later called 'Ancient' Greek ones,
didn't like recollecting the events which were too painful for
them.
These five epochs cover the main written history of the
European part of the Horde Empire from the XII to the XVII
cc. The epochs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are described in detail by the
'Ancient' Greeks. They were more reticent about the 4th
epoch. However the 'ancient classical' authors speak
effusively of the 5th epoch of the Reformation and the
break-up of the Empire. As of the victory of the 'Eastern
Barbarians', which they were rather happy about. That is
exactly how Thucydides, Herodotus and the other 'classics
authors' called the Persians (P-Russians) THE
BARBARIANS.

In fig.61, fig.62 and fig.63 there are depicted the main

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

The Western European authors of the XVI-XVII cc. and

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

'ancient classics'. Western Europe is positively described

in their works as 'beautiful Hellas', and Russia-Horde as
the 'barbarian Persia'. The attitude of the chronicler can be
heard even in the choice of terminology. On one hand
there are Hellenes Greeks, gallant and sophisticated, but
extremely poor. On the other hand there are savage and
rough, but very rich Persians. And the modest nobility of
the first defeated the magnificent savageness of the
second! The 'ancient' classical authors wanted to write
about this subject again and again. Having already spoken
about the Western-European joy of liberation in his
previous books, Herodotus couldn't help it and repeatedly
poured out his admiration of the victory over the 'savage
East' onto the pages of the three voluminous books at the
end of the 'Histories'.
We have discovered a good correspondence between the
famous 'ancient' battle of Thermopylae between the
Spartans and the Persians allegedly in 480 BC and the
Battle between the Russians and the Germans in 1560
during the Livonian War at the town of Fellin. The
historians were wrong in the dating of this well-known
event by two thousand years [GR].
Hence the historians are mistaken when presenting some
ravine in Greece as the famous 'annalistic Thermopylae'.
This passage was called 'Thermopylae' later, in the XVIIXVIII cc. having moved here on paper the events of
the 'ancient' war with King Xerxes = Cossack Czar =
Kaiser. Numerous tourists, who wish to bow to the
memory of the 300 legendary Spartans should be taken

not to modern Greece, but to the German town of Fellin or

the Livonian town of Wenden.
In Herodotus' work we come across traces of the famous
correspondence between Prince Kurbsky and Ivan the
Terrible. To remind you, after the Prince fled to Lithuania,
they exchanged a number of letters. Much research has
been dedicated to them. As we have shown, this
correspondence is also reflected in the Old Testament, in
the Book of Judith, which also gives an account of the
Livonian war of the XVI century [6v1], ch.8.
Thus Herodotus began his writing with Emperor
Andronicus-Christ and
drove forward the narration until the beginning of the XVII
century, having talked about the Time of Troubles, about
Dmitry the Imposter and Czar Vassili Shuisky. The Horde
History (i.e. the Empire of the XIII-XVII cc.) has unfolded
before us. The name of 'Herodotus' itself probably
originated from the word ORDA (HORDE Translator's
note), in the West-European pronunciation HORDA :
Horda - Herodotus.
It is quite possible that Herodotus lived either in Southern
Europe or in the Mediterranean, as he had never seen a
snow storm and didn't understand what it was. When
narrating about Scythia, i.e. Russia-Horde, Herodotus
says: 'As the extent of their land (Scythia) is very great,
Colaxais, according to the Scythians, gave each of his
three sons a separate kingdom, one of which was of
ampler size than the other two: in this the gold was
preserved. Above, to the northward of the farthest dwellers

in Scythia, the country is said to be CONCEALED FROM

SIGHT AND MADE IMPASSABLE BY REASON OF THE
FEATHERS WHICH ARE SHED ABROAD
ABUNDANTLY. THE EARTH AND AIR ARE ALIKE FULL
OF THEM, AND THIS IT IS WHICH PREVENTS THE
EYE FROM OBTAINING ANY VIEW OF THE REGION'.
[163], P.188-189.
It is obvious that the matter he is talking about is the snow
storm here. Everything is clouded over with twirling snow.
Nothing can be seen even up close . A person who had
never seen a snowstorm and who uses only the travel
notes of the others, could have decided, that the
snowflakes flying around were white bird feathers. Or he
could have confused the Russian words PURGA
(SNOWSTORM, BLIZARD in Russian) and PERYA
(FEATHERS in Russian).
32. WHEN THE GREAT ITALIAN ARTISTS OF THE
RENAISSANCE LIVED.
In [1v] and [2v] we mention numerous accounts of the life
dates of various famous Renaissance painters are in fact
closer to us by approximately 100-150 years. We are
speaking here in particular of Leonardo da Vinci: allegedly
1452-1519; Michelangelo: allegedly 1475-1564; A.Drer:
allegedly 1471-1528. The same conclusion results from
entirely different reasons the astronomical ones. In [GR],
in the introduction, we show, that the zodiac on the ceiling
of Sala dei Pontefici in Vatican was created in 1670. I.e.

150 years later, than we were led to believe. We are told,

that the fresco was created in 1520-1521 by the artists
Perino del Vaga and Giovanni da Udine. Notably these
artists are famous not only in their own right, but also in
connection with the other famous painters of allegedly
early XV - late XVI cc. Therefore this constellation of the
Renaissance masters shifts upwards on the timeline and
finds itself in the epoch of the XVII century.
Most likely such reputed artists as Rafael, Pinturicchio,
Signorelli, Botticelli and many others lived not in the XVXVI cc., but in the XVI-XVII cc. And some even in the
XVIII century.
The dates like 'year 1520' which we encounter in old
works of art could be read as follows. As it is shown in
[1v], number (figure) 1 earlier meant letter I, the first letter
in the name of IISUS (JESUS in Russian Tr.). In other
words the date I520 earlier meant 'year 520 from Jesus
(AD)'. But Jesus Christ was born in in 1152. Calculating
from year 1152 up 520 years we get year 1672. Therefore
in some documents the dates like 'year 1520' could have
referred to the second half of the XVIII century, and not at
all in the XVI century as it is thought today.
33. WHAT SHAKESPEARE REALLY WROTE ABOUT.
In the book [SAK] we show that such extraordinary
Shakespearian plays as 'Hamlet', 'King Lear', 'Macbeth',
'Timon of Athens', 'Henry VIII', 'Titus Andronicus' (the time
of which is erroneously dated today into the distant past
and placed in the wrong geographical regions) in fact give

an account of real and important events. Of the XII-XVI cc.

unfolding mainly in the metropoly of the Great Empire.
Here we were also guided by other original sources, telling
us about the very same events as Shakespeare does. In
particular, upon the chronicles by Geoffrey of Monmouth,
Saxo Grammaticus and Raphael Holinshed. As the result
the following has emerged:
# Prince Hamlet appears to be a reflection of AndronicusChrist (Andrei Bogolyubsky) and John the Baptist from the
XII century.
# King Lear is the reflection of Khan Ivan the Terrible from
the XVI century.
# King Macbeth is the reflection of the Biblical King Herod
from the XII century.
# Timon of Athens is the reflection of Judas Iscariot from
the XII century.
# The English King Henry VIII is another reflection of Ivan
the Terrible.
# The English queen Catherine of Aragon is the reflection
of the Czaritsa Sophia Palaiologina, the wife of Ivan III=IV
the Terrible.
# The English queen Anne Boleyn is the reflection of
Elena Voloshanka = Biblical Esther from the XVI century.
# Emperor Andronicus-Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky) is
reflected on the pages of Shakespeare under the names

of: Prince Hamlet (in 'Hamlet'), McDuff (in 'Macbeth'),

philosopher Apemantus (in 'Timon of Athens) and Titus
Andronicus (in 'Titus Andronicus').
All of this may sound unbelievable. If you recall the events
described by Shakespeare, it would seem you will not
discover anything resembling Shakespeare's writing in the
story of Christ or Ivan the Terrible. Indeed, having arrived
at a modern theatre or cinema and listening attentively to
a tragedy performed by distinguished actors, it is difficult
to imagine, that in fact they, not understanding it
themselves, narrate about the events of not such a distant
past and of famous heroes, whose connection with
Shakespeare's writings, was apparently forgotten long
ago.
The reason for such a psychological fog is clear. Often we
do not realise how far from the original (purely on the
surface) its literary interpretation might move. A dramatist
and a poet add to the ancient chronicle some made-up
details and emotionally decorate a scanty plot. The literary
emotions take centre stage and conceal the true essence.
It gets covered by a thick dust. A rather complex analysis
is required to 'wipe the dust off'. It is necessary to behave
like the criminologists who untangle crimes. Moreover,
without the objective guiding milestones the New
Chronology it is often impossible to understand what
was based on what, and where to look for the original.
34. CALENDAR-ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE
FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA AND CHRIST'S NATIVITY.

&& WHEN COMPUTUS (PASCHAL CYCLE) WAS

DETERMINED.
We will cite the summary of research by G.V.Nosovsky
[6v3], ch.2. We are talking here about the two major
milestones of the traditional chronology the Nativity of
Christ and the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, often
called the Council of Nicaea. The Scaligerian version is
largely based on these dates. The fact is that Scaliger built
the chronology primarily as the chronology of the history of
the church. Secular chronology is presented in his works
as secondary, based on the synchronisms with
ecclesiastical events.
Apparently both dates The Nativity of Christ and the
Council of Nicaea were dated by Scaliger absolutely
incorrectly.
In [6v3], ch.2 it is described how exactly these dates were
calculated by the Mediaeval chronologists and which
errors were made. What's most interesting is WHAT
DATES COME UP AS A RESULT, IF THESE ERRORS
ARE CORRECTED. Also it gives an account of the true
reason for the famous Gregorian calendar reform of the
XVI century, after which there were two styles developed
in our calendar 'old' and 'new.
It is thought that at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea
in 325 the church calendar was determined compiled and
approved. The Christian Church always believed this
calendar, called the PASCHAL CALENDAR, to be of great

importance. The Church paschal calendar-computus

consists of two parts immovable and moveable.
THE IMMOVABLE part is a civil calendar called 'Julian
Calendar' as its compilation is associated with Julius
Caesar. In it the year consists of 12 months. Every fourth
year an additional day is added 29 February. The Julian
calendar is closely connected with the Christian Liturgy.
The 'immovable' Christian holidays are allocated
according to the dates of the Julian calendar. Every year
they fall on the same day of the same month of the Julian
calendar.
THE MOVEABLE part of the church calendar determines
the dates of the observance of Easter and some other holy
days which are calculated relative to Easter. The Christian
Easter and the feast days which are counted from it are
MOVEABLE, as their places in the Julian calendar change
from year to year, moving according to the date of the
Christian Easter. The day of Easter moves within the
dates of the Julian calendar according to a definite rule.
This rule 'Computus' is quite complicated and is
connected to astronomical concepts.
This combination of the immovable and the moveable
parts of the church calendar is called the Paschal calendar
or simply Paschalia.
Thus both parts of the Paschal calendar-Computus
determine the order of the church service for every day of
any year. That is why the canonisation of the Paschal
calendar-Computus had a pivotal significance for the

church. It was Computus which provided the uniformity in

the church service in many diverse locations. All the
chronological problems connected with the dating of the
Nativity of Christ and the history of the church calendar
play an important role in our perception of not only the
history of the church, but also about the entire Mediaeval
Eurasia.
The two main apostolic canons of Easter are as follows:
1) Not to co-celebrate Easter together with the Israelites.
2) To celebrate Easter only following the vernal equinox.
Then, when compiling the Paschalia, the Holy Fathers of
the Council of Nicaea who have established Paschalia,
added two more canons. The fact is, that the first two
apostolic canons do not yet clearly determine the day of
Easter unequivocally. The two new canons are:
3) To celebrate Easter only after the first Vernal Full Moon.
i.e. following the Jewish Passover, which in the Christian
patristic literature was sometimes called the 'Law
Passover'- i.e. Passover according to the Law of Moses,
and sometimes the '14th Lunar month of Nisan'.
4) Besides, to celebrate Easter not on any week day, but
precisely on the first Sunday following this full moon, i.e.
following the Jewish Passover (Pesach).
STATEMENT 1. The Council which established Paschal (it
is thought to be the Council of Nicaea) could not have
taken place earlier than 784, as only beginning with this

year, due to the slow astronomical shift of the moon

phases, the concurrencies of the calendar (determined by
Paschal) Christian Easter and the 'lunar'('Cynthian')
Jewish Passover-Full Moon had ceased. In 784 such a
concurrency took place for the last time and then the dates
of the Christian Easter and Jewish Passover diverged
forever. Therefore the Council of Nicaea a priori could not
have canonised The paschal calendar in the IV century,
when the calendar Christian Easter would have coincided
with the Jewish Passover eight (!) times in the years
316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374 and 394 and five (!)
times would have even fallen two days EARLIER than it
(which is explicitly forbidden by 4th canon of Easter,
namely in the years 306 and 326 (i.e. allegedly in a year
after the Council of Nicaea!), and also in the years 46, 350
and 370.
STATEMENT 2. The reasonable concurrence (give or take
24 hours) of the Paschal calendar Full Moons fixed at the
Council of Nicaea, with the observed astronomical full
moons, existed only during the period of time from circa
700 until circa 1000. In the epoch prior to the year 700 the
calculated full moons occurred always later then the
Paschal ones, and after the year 1000 it was the opposite,
the calculated vernal full moons, i.e. the days of the
Jewish Passover according to the Paschal determination,
began to take place earlier than the Paschal full moons.
The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877) falls
EXACTLY AT THE TIME OF THE IDEAL
CONCURRENCES OF THE PASCHAL AND
ASTRONOMICAL FULL MOONS.

This means that Computus could have been compiled only

during the epoch from the VII to XI cc. AD. Therefore the
dating of the Council of Nicaea which determined the
Paschal calendar is possible only as the VII-XI cc., and the
most likely dating is the epoch of the X-XI cc., after the
year 877.
&& THE RESULT OF THE DATINGS OF THE COUNCIL
OF NICAEA.
In [6v3], ch.2, it is shown, that Computus could have been
compiled:
- Not earlier than year 784 by definition of the Christian
Easter;
- Not earlier than year 700 according to the concurrence
of the paschal and astronomic Full Moons;
- Not earlier than year 700 according to the 'Damascene
palm' 'the hand of John of Damascus';
- Not earlier than 743 according to Matthew Vlastar
(lived in the XIV century), and therefore, according to the
ecclesiastical tradition of the Orthodox church and the
entire Russian-Byzantine tradition, the voice of which was
Vlastar's.
Thus, Paschalia was not established earlier than the
second half of the VIII century, and not at all in the II-V cc.,
as we are told. In the light of the new chronology it
becomes clear, that the canonisation of Paschalia at the
Council of Nicaea dates to the epoch of the XI-XIV cc. The

Paschal calendar could have also easily comprised of

some old astronomical formulations of the VII-XI cc., which
however by that time had firmly entered ecclesiastical
tradition.
&& THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS.
# Paschalian calendar based on the events of the
astronomical nature 'contains' the date of its compilation,
i.e. allows the objective independent dating.
# This date appears to be significantly later than it is
previously believed. It is at a distance of at least some
centuries from the Scaligerian year of 325.
# It is this date in particular, and not the one accepted
today (325), which was known to Matthew Vlastar in the
XIV century and, therefore, is a part of the old tradition of
the Orthodox Church.
&& THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST AND THE BEGINNING
OF 'CURRENT ERA ('A.D.')
It is well known that since the beginning of A.D. (Anno
Domini, 'Current Era') or 'era since the birth of Christ',
there was no continuous yearly calculation until the current
year. The first year 'A.D.' was calculated much later as the
year of the Nativity of Christ. It is widely believed that
originally this year was calculated by the Roman monk
Dionysius Exiguus in the VI century, i.e. more than 500
years after the event he dated. Whereby Dionysius at first
calculated the date of Christ's Resurrection, and then used
the ecclesiastical legend, that Christ was crucified in the

31st year of his life. The Resurrection date according to

Dionysius is the 25 March 5539 from Adam, and the year
of the Nativity of Christ is consequently 5508 from Adam
(according to the Byzantine era).
Dionysius' calculations were controversial in the West up
until the XV century, and in Byzantine were never
canonized.
&& THE CALENDAR HYPOTHESIS OF THE
RESURRECTION'.
The ecclesiastic traditions according to the Gospels
claims, that Christ was resurrected on Sunday the 25
March the next day after the Jewish Passover. Which,
accordingly, fell on Saturday 24 March on that occasion. It
was these very calendar-astronomical 'Paschal
conditions', which we call the 'conditions of the
Resurrection', that Dionysius had in mind when while
calculating the dates of Christ Resurrection and Nativity.
The full set of the calendar conditions associated with
the stable church tradition the Resurrection of Christ,
can be found in the 'Collection of the Holy Father's rules'
of Matthew Vlastar (XIV century). He gives the following
calendar regulations for the year of Christ's Resurrection:
1) circle for the Sun 23,
2) circle for the Moon 10,
3) the previous day, on the 24th March, the Jewish
Passover took place, which is celebrated on the 14th day
of the Moon (i.e. Full Moon,)

4) The Jewish Passover took place on Saturday, and

Christ was resurrected on Sunday.
The combination of these four points we will call the
calendar 'conditions of the Resurrection'. The Question: is
it possible to restore the date of the Resurrection using the
dates above? The answer: Yes, it is.
&& THE DATING OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
ACCORDING TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THE
'CONDITIONS OF THE RESURRECTION'.
G.G.Nosovsky conducted the computer-based
calculations for each year for the period from year 100
B.C. to year 1700 A.D. The day of the vernal Full Moon
(14 Moon (Nisan), or Jewish Passover) is calculated
according to the Gauss algorithm and the Christian Easter,
circle for the Sun and circle for the Moon according to
Computus. In the same way that Dionysius and Matthew
Vlastar, we assume that the day of Resurrection was the
Paschal (Easter) day according to Computus.
Statement 3. The calendar 'conditions for the
Resurrection' 1-4, associated by the consistent church
tradition of the XIV century with the date of the Passions
and Resurrection of Christ, occurred ONLY ONCE: in
1095.
The very fact of the existence of the exact solution is
absolutely crucial. If the listed conditions were the result of
pure fantasy, then, most likely, we wouldn't have been

able to find any exact solution throughout the historical era

at all.
CONCLUSION. The Nativity of Christ (according to the
erroneous traditions of the XIV century chronologists) was
dated circa 1064 31 years before 1095.
The date of 1095 corresponds with the dating of the life of
'pope Hildebrand' ('Pope Gregory VII', born Hildebrand of
Sovana Tr.) (the phantom reflection of Christ from the
XII century). This dating (the result of the erroneous
mediaeval calculations) was originally restored by
A.T.Fomenko with entirely different methods in [1v] and
[2v1], ch.4. Thus we discovered the mediaeval tradition of
erroneously dating the life of Christ to the XI century. The
final dating of the Nativity of Christ which we arrived at in
[TsRS] gives us the middle of the XII century, i.e. a
century later. When correlating this date with the dating of
Computus we can see that Computus was compiled, at
least in its original version, way before Christ. Is it
contradictory to the ecclesiastical history and legend? It
appears to be a difficult question. In the old church text
both arguments 'for' and 'against' can be found. The
absolute contradiction occurs only with that outlook upon
the history of the church which took shape not earlier than
the XVI-XVII cc. i.e. by that time under the influence of the
Scaligerian chronology.
That is why it is no probability that the dates of
Resurrection and Nativity of Christ were calculated in the
VI century based on the calendar situation of the year 563.
Besides, as it is shown in [6v3], ch.2, the calculation,

which was used by Dionysius, itself was compiled not

earlier than the XVIII century and was canonized only the
IX century.
Therefore the computations of Dionysius Exiguus
(Dionysius the Small), or possibly attributed to him, were
carried out not earlier than the X century. And therefore
'Dionysius Exiguus' himself could not have lived earlier
than the X century.
In the chapter of the 'Collection of the Holy Father's rules'
by Matthew Vlastar which is related to Easter (Passover),
it says that 'at present' equinox falls on the 18th March
[6v3], ch.2. In fact the vernal equinox in the times of
Vlastar in the XIV century fell on the 12th March. It fell on
the 18th March in the VI century.
This means, that when dating Vlastar's text according to
the vernal equinox we will by default arrive at the VI
century! It appears, that the same later-mediaeval text was
included both into the 'Rules' of Matthew Vlastar and the
writing of Dionysius the Small. It is possible that this is text
written by Vlastar himself or by someone of his immediate
predecessors in the XIII-XIV cc. It includes the dating of
the Resurrection of Christ, but nothing is said about the
date of the Nativity of Christ. It is feasible, that it is the text
by Vlastar which 'Dionysius the Small' used very soon
after, who deducted 31 years from the date of Christ's
Resurrection, arrived at the date of the 'Nativity of Christ'
and presented his new era. If it took place in the XIV
century, then the beginning of the systematic use of this
era specifically only just since the XV century (from 1431)

in the West is understandable. Subsequently, possibly in

the XVII century, Dionysius' text was dated by the equinox
as the VI century and there emerged the above mentioned
reconstruction of his computations. The name 'Dionysius
the Small' itself (Small = Exiguus in Latin), according the
hypothesis expressed by A.T.Fomenko (in) [1v], ch.6:17,
is simply the name of the XVII century chronologist
Dionysius Petavius, who completed the construction of the
Scaliger chronology. Scaliger and his students lived in
France. There the name 'Small' translated as 'petit' and
turned into 'Petavius'.
35. ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
1. (1638) THE ROMAN ZODIC LV FROM LOUVRE.
'Ancient Rome', allegedly 'antiquity'. In fact: 12-17 June
according to the Julian Calendar 1638 [DZEE].
2. (1661) ZODIAC FS IN THE SCYTHIAN CHAMBER OF
THE DUKES D'ESTE. Fresco on the wall of the duke's
palace (Palazzo Schifanoia Tr.) Italy, Ferrara, allegedly
XV century. In fact: 24 June according to the Julian
calendar 1661 [GRK], ch.4.
3. (1664) THE ROMAN ZODIAK RZ ON 'MARCUS
AURELIUS'' GEMMA. The embossed red jasper. Europe,
allegedly 'Ancient' Rome. In fact: 8-9 December according
to Julian calendar 1664 [DZEE].
4. (1667 or 1227) ZODIAC P1 FROM THE TOMB OF
PETROSIRIS, OUTER CHAMBER. Colour image in the

tomb ceiling. 'Ancient' Egypt, Dakhla oasis, allegedly

'antiquity'. In fact first solution: 5 August 1227; second
solution: 2 August according to Julian calendar 1667
[NKhE].
5. (1670) ZODIAK ZP CHAMBER PONTIFEX SALA.
Grand frescos fully covered the ceiling of an ample
chamber in one of the Vatican castles. Italy, Vatican,
allegedly 1520-1521. In fact: 24-30 June according to the
Julian calendar 1670 [GR], Introduction.
6. (1680) ZODIAC FR IN DUKES D'ESTE SCYTHIAN
CHAMBER. Fresco on the wall of the duke's castle. Italy,
Ferrara, allegedly 1468-1469. In fact 19 May according to
Julian calendar 1680 [GRK], ch.4.
7. (1682) BRUGSCH ZODIAC, horoscope of the demotic
postscripts (adscripts) BR1. Depicted on the internal
surface of the wooden coffin lid. 'Ancient' Egypt, allegedly
antiquity. In fact: 17 November 1682 according to Julian
calendar or 18 November 1861 according to Julian
calendar [NKhE].
8. (1686) ZODIAC FT IN DUKES' D'ESTE SCYTHIAN
CHAMBER. Depicted on the fresco of the Virgin Mary, on
the wall of the duke's castle. Italy, Ferrara, allegedly XV
century. In fact: 15 October 1686 according to Julian
calendar [ERIZ].
Chapter 8.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY

1. THE DIVISION OF THE REMAINS OF RUSSIAHORDE BETWEEN THE ROMANOVS AND THE USA,
WHICH OCCURRED IN THE WRECKAGE OF THE
AMERICAN TERRITORIES OF THE EMPIRE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ROMANOVS' VICTORY
OVER 'PUGACHEV'.
Up until the end of the XVIII century there still existed a
vast Moscow Tartary a gigantic fragment of the former
Empire. Whereby according to the Encyclopaedia
Britannica of 1771 Moscow Tartary WAS THE LARGEST
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD [1118], v.2, p.683. It is
depicted on various maps of the XVIII century [4v1], ch.11.
Moscow Tartary originated in the middle reaches of Volga,
from Nizhny Novgorod. Thus Moscow was not far from the
border with Moscow Tartary. The town of Tobolsk was
pronounced its capital, the name TOBOL was underlined
on several maps. A reminder that in the Bible mediaeval
Russia was referred to as ROSH, MESHEKH and TUBAL,
i.e. Ros, Moscow and TOBOL.
Moscow Tartary spanned the Urals, Siberia, Central Asia,
The Far East, Alaska and North America. The conflict
between Moscow Tartary and Romanov Russia (originally
small in size) ended in the second half of the XVIII century
with the famous, allegedly 'peasant', war against
'Pugachev'. The Romanovs succeeded in agreeing peace
separately with Turkey and defeating the Great Tartary.
Only after this the European emigrants who had settled on
the Atlantic seaboard of North America, ventured West,
inland over the continent. For decades they seized the

North-American territories of Moscow Tartary left without

any governmental authority. Today this has been
beautifully, but incorrectly narrated on in the Hollywood
movies about 'the very noble' white frontiersmen and the
'very bad' Indians.
As a result, in 1776 (straight after the defeat of
'Pugachev') the United States of America emerged. With
the Romanovs they voraciously and speedily sliced and
diced the vast territories of Moscow Tartary. Ural, Siberia,
the Far East. In America Alaska and Oregon was ceded
to the Romanovs. The rest of North America to the USA.
After failing to maintain these bountiful lands, distant from
St.Petersburg, and unwilling to obey the usurpers, both
Oregon and Alaska were given away to the USA for a
notably paltry sum. The very fact of the existence of
Moscow Tartary up to the end of the XVIII century and the
division of its vast territories between the conquerors was
wiped clean from the history textbooks both in the Old
and the New Worlds. Up until now the native Russian
population of America is being persistently forced to forget
their language and their past.
In the XVIII century there existed another 'Tartar' state
the Independent Tartary with its capital in Samarkand
[1118], v.2, p.682-684. It was another large 'splinter' of
Russia-Horde. Unlike Moscow Tartary, the fate of this
state is known. It was conquered by the Romanovs in the
middle of the XIX century. Samarkand, the capital of the
Independent Tartary, was seized by the Romanovs army
in 1868 [183], part 3, p.309.

Before the defeat of Pugachev the entire Siberia was on

the whole a country independent of the Romanovs. As a
matter of fact there were a number of states.
Only after the victory over 'Pugachev' the Romanovs
began to 'place' on the map of Russia the countries'
names famous in old Russian history the countriesprovinces of the 'Mongol' Empire [4v2], ch.2:20. For
example, Perm and Vyatka. In fact mediaeval Perm is
Germany, and mediaeval Vyatka is Italy. These names of
the old Imperial provinces were on the Russian coat of
arms. After the break-up of the Empire the Romanovs
began the re-writing the history of Russia. In particular it
was necessary to relocate these names from Western
Europe to some place far off, into the wilderness. Which
was done. But only after the victory over Pugachev.
Notably, it was done rather quickly. The Romanovs began
to replace the coats of arms of the Russian cities and
regions only in the second half of the XVIII century. On the
whole in 1781 [4v1], ch.10:2 and [4v2], ch.2:20. The
change of the coats of arms began 6 years after the
victory over Pugachev the last independent Hordian
Czar, or the military commander of the Czar of Moscow
Tartary.
According to the maps of the XVIII century, the border of
Moscow Tartary was very close to Moscow. Such a
dangerous proximity greatly concerned the Romanovs. It
is possible that it was the reason for Peter the Great to
make a decision to relocate the capital further away, to the
swampy coasts of the Gulf of Finland. Here the new

capital was built St. Petersburg. This location was

convenient for the Romanovs. Now the capital was far
away from the Hordian Tartary. Besides, in the case of an
invasion from the Siberian-American Horde, it would be
easier to flee to the West from St. Petersburg than from
Moscow. Mind you, for some reason they didn't fear
invasion from the sea to the WEST. In St.Petersburg it is
possible to board a ship made ready at the doorstep of the
Czar's castle and quickly embark to Western Europe - to
friends and relatives, to the historical motherland of the
Romanov house.
The official explanation of the Romanovs for relocating the
capital of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg was not
very convincing. They said, that Peter I was 'cutting a
window through to Europe', since it was easier to trade
from there. But it was possible to trade from the shores of
the Gulf of Finland without moving the capital there. They
could have simply built a large trading port, and a city next
to it. But why did they need to make it the capital of the
country?
Furthermore, Siberia becomes a place for the exiled only
after the Romanovs' defeat of Pugachev at the end of the
XVIII century. Prior to this they exiled people to Solovki,
i.e. Solovetsky Archipelago. In any case to the North, but
not to Siberia. Let us see when the regular exiles to
Siberia began. In particular, Tobolsk became a place of
exile only since 1790, when A.N.Radishev was exiled
there [797], p.1092; [4v1], ch.11.Since then Tobolsk has
become the PERMANENT place of exile. For example, the

Decembrists were exiled there. But prior to 1790 over

almost the entire XVIII century nobody was exiled to
Tobolsk for some reason [4v1]. Ch.11. The vast
governmental system of Siberian exile and Siberian hard
labour was created only in the XIX century.
Everything is clear. Until the end of the XVIII century the
Romanovs could not exile anyone to Siberia simply
because SIBERIA DID NOT BELONG TO THEM YET. But
it was part of the Russian-Hordian Tartary hostile to the
Romanovs. Only having defeated 'Pugachev', the
Romanovs got an opportunity to exile the convicts further
to cold Siberia. And even further to the Far East, to the
coast of the Pacific Ocean, to Sakhalin island.
Let's go back to the question of when and how the USA
was established. 'During the War of independence of
North America in 1775-17983 an independent state
the USA was formed' [797], p.1232. And here we realise,
that it SURPRISINGLY COINCIDES WITH THE END OF
THE WAR WITH 'PUGACHEV' IN RUSSIA. 'Pugachev'
was crushed in 1775. Everything falls into place. 'The War
of independence' in North America was the struggle with
the weakening Russian Horde. The Romanovs attacked
the Horde from the West. And from the East in America - it
was attacked by the Americans 'fighting for
independence'. Today we are told that the Americans
purportedly fought for their 'independence from Britain'. In
fact it was a battle for the parcelling of the vast American
land of Moscow Tartary left without any central
administration. In order not to miss the carve-up, the

American troops were eager to get to the West and NorthWest. George Washington became the first president of
the USA in 1776 [796], p.1232. It appears that he became
the first new ruler in the American lands of the Russian
Horde. The facts of the war with the 'Mongol' Horde were
wiped clean from the pages of the textbooks on the
American history. As was the fact of the existence of
Moscow Tartaria on the whole. The war between the USA
and the remains of the Horde continued up until the
second half of the XIX century. Alaska, which remained
Russian for a particularly long time, was 'bought' from the
Romanovs by the Americans only in 1867 [797], p.1232.
Thus, the USA was established in 1776 from the American
splinter of the 'Mongol' Empire.
2. THE CITIES OF THE URALS OF THE, ALLEGEDLY,
BRONZE ERA ARE THE TRACES OF MOSCOW
TARTARY, I.E. OF THE SIBERIAN AND AMERICAN
STATE OF THE XV-XVIII CC.
Relatively recently many settlements were discovered in
the Southern Urals, of which Arkaim became the most
famous [4v1], ch.11. The historians called them protocities and dated them to the Bronze era, allegedly to the
XVIII-XVI cc. B.C. [33], p.9-10. They inform us that:
'Arkaim is not alone now. The archaeological explorations
brought to light a LARGE GROUP OF SIGNIFICANT
SITES SIMILAR TO THE ARKAIM COMPLEX, tentatively
noted as a 'COUNTRY OF CITIES' [33], p.11. And further:
'The urbanized character of the Sintashta-Petrovka
settlements was acquired primarily as the centres of

manufacturing and distribution of the METAL GOODS a

large percentage of the findings comprised the metalwork
instruments and the remains of the METAL
PRODUCTION. Almost all the sites have the FIXED
METALURGICAL FURNACES, despite the comparatively
small uncovered areas [33], p.31.
The great 'antiquity' of these settlements was proclaimed
quite recently. As it turns out, the original point of view of
those, who discovered those cities, was different. The
discoverers considered the cities to be more recent, i.e.
closer to us on the timeline [33], p.9.
A clear picture emerges from all this data. The locals didn't
see anything particular mysterious in these settlements.
They thought them to be the remains of some not very old
cities. They are made of wood and compacted soil, so
their good preservation itself indicates that not so many
years have passed since their creation. It is only later that
the enthusiastic worshipers of antiquity baselessly
announced the enormous antiquity of these settlements.
Pilgrims and tourists became frequent visitors. I.V.Ivanov
informs, that 'three to four thousands sightseers, touristspsychics, members of religious sects, people hungry for
knowledge and sometime even seeking cures of ailments,
visit the conservation area on a yearly basis, during spring
and autumn and make a pilgrimage to Arkaim' [33], p.13.
Most likely, these are the old Cossack settlementsfortresses of the XV-XVIII cc. which were a part of the
military fortifications of Moscow Tartary. For a reason they

write thus of Arkaim: 'The fortification is worthy of a

MEDIAEVAL FORTRESSES' [33], p.25. The
comparatively good preservation of Arkaim located in the
open steppe, where the winds and the rains raze to the
ground the remains of the clay, mud and wooden walls
(built of earth packed into timber frames), comes into
strong contradiction with the 'heralded antiquity' of these
constructions [33], p.24. See [4v1].
3. IT APPEARS THAT 'PUGACHEV' WAS DEFEATED
BY SUVOROV. LATER ON THIS FACT WAS
CONCEALED.
It turns out that A.V.Suvorov's distinguished title of 'Count
of Rymnik' is not related to the geographical name of
'Rymnik' in Romania, which, as we have discovered,
appeared on the map only AFTER Suvorov's victories, but
to the old name of the Yaik River (at present the Ural
River). It can be seen on the old maps that Yaik also used
to have a second, now forgotten name Rymnik [ShEK],
ch.8. And the Urals were also called the Rymnik
mountains [ShEK], ch.8. This factor radically changes the
traditional belief about A.V.Suvorov's participation in the
Pugachev War. It turns out that it was he who defeated
Pugachev. The picture of the historical falsification carried
out by the Romanovs together with the Western ruling
houses becomes increasingly clear.
The history of war against 'Pugachev' as it is known today
is a pure invention of the victors the Romanovs.
'Pugachev's rebellion' was a brutal war between the

Romanov Russia and the Siberian-American Russian

State. This Kingdom retained the old Russian-Horde
customs and had its own czar with his capital in Tobolsk.
The Siberian czar was hostile towards the Romanovs,
considering them illegitimate rulers of the Western part of
Russia.
The Romanovs strived to possess Siberian Muscovy at all
costs. They understood very well that the Russian people
on the whole didn't support them and many would rather
prefer the regime of Tobolsk to the Romanovs'
St.Petersburg. That is why the Romanovs turned the very
existence of their Siberian neighbour into a national
secret. To preserve this secret, the infamous Secret Police
was created, where the executioners tortured and hanged
those who 'knew too much'.
At the end of the XVIII century a major war began between
the Romanov Russia and Siberian Moskovia. At first
Ottoman Turkey marched out as an ally of Tobolsk. The
Romanovs found themselves in a difficult position: they
had to fight on two fronts at once. However on the 10 July
1774 after a series of defeats Turkey signed the peace
Treaty of Kk Kaynarca with the Romanovs which
marked their defeat. Essentially it betrayed its ally the
Czar of Tobolsk. Seizing this opportunity in 1774 the
Romanovs urgently mobilised their troops from the Turkish
front to the Eastern Front.
A.V.Suvorov, who had recently distinguished himself in the
battles
with the Turks, stood at the head of these troops. With

Suvorov's help, count P.I.Panin, the commander-in-chief

of the Eastern Front, defeated the Siberian army of
'Pugachev'. Suvorov personally convoyed the captured
'Pugachev' from Yaik to Simbirsk. He was later brought to
Moscow and executed there, after purporting that he was
a common Cossack who had rebelled against the rightful
rulers the Romanovs. Most likely, it was in fact some
common Cossack who was brought for the execution, but
not the real Siberian war chief. It is possible that he was
called 'Pugachev'. The true identity of the Siberian leader
was probably kept secret by the Romanovs. The two
SECRET PANELS which were set up in Kazan and
Orenburg in 1773-1774, were in charge of the
misrepresentation of the Pugachev war history [988:00],
the article 'Pugachevshina'.
Most likely that following their defeat the remnants of the
royal court at Tobolsk and its faithful troops fled to China,
where they were warmly received by the Emperors of
Manchuria, the distant relatives of the Hordian czars of
Tobolsk, see our book 'Pegaya Orda'. The Romanovs
occupied Siberia, having at first annexed it to the province
of Kazan and pretended that 'it had been always been this
way'. But soon they began to divide it 'after suddenly
realising that it was too big'. Many old Siberian cities were
wiped off the face of the earth. The majority of the names
present on the maps of Siberia in the XVIII century are not
there in the XIX century anymore. When the
archaeologists unearthed the remnants of the Siberian
cities destroyed in the XVIII century, instead of
reconstructing the true history of Siberia, they declared

their findings to be extremely ancient. The perfect example

of this is Arkaim in the Urals, (see above).
In 1775 for the victory over Moscow Tartary Suvorov was
presented with the most luxurious and expensive award
among those he had received a diamond encrusted
sword. Much to everyone's delight, it was not held a secret
at that point. The Romanovs happily celebrated their
victory over their severe Siberian neighbour. The victory
came to the Romanovs at a price and they spared neither
expense nor rewards for their victorious generals-victors.
Later however, the time came when they had to give an
account of the history of the war on paper, to canonize the
version for the posterity. And here they faced a difficulty.
As the Romanovs were persistently hiding the very
existence of their Siberian neighbour, depicting that
Siberia had always belonged to them. That is why a
decision was made to present the war with Tobolsk as an
allegedly comparatively easy fight of government troops
with a rebellious mob. Purporting, that the rebels'
ringleader was a common Cossack Yemelyan Pugachev.
When presented in such a light, Suvorov's achievements
in defeating 'Pugachev' were an obstacle. It was clear, that
a great military commander should not be fighting a crowd
of ignorant peasants. He had much greater tasks, and the
suppression of peasant revolts was a responsibility of the
second-rate military commanders. That is why they
presented the matter the following way.
Allegedly 'Pugachev' was defeated by an unknown
lieutenant-colonel Michelsohn, who was made promoted

to colonel for his achievement. Suvorov, they said, had

nothing to do with it. He was called to the Eastern front by
mistake, due to P.I.Panin's panic. Suvorov, they said, had
absolutely nothing to do there. So in the end he did not
fight against Pugachev.
The precious sword received by Suvorov for defeating
Pugachev was clearly an obstacle to the falsifiers of
history. As it bore witness to the fact that it was Suvorov
who defeated Pugachev and that his victory was not came
at a price. That is why they presented it as if the sword
was awarded to him as reward for the success in the
Turkish war and not for the victory over Pugachev. And
they preferred to forget altogether about Panin's sword
[ShEK], ch.8.
Some might ask why did Suvorov receive the title of Count
of Rymnik rather than 'Count of Yaik' or 'Count of Ural' for
the victory at Yaik=Rymnik. As Rymnik is the OLD name
of Yaik. During the times of Suvorov this river was already
called the Yaik river, and after 'Pugachev's' defeat it was
renamed into the Ural river.
The probable reason is that in the Suvorov's epoch, under
Catherine the Great, it was the 'ancient' geographical
names that were very much in fashion. Thus after the
annexation of Crimea in 1787 Grigory Potemkin started to
be called Potemkin-Tavricheski, and not PotemkinCrymski. Though Crimea in those days was already called
Crimea, but not Tavria. But for the honorary title they used
the 'ancient' name Tavria. Incidentally in those times
many cities in the Russian Empire were either called or re-

named in the 'ancient style'. For example, Feodosia

(instead of the Mediaeval Kaffa), Sevastopol, Odessa, etc.
It's not surprising that Suvorov also received his title
'Count of Rymnik' according to the 'ancient' name of the
place, where he won his victory.
Some might like to object. They might say that the old
name of the Yaik river as Rymnik is just a random
coincidence with name of a small river Rymnik in Moldavia
(present day Romania). Purporting that this coincidence
proves nothing. Everyone knows that Suvorov became the
Count of Rymnik precisely for his victory by the Romanian
river Rymnik, and not at Yaik.
However, is it true, that the battle of 1789 in fact took
place at Rymnik? Such is the exact coincidence in the
names of two rivers in a different place where both of the
rivers are closely connected with Suvorov seem to be
improbable. Of course, it is impossible to argue the fact
that nowadays there is in fact a river there called Rymnik
in the place where Suvorov won his victory in 1789. It is
marked on the modern maps. The question is WAS IT
CALLED THAT DURING THE BATTLE ITSELF? Or was
this name craftily attached to some obscure river flowing
through the battlefield ALREADY AFTER THE BATTLE.
Aiming to replace the true reason for awarding Suvorov
with the title of 'Count of Rymnik', and to pretend that he
received this title not for the victory over Pugachev at
Yaik=Rymnik, but for a different victory?
Our suspicion increases by the fact, that the Austrians
who fought together with the Russians against the Turks

and took part in the same battle 'at Rymnik', as it turned

out, referred to it not as the 'Battle of Rymnik', but the
'Battle of Martinesti' [668:1], p.148.
Let us turn to the old maps of the XVII-XVIII cc. and see
what geographical names were there at that time in the
location of the 'Battle of Rymnik' of 1789? Is there any
'Rymnik' among them?
We examined hundreds of various maps including those
from the book [912:2a], containing the reproductions of
over 300 old maps of Russia and its vicinities of the XVIIXVIII cc. It turned out that NONE OF THE OLD MAPS
KNOWN TO US CONTAIN ANY TRACES OF THE NAME
'RYMNIK' IN THE LOCATION OF THE BATTLE OF
RYMNIK IN MOLDAVIA. But Fokshany, situated very
close, where another important battle of 1789 took place
and where Suvorov also gained a spectacular victory, was
indeed marked on some of the maps of that time.
Fokshany was indicated, but Rymnik was not! Notably, in
the location of contemporary 'Rymnik' a number of old
maps indicate another name close to that of 'Rymnik', but
still essentially different from it 'RYBNIK' [ShEK], ch.8.
But then we begin to understand the 'cookery' of the
Rymnik forgery. It was carried out by the Romanovs'
historians rather intelligently. They have studied the
geographical situation in the vicinity of Suvorov's victories
of 1789 trying to find a name similar to 'Rymnik'. It turned
out that on some old maps not far from those locations,
the town of 'Rybnik' was indicated. That was sufficient to
publicly announce that Suvorov, 'Count of Rymnik'

received his title precisely for the victory of 1789. The

indication on the old maps for the place 'Rymnik' illustrates
only a slip of the pen by cartographers, they say. For
greater authenticity a small river flowing through the
battlefield was renamed as 'Rymnik' [ShEK], ch.8.
Thus, the name 'Rymnik' emerges on the map of Moldavia
(present day Romania) only due to the Romanov's forgers.
They made sure to depict Suvorov's battle with the Turks
in 1789 as that very Battle of Rymnik for which he
received the important title of 'Count of Rymnik'. But the
real battle took place in 1744 at Yaik=Rymnik. During this
battle Suvorov and Panin defeated 'Pugachev's' Siberian
army, and by doing so they rendered an invaluable service
to the Romanov dynasty. Hence the title and many other
honours they generously showered Suvorov with. For
example, they began to erect the monument to Suvorov in
Petersburg by royal authority of the Emperor Paul I of
Russia during the lifetime of the commander. Suvorov was
buried in the most important place of honour - in
Alexander Nevsky Lavra, in a special burial vault
designated only for relatives and close friends.
4. THE ROMANOVS ENDEAVOURED TO BRING
MOSCOW DOWN.
During the epoch of Peter I the relations between
Romanov Russia and the vast Moscow Tartary became
especially tense. Fearing the restoration of the Horde's
regime in Central Russia, the Romanovs transferred their
capital to distant Petersburg, which was especially built by
Peter I

for this purpose. The former capital Moscow, which was

still associated in the minds of many people with Horde of
the XIV-XVI cc., was assigned the role of a second-rate
city [4v].
Peter I and his circle didn't like Moscow and everything
connected with it. Here is an interesting detail conveyed
by the French courtier Leboise. He accompanied Peter's
court in Paris 1717. In his report to the French King,
Leboise wrote: 'The word 'Muscovite' and even 'Muscovia'
are deeply insulting for this entire court' [514], v.2, p.283.
It is clear, that a heavy political gloom was to descend
onto Moscow and Moscow Kremlin. This is the exact
picture that emerges from the documents of the XVIII
[TsRS], ch.9.
The Romanovs not only abandoned the old RussianHorde Kremlin of Moscow=Jerusalem, but decided to
mock deride it as 'Mongol' relics. For example, they sent
their jesters with their 'weddings' into the Palace of the
Facets (Granovitaya Palata). Let them have fun, they said.
Let us see how exactly the Romanov's buffoons and their
friends danced, drank and joked in the heart of the former
capital of Russia-Horde = Biblical Israel.
The old documents, which came to light after a long period
of obscurity thanks to the efforts of Zabelin, inform us:
'THE PREFECT OF THE LATIN SCHOOLS AND THE
PHILOSOPHY TEACHER HIEROMONK JOSEPH
ARRANGED ORGANISED PLAY ACTING. IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT DURING THE ARRANGEMENT OF

THESE COMEDIES THERE THE FRESCOS OF THE

PALACE CHAMBERS, WHICH WERE ALREADY QUITE
DILAPIDATED, WERE LIME WASHED' [282:1], part 1,
p.117-118.
Everything is clear. The West European 'scholars' who
had swarmed across Romanov Russia (especially after
Peter cut a window through into enlightened Europe,
which was impressed on all of us multiple times) not only
clowned around in the Russian Horde cathedrals, but also
were destroying the vulnerable Hordian relics of antiquity,
revelling in impunity. In particular they lime washed the old
frescos in Kremlin. Later, post factum, they declared them
to be extremely dilapidated. Purporting that there was
nothing left to do but to lime wash them. It became clean
and beautiful there. The old Russian pictures ceased to
annoy the delicate Latin taste.
It is astonishing that the Romanovs abused the Moscow
Kremlin up until the beginning of the XIX c inclusively.
Hence one can see how great was their irritation with the
former Hordian traditions and memories connected with
Moscow and its Kremlin. It came to a point where in the
beginning of the XIX century the Romanov administration
practically exposed Kremlin to thieves and cheats! IN
KREMLIN THERE APPEARED 'NESTS OF THIEVES'
AND 'HOUSES OF DEBAUCHERY' [TsRS], ch.9.
5. ABOUT THE 'MOST ANCIENT' CHINESE HISTORY.

There are a lot of preconceptions attached to Chinese

history. Today it is thought that it is exceptionally ancient,
that its dating is absolutely reliable, that in many ways it
precedes European history. The common misconception
is that allegedly Chinese chronology is solidly based on
various 'Ancient Chinese' astronomical notes, which allow
us to unequivocally date the 'Ancient Chinese' events.
We analyse the Chinese astronomy and history in [5v2],
[PRRK], PVAT]. We show that dating the first astronomical
observations in China to allegedly the sixth millennium BC
is a serious error, as the alleged reference to the sunspots
on the Chinese crockery of allegedly the fourth millennium
BC. The Chinese astronomy of allegedly the second
millennium BC on the shells and turtle shells also belong
to the same phantoms. As it becomes clear, the FIRST
observatories and astronomical permanent service
appeared in China not earlier than the XIX century.
THE MOST ANCIENT Chinese horoscope of the grandson
of the Yellow (Huangdi) Emperor Xuanyan-shi (who
allegedly ruled in 2637-2597 B.C.) in fact dates to the 6th
March 1725 according to Julian calendar, i.e. the XVIII
century!
It appears that the EARLIEST Chinese Yellow Emperor
who introduced the epoch of the 'Great Beginning' in
China is the first Manchurian dynasty Sh-Tzu-ZhangHungd Shun-Chih (1644-1662), i.e. lived in the XVII
century, and not at all in the 'deepest antiquity'.

The astronomical facts prove, that the MOST ANCIENT

(Chinese 60-year calendar cycle) was in fact introduced
for the first time not until the XIII century.
It turns out that the MOST ANCIENT Chinese solar eclipse
under the Emperor Zhng Kng in the beginning of the Xia
dynasty (who ruled allegedly in 2100-1600 B.C.) occurred
on the 1st September 1644, the year of the accession of
the Manchurian dynasty. Which means that the history of
the Chinese solar eclipses begins only from the XVII
century, and not at all in the 'deepest past'.
Furthermore, it turns out that the data about the Chinese
lunar eclipses fails to either affirm, or contest any kind of
chronology of China. It is absolutely useless for the
purpose of the astronomical dating.
We have devoted a large section in [5v2] to the Chinese
comets the most important backbone of the Chinese
chronology. We have studied the Chinese comet
catalogues in detail. To conclude:
1) The only comet, based on which it could have been
possible to try and attempt to prove the validity of the
Chinese chronology, is Halley's Comet. The rest of the
comets are absolutely useless for the verification of the
chronology of China as well as of any other ancient
chronology.
2) The information about the appearances of Halley's
Comet in the Chinese chronicles earlier than the XV
century turned out to be falsified. We have shown that

they were fabricated in the XVIII-XIX cc.. This is not just

our hypothesis, but a firm statement [5v2], ch.5. However
we do not claim that all the Chinese records referring
today to Halley's Comet were falsified. It would be enough
to fabricate just ONE or TWO OBSERVATIONS of
Halley's Comet for the indicated forgery. The forgery was
carried out most likely between 1759 and 1835.
The early history of China up until the XV century is in fact
the history of Europe, Mediterranean, including Byzantium.
The historical chronicles narrating about Europe were
brought to China by the Hordian conquerors not until the
XIV-XV cc.
Later, after the XVII century, in China these chronicles
were erroneously understood as giving an account of
allegedly 'ancient Chinese history'. It was easy to make a
mistake particularly because in China for writing they used
hieroglyphs, i.e. simply pictures.
This type of writing was apparently brought to China from
Egypt, possibly as early as in the XII-XIII cc. The
understanding of the pictures-hieroglyphs intrinsically
depends on the language. The same hieroglyphs are read
entirely differently depending on who is reading them: a
Chinese, a Japanese, a Vietnamese, etc.
The proper nouns are represented by the hieroglyphs by
way of finding similar sounding hieroglyphs IN THE
APPLIED LANGUAGE. Hence the spelling, and therefore
the reading, contemporary to us, of an old Chinese name
considerably depends on who exactly translated

ORIGINALLY into the hieroglyphic script: a Japanese, a

Chinese or a Korean
Besides, the language evolves too. A name which used to
sound one way would acquire a completely different sound
in several hundreds of years in the evolved language
even if the HIEROGLYPHS, which it was written with,
remained the same.
6. WHEN AND WHY THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA
WAS BUILT
Today it is thought that construction started on the Great
Wall of China in the III century B.C. for the purpose of
defence against the Northern nomads [5v1]. We would like
to suggest the following idea.
The Great Wall of China was most likely built as a
construction defining the BORDER BETWEEN TWO
COUNTRIES: China and Russia. It could have certainly
been intended as a military fortification, but it is hardly true
that the wall was used in that particular capacity. It is
pointless to defend a 4000 kilometres wall [5v1], ch.6 from
the attack of an enemy. Even if it stretches over 'just' one
or two thousand kilometres. The wall in its present form
falls short of four thousand kilometres.
The wall was built first of all to MARK THE BORDER
BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES, notably when they came
to an agreement about the border. Presumably, to
eliminate any boundary disputes in the future. And such
disputes most likely did occur. Today agreed parties draw

the border on a map i.e. on paper. And consider it to be

sufficient. In the case of Russia and China the Chinese
placed such an emphasis on this agreement that they
decided to cement it not just on paper, but also 'afield',
constructing the wall according to the agreed boundary. It
was safer this way and, according to the Chinese, would
eliminate any boundary disputes for a long time. The
length of the wall itself speaks in favour of our hypothesis.
Four or one-two thousand kilometres is normal for the
border between two countries. But as for the purely
military construction absolutely pointless.
But the political border of China changed frequently over
the duration of its allegedly more than two thousand years
history. The historians are telling us so. China has united,
then broke into separate regions, then lost and acquired
some lands.
We can date the construction of the Wall. If we succeed in
finding a political and geographical map, where the
BORDER OF CHINA GOES EXACTLY ALONG THE
GREAT WALL, this would mean, that IT WAS EXACTLY
THAT TIME, WHEN THE WALL WAS BUILT.
Let us try to find such a map. Such maps do exist. There
are a lot of them. These are the maps of the XVII-XVIII cc.
For example, the map of Asia of the XVIII century,
produced by the Royal Academy in Amsterdam [1019].
We can find two states on the map: Tartary Tartarie and
China Chine. See fig.93 and fig.94 [5v1], ch.6. The
Northern border of China follows approximately the 40th

parallel. THE WALL OF CHINA PRECISELY FOLLOWS

THIS BORDER. Moreover, on the map the Wall is marked
with a thick line and signed Muraille de la Chine, i.e. the
'tall wall of China' - translated from French.
In [5v1] we present a number of such maps. It all means
that the Great Wall of China was built in XVI-XVII cc. as
the political boundary between China and Russia =
'Mongol Tartary'.
Some may object: on the contrary, the border between
Russia and China in the XVII century was drawn along the
ancient Wall. However in this case the Wall should have
been referred to in the written Russian-Chinese
agreement. We haven't found such references.
So when was the Wall=Border constructed? It appears as
precisely in the XVII century. It is for a reason considered
that its construction 'completed' only in 1620 [544], v.6,
p.121. And it might be even later [5v].
Did the Wall exist earlier than the XVII century? Most likely
not. The historians tell us that China was conquered by
the 'Mongols' in 1279. It became a part of the Great
Empire. According to the New Chronology this took place
in the XIV century [4v1], ch.2. In the Scaligerian
chronology of China this event was marked in the XIV
century as the MING dynasty ascending to power in 1368,
i.e. the very same MONGOLS.
As we understand it now in the XIV-XVI cc. RUSSIA AND
CHINA STILL COMPRISED ONE EMPIRE. Therefore

there was no need to erect a Wall = Border. Such

necessity emerged after the Time of Troubles in Russia,
the defeat of the Russian Horde dynasty and the seizure
of power by the Romanovs. They have changed the
political course of Russia, subjecting the country to the
western influence. Such orientation of the new dynasty led
to the break of the Empire. Turkey broke off, the severe
wars began with Turkey. In fact control over a substantial
part of America was lost. In the very end even Alaska was
lost, the last Hordian splinter in America.
China became independent. The relations between China
and the Romanovs became tense and the border conflicts
began. It was necessary to erect the Wall, which was
carried out, most likely during the boundary disputes of the
XVII century. The military conflicts flared up since the
middle of the XVII century. The wars proceeded with
variable success [5v1], ch.6. The descriptions of the wars
survive in Khabarov's letters.
The beginning of the certain history of China (on its
present day territory) falls only in the epoch of the
Manchurian dynasty coming to power. I.e. the Mongol
dynasty originated from Russia. The dynasty was either
Russian of Tatar.
As late as in the XVIII century it was common to write
MANZHOURY [5v1], ch.6, and not the 'Manchu' of today.
I.e. MANGURY or MANGULY, as in China the sounds 'L'
and 'R' are often indistinguishable. Thus the very name of
MANZHOURY points to their origin. They were the
'MONGOLS' = the magnificent.

Incidentally, this border the XVII century separating the

epoch of the Manzhourian domination in China from the
'purely Chinese' period preceding it coincides with the
dating of the most ancient Chinese manuscripts which
survive until the present day. To remind you, they date to
not earlier than the XVII century [544], v.6, p.119.
The Manzhourian = 'Mongolian' rulers of China are known
to consider themselves the successors of the vast Empire,
which according to them spanned the entire world. If their
kingdom was the splinter of the Golden Horde, then such
a perception is understandable. But from the Scaligerian
point of view, that before conquering China, the Manchu
was a savage peoples who lived somewhere near the
Northern Chinese border, the absurd pomposity of the
Manchu sovereigns becomes not just strange, but without
parallel in world history either.
7. PIEBALD HORDE
When was 'ancient Chinese history' written and who by? It
appears that in the XVII-XVIII cc., in China, under the
Manchus, a great deal of history writing was undertaken.
[151]. This activity was accompanied by disputes, whitchhunts, persecutions and the obliteration of books. The
history of China was practically written under the
Manchus. And it took place in the XVII-XVIII cc. [151].
In [5v2] we show, that THE CHINESE HISTORICAL
LITERATURE WHICH EXISTS TODAY WAS WRITTEN
AND CONSIDERABLY EDITED AFTER 1770. A lot was

edited. The chronicles, lists of comets, the history of

dynasties and the entire Chinese history in general.
Thus, following the Romanovs seizure of power in Russia
and the crushing defeat of the Russian Horde, the
surviving representatives of the Horde dynasty fled in
different directions. In particular to the East. Some,
however, made attempts to return to the Moscow throne. It
appears that the Stepan Razin and Yemelyan Pugachev
'uprisings' were among such attempts.
But some fled to the East. The most Eastern Horde was
the Piebald Horde, situated at that time along the borders
of present day China. Possibly the territories occupied by
it were called KITAI. And is now modern day CHINA,
according to Afanasy Nikitin.
The escaped group of the Hordians was not great in
number. They were the Manchus = 'Mongols'. It was
probably them, who had with them a minor prince.
Incidentally, the mysterious (for the historians) prince
Alexei was also involved in the Razin uprising. Having
rounded up troops in the Piebald Horde, they conquered
China, settled there and took all the necessary measures
not to be absorbed by the Romanov Russia. For that
purpose, in particular, the Wall of China was created either
in the middle or at the end of the XVII century.
In 1644, as they tell us, the Manchus seized, but most
likely FOUNDED the city of Peking. Or as it was called
then PEZHIN from PEGAYA (means PIEBALD in
Russian) Horde. A minor prince SHIH(-zu), who was

brought with them from The Golden Horde, i.e. from Volga
(where Stepan Razin was fighting at the time), was
proclaimed the Emperor.
The conquerors forces marched off almost without any
women. That is why to continue a pure Manchurian =
'Mongol' bloodline was possible only for the Emperor's
court. And even then only just. In the very end the bulk of
the Manchus became integrated. It happened
approximately a hundred years later. Consequently the
nature of the Manchurian army completely changed. By
the end of the XVIII century the 'Manchurian soldiers
have long lost their former military efficiency' [151], v.5,
p.318. The Manchurian language is the language of
Piebald Horde. Naturally, it is nothing like Chinese.
To conclude, THE MANCHURIAN GOLDEN HORDE IN
CHINA OF THE XVII-XVIII CC. IS THE SPLINTER OF
THE RUSSIAN GOLDEN HORDE. The Manchus are
those 'Mongols', Russians and Tatars, who in the XVII
century fled from the Romanovs.
8. ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SOURCES OF THE
PRESENT DAY MONGOLS.
They can tell us: but there are present-day Mongols.
Living on the territory of Mongolia. What is the story of
their ancient history? They must have their chronicles and
annals
Most likely, the present-day Mongols are the vestiges, the
descendants of the Piebald Horde, which had conquered

China in the beginning of the XVII century. Their very

name speaks of it: Mongols = Manguls = Manchurs.
Therefore it is interesting to have a look at their historical
sources. It is thought that there are many of them, but ALL
OF THEM, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE HISTORIANS,
WERE CREATED, OR TO BE MORE PRECISE, FIRST
WRITTEN IN THE PERIOD FROM THE XVII TO THE XIX
CC. [5v1], ch.6.
As a rule, the Mongolian chronicles, despite the fact that
they were created in the XVII-XVIII cc., are brought to the
Manchurian conquest. THEY CONTAIN THE OLD
LEGENDS ABOUT THE QING DYNASTY. And also about
Genghis Khan and his descendants ruling in 'Mongolia'
[5v1], ch.6.
But these are once again the legendary recollections
about the Golden Horde and famous Russian Grand
Prince Georgii Danilovich. The chronicles were brought to
the territory of the present-day Mongolia by the Manchurs
the natives of the Golden Horde. That is the reason why
the chronicles end with the Manchurian conquest.
Following that the Mongols themselves as a rule for some
reason didn't compose any historical writings.
We are aware that it might be immensely difficult for our
reader to part with a myth of the archaic antiquity of China
and the Eastern civilisations in general. However, the
impartial analysis shows that the age of the Eastern
civilisation is approximately the same as the Western one.

But the written accounts in the East are in a much worse

state than in the West. If in the West the majority of the
surviving manuscripts and books were produced not
earlier than the XVI-XVII cc. and they convey to us
European history beginning with only the XI century, than
in China the situation is worse. There practically all the
documents were produced not earlier than the XVII-XVIII
cc. That is why we would hardly be able to learn anything
about the Chinese history prior to the XV-XVI cc. We
would like to repeat that its final version was created only
at the end of the XVIII beginning of the XIX cc.
9. JAPAN.
The second wave of the 'Mongolian-Chinese', i.e. Scythian
colonisation of Japan belongs to the XVI-early XVII cc.
During this time they began to break the 'Mongol' Empire
into pieces. Japan, which has already been safely
absorbed by The Horde earlier in the XIV-XVI (the first
wave), has unwillingly become one of such splinters
countries in the XVII century. Japan of that time remained
faithful to the idea of the Horde Empire. As a result, in the
beginning of the XVII century various demographics
among the European Cossack population of Horde (and
first of all of the East Piebald Horde) moved to join their
brothers on the far away Japanese islands, escaping the
invasion of the pro-Western Romanovs. The unyielding
Hordians-Samurais had left the mainland for ever. It is for
a reason that there survive Japanese records of exactly
the time the shogun Tokugawa IEYASU (1542-1616)
arrived to Japan [1167:1], p.20. They possibly refer to the

appearance on the Japanese islands of a new wave of

Christian Cossacks under the banners of JESUS Christ,
i.e. crusaders samurais-Samarians (natives of Samara).
The period between 1624-1644 is referred to in today's
version of Japanese history as 'Kan'ei period' [1167:1],
p.20.I.e.the period of the KHANS. It is curious, that during
this epoch Japan completely shuts itself from the outside
world. Presumably, the Hordian khans, the rulers of
Japan, were striving to isolate their country and to save it
from the 'progressive reformers' of the XVII century, who
were greedily dividing at that time the vast heritage of
Horde in Eurasia and America.
Today it is thought that in the XVI-XVIII cc. in the history of
Japan and particular its central region, metropoly Edo, an
important role was played by the RUSUI [1167:1], p.6. The
Japanese historians say: 'We should not forget about the
RUSUI (Auth.), who were present in Edo from every feudal
province (of Japan-Auth.). THE RUSUI HAD A HUGE
INFLUENCE on the culture of both Edo metropoly, and in
each regional district The Rusui from different feudal
districts cooperated with each other' [1167:1], p.6.
Speaking of the Rusui with deep respect, the
contemporary Japanese historians do not specify here
who are these Rusui. Our idea is simple. The Japanese
sources have preserved the records that the Japanese
islands colonised by RUSSIA-Horde. The descendants of
the Cossacks-Hordians were called Rusui in Japan for a
rather long time. And the samurais as well.

The military regime of the samurais headed by Shogun

lasted until the middle of the XIX century. The historians
report that the 'Chinese cultural influence on Japan was
enormous, especially in the epoch of Edo' [1167:1], p.11.
As we have already pointed out, in the XIV-XVI cc. the
name Kitai (China) referred to Scythia.
It has already been stated that in the samurai epoch of the
XVII-XIX cc. the Japanese islands isolated themselves
from the outside world. They wished to protect themselves
from the Western rebels. However, by the middle of the
XIX century the division of the heritage of the 'Mongol'
Empire in Eurasia and America was over and the greedy
gazes turned to the faraway Japanese islands, which
remained the pillar of the Imperial samurai spirit. Japan's
turn had come.
In the middle of the XIX century the European military
ships (elusively referred to as 'merchant' in the textbooks)
appeared at the shores of Japan carrying a large
deployment of European troops. A military coup was
underway, which led to the fall of the samurai rule. This
period was later cunningly called 'the Meiji
RESTORATION', i.e. meaning the return to former values
[1167:1], p.104. In reality they referred to the barbaric
invasion of the Hordian-Samurai Japan by the European
Reformers. The last outpost of the samurais the
headquarters of the shogun in the North of Japan, in the
city of Aizu-Wakamatsu was seized and savagely
destroyed. The contemporary Japanese historians usually
speak sparingly of this turbulent and dark era.

Thus in 1868 the Hordian-Samurai epoch came to an end.

In the second half of the XIX century the Reformation
swept through the vanquished country, i.e. sublimating
Japanese life to the Western and American way. [1167:1],
p.104. The samurais were crushed.
Over time in Japan there emerged a nostalgia for the
epoch of the samurais: 'The people look back to the Edo
era with much nostalgia' [1167:1], p.10. The mediaeval
samurais (the Samarians) until now remain the object of
admiration and respect in Japan [5v1].
10. THE MAP OF THE GLOBAL HORDE EMPIRE.
The major conquests of Russia-Horde and the Ottoman
Empire Atamania are not at all reflected on the
Scaligerian map in any way. That is the reason why we
had to draw the present map of the 'Mongol' Empire of the
XIV-XVI cc. ourselves.
The Mighty = 'Mongol' rulers thought that the entire world
should be conquered. And this plan was fully realised. Let
us highlight the contours of the Russian Empire at the
beginning of the XX c. on the world map with a thin red
line, fig.95. Let us add to it the territories which, according
to the historians, were a part of the 'Mongol' Empire, or as
it was called in the XVII-XVIII cc. Great Tartary, fig.96
[5v1], ch.1, ch.8.
As you can see, the Great Tartaria and the domains of the
Mighty 'Mogols', i.e. 'Mongols', cover practically all of Asia
and a significant chunk of Europe. It includes, in particular,

the biggest part of modern China, India, Persia and Korea.

Let us add to this Great Tartaria the following countries:
# The United Ottoman Empire = Atamania which was later
given the name of Turkey, conquered by TamerlaneTimur.
# A part of Egypt conquered during the 'Mongol' yellow
Crusade allegedly in the XIII century.
# Eastern Europe, colonised by Baty-Khan.
These are the countries which fell under the rule of the
'Mongol' Empire according the historians themselves.
But that is not everything. Let us add the countries which
according to the mediaeval records, essentially considered
themselves to be the vassals of the Great Empire. Without
showing any significant armed resistance. Such as
Germany, France, Italy, England, Spain, Scandinavia, i.e.
virtually the whole of Western Europe. The result is
indicated with the continuous bald line in fig.95. These are
the contours of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV century
epoch.
Later in the XV-XVIcc. the Empire significantly expanded
once again during the Hordian and Ottoman conquest of
The 'Promised Land'. The overseas territories in the North
and South America were annexed. These territories are
included in fig.95 with a dashed line [6v2], ch.6.
Inside the Empire of the XIV century (thick contour) you
see the Russian Empire of the early XX century (thin

contour). Here could also be added the countries which

were a part of the Russian zone of influence (USSR) from
1945 to 1985. How does the territory of the 'Mongol'
Empire of the XIV century differ from the territory of the
Russian Empire, let's say, of the early XX century?
Not more than twice. And to think that this is several
hundred years later, following the break-up of the Empire.
And if we compare it to the 'zone of influence' of Russia
(USSR) of the XX century in Eurasia, then the difference
would be reduced to only several per cent. Not to mention
that Alaska, leased out by the Romanovs to USA in 1867
under Alexander II, is comparable to Western Europe.
Though it was sold so cheaply for 7.2 million dollars
[4v1].
The Great Empire was rigidly centralised. In those times
the creation of such a vast monolithic Empire with real
longevity was impossible due to the inadequate means
of communication, for example. That is why the Horde
Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. fell apart having existed for
about 300 years. But the very idea of a multinational
Empire remained appealing and lived long in certain parts.

11. DIVISION OF THE RELIGIOUS HERITAGE OF THE

EMPIRE.
The religious and political heritage of the Empire was
divided between: the WEST, with the Catholic Rome in

Italy; the EAST, with the Orthodox Third Rome = Moscow;

and ASIA, with the Muslim Istanbul. Moscow, Rome and
Istanbul were the religious centres. Thus in the XVII-XVIII
cc. the three religions, which emerged from the sole
Christianity of the XII-XIV cc., divided the spheres of
influence.
The city of Jerusalem in Palestine was given its name and
identified with the evangelical Gospels Jerusalem not very
long ago [6v2], ch.2:10. Following the break-up of the
Empire the main ecclesiastical forces of the Orthodox
Christianity, Catholicism, Islam and Judaism could not
agree on how to keep the former name of JERUSALEM
for Czar-Grad = Troy = Istanbul.
There were too many political, historical and religious
conflicts there. Following the split of Christianity none of
the newly formed religious branches could agree to leave
the old holy Jerusalem in the hands of one of the 'sisters'
as its religious centre.
In the end in order to avoid offending anyone, it was tacitly
agreed to strip Czar-Grad of one of its famous ancient
names Jerusalem. And it was bestowed upon the small
settlement of Al-Quds in what is todays Palestine. Where
notably the very name PALESTINE, - i.e. Bely Stan (White
Camp) or Babel, Babylonian Camp, - was also transferred
not long before.
It took place most likely in the XVIII century. The
construction of the 'Jerusalem antiquities' dates to the
early XIX century, when Egypt was conquered by

Napoleon and Western Europeans for the first time arrived

in Palestine [6v2], ch.2. At the end of XVIII-XIX cc. AlQuds was quickly turned into the centre of the religious
veneration, to where all the corresponding Gospel and
Biblical events were transferred to on paper.
The famous mediaeval name of Troy was also taken away
from Czar-Grad and declared to be 'very ancient'.
However the name itself didn't travel too far. Today we are
told that Homer's 'classical' Troy was in fact situated close
to Istanbul. Namely on the Eastern shore of Turkey, near
the southern entry to the Dardanelles. Near a town of Kum
Burun [2v1], ch.5.
12. REWRITING AND 'FRAGMENTATION' OF THE
ANCIENT HISTORY.
To sum up. Among the Imperial splinters, which for an
especially long time remained true to the idea of the united
Empire, were, for example, Spain, Samurai Japan,
Manchurian China and some Hordian-Cossack
civilisations of America Maya, Aztec and Inca in
particular. The Hordian governors who ruled in the XVII
century in China decided to break away from the usurpersRomanovs. For that purpose in the XVII century The Great
Wall of China was erected as the borderline marked point
to point with low-rise walls and occasional towers.
In the XVII-XIX cc. all these pockets of resistance of the
old 'Mongol' dynasties were suppressed. The Samurais-

Hordians in the XIX century were crushed by the

Europeans who invaded Japan. The Hordian civilizations
in America were drowned in blood by the West-European
reformers who intruded there in the XVII-XVIII cc. Later on
all these atrocities were shifted by the historians
approximately 200 years down back to the XV century and
retrospectively accredited it to the rather peaceful
colonisation of America by Horde-Ottoman Empire.
Cunningly having called it 'the bloody Spanish Conquista'.
Painted on paper - white into black. Projected their own
atrocities onto someone else.
In the XVII-XVIII cc. in West Europe the reformers fiercely
suppressed the Russian = Scythian population and Slavic
culture. Today textbooks evasively describe these punitive
wars as the 'wars with Cathars' and are dated to several
hundred years back to the XII-XIII cc.
In the XV-XVI cc. Russia-Horde = Biblical Israel and
Ottoman Empire-Atamania = Biblical Judaea were the
integral parts of the sole united Empire. After its break up
in the XVII century the Western rebels tried to drive a
wedge between Russia and Turkey, the heiress of the
Ottoman Empire. They succeeded in doing so. The
meaningless Russian-Turkish wars began, exhausting the
brotherly nations. In doing so the rebellious Western
Europe succeeded in breaking free from the rule of Russia
and the Ottoman Empire. In 1826 the rebels managed to
draw over the Turkish Sultan Mahmud II. He ordered to
abolish the famous Janissary corps the former Slavic
guards of the Ottomans-Atamans. They were

treacherously shot down at point-blank with cannon buck

shot. Sultan Mahmud II demonstratively swapped his
Ottoman clothing for Western-European garments and
Turkey openly set its course for Western Europe. Though
their 'friendship' was never to be.
The memory of the 'Mongol' Empire recedes into the past.
The important part was played by the historians of the
XVII-XIX cc. fulfilling the order of the new authorities, had
a vested interest in preventing the restoration of the
Empire. It was necessary to destroy the very memory of it
as quickly as possible. The order to rewrite the entire
history in the requisite key followed purely political
objectives, vital both to the Western reformers and their
henchmen in Russia the Romanovs. This explains the
concurrence of historic falsification practically applied
according to a unified programme across different
countries. The 'Imperial idea' itself began to be denounced
as a 'chauvinistic' one. Russia in particular endured a
great deal, as it was constantly a suspect in the attempts
to restore the Empire. They didn't like Turkey either.
As a result a distorted picture of the past was created,
which was being forcefully indoctrinated into the peoples
psyche in the XVIII-XX cc. Scaligerian chronology which
dated many events of the XI-XVI cc. back into the distant
past became the main instrument of this falsification.
Some of the epochs of the X-XVI cc. were submerged into
a fictitious obscurity: the 'dark Middle Ages' materialised.
Classical antiquity in its turn, on the contrary shimmered
with the phantom reflections of the events of the XI-XVII

cc. which were declared 'very ancient'. For example, the

Russian civilisation in Italy was declared to be Et-ruscan
and was 'consigned' into the past. As a result the surviving
records of the true history are perceived today with
bewilderment and sometimes even with petulance. The
topsy-turvy picture of the past was perpetuated even in the
mind set. Some of our contemporaries, for instance, in
Russia and Turkey, perceive our reconstruction with
unease and awkwardness, according to which Russia
together with Ottoman Empire at some point comprised
the metropoly of the global Empire. The people feel
somewhat awkward in front of the citizens of other
countries who forgot more profoundly their own, in fact not
so distant, past.
Now, when the true picture of the XIV-XVII cc. becomes
clearer, the history of the new time appears in a different
light. Primarily the history of Russia and Turkey. The role
of the ideological method used against them is clear. The
Reformation would have remained unfinished without the
falsification of ancient history. Sooner or later in Russia
and in Turkey there could have appeared the idea of the
restoration of the Empire. In order to prevent this, with the
aid of the skilfully developed ideological method the
false historic and chronological version the Russian
troops were dispatched into war with Turkey.
In the regions of the Empire which gained independence
the memories were becoming increasingly blurred. The
local historians fabricated many allegedly independent
chronicles of their own 'local Empires' from virtually one

and the same chronicle of the global empire. The Arabs

started to think that they had THEIR OWN Arabic Empire.
The Germans happened on paper to have THEIR
OWN whole Empire of the German nation. The Chinese
THEIR OWN Heavenly Empire. The Italians THEIR
OWN Roman Empire. And so on. All these empires were
allegedly different, existing in different epochs. Thus one
Great Empire 'spawned' several 'small paper' Empires.
Let's discuss in more detail. We discovered multiple
duplications which identify the main 'Empires of the distant
past' with the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. There
appeared to be 12 such major overlaps [1v], [2v]. There is
nothing surprising here. The Great Empire embraced
practically the entire civilised world. Its history was written
down by the chroniclers of various cities including those
far from the metropoly. In Europe, Asia, America and
Africa. The collective history of the Empire was the 'spine'
of all the local chronicles, and especially the events in the
metropoly, in Russia-Horde. The local events were then
superimposed upon this 'common skeleton'. They were
different for different regions, but the 'skeleton' was
common the Hordian one. The sole history for the sole
Empire was shattered into multiple fragments, in which
however, as in a hologram, the reflected history of the
entire 'Mongolia'
remained frozen.
The question is under what names the czar-khans of
Russia-Horde were reflected in the 'distant past'? They
had many names. Every Hordian emperor is reflected in

the regional chronicles under different names: biblical,

'Ancient' Roman, 'Ancient' Germanic, 'Ancient' French,
'Ancient' Italian, etc. It is of course difficult to keep in mind
all the parallels which we discovered and to remember
which ruler is 'identified' with another. In [KR], Appendix 2,
we organised this data. It resulted in a most interesting list
of the main 'phantom names' of each Hordian 'world'
Emperor from the XIV-XVI cc.
The old chronicles of the Empire of the XII-XVI cc. usually
started with the epoch of Andronicus-Christ, i.e. from the
XII century. Following the collapse of the Empire and the
artificial multiplication and division of the very same main
chronicle into numerous 'provincial' ones, AndronicusChrist 'appeared' at the beginning of the written history of
various newly-emerged states. But already as, allegedly,
'their own, local' czar. He was even known by different
names. However in the 'biography' of each such 'local first
czar', traces of the life description of Andronicus-Christ
inevitably survived. Sometimes they were more obvious
than at other times. As time went by they faded from
memory. The fantasies of latter day chroniclers
embellished these old accounts with elaborate and
inventive detail.
To conclude, the purpose of the 'history reformation' was
to prevent the restoration of the Horde Empire. People
were to forget the location of its centre. It was declared
that allegedly the centre was situated in 'ancient' Italy.
Thus the centre moved on paper! to Western Europe.
After that all the attempts to widen the borders of the

Russian czardom, - and such attempts were often based

on the subconscious striving towards the restoration of the
peoples' unity, - started to look like 'Russian aggression'.
The analogous attempts of Turkey looked like the
'Turkish aggression'. Imposing false beliefs on the enemy,
which to themselves were advantageous, was a rather
effective technique.
The peoples of the XVII-XVIII cc. fought not only on the
battlefield, but also on the pages of the history textbooks.
And this is understandable. 'The historical arguments' are
often launched to substantiate immediate political ideas.
Unfortunately, the historical science is intertwined with the
politics including that of today. This interferes with the
peaceful scientific discussion of the paradoxes
accumulated over time. Today it is high time to turn away
from the political aims of the XVII-XVIII cc. and to adopt
mutual efforts to restore to true picture.
13. WHY IN THE XVII-XVIII CENTURIES THEY
ADMIRED CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY.
The Scaligerian-Romanov history taught us the following
interpretation of the past. They say that once upon a time
in small rocky Greece there lived the eminent 'Ancient
Greeks', and in the centre of the small Italic Peninsula
the wonderful 'Ancient' Romans. And in a small desolate
Palestine wonderful biblical characters. Overall they
were all common people. The Biblical heroes for example
lived a simple life, tended the flock, ruled the tribal clans,
herded cattle from place to place, etc.

Then later the biblical and 'classical' characters allegedly

exited the stage of the Middle Ages. And were forgotten
for many centuries. However the 'subconscious memory'
of them proved to be allegedly so persistent that after
many dark centuries the entire Western Europe and even
barbaric Russia 'unexpectedly remembered antiquity' and
started to worship the obscure shadows of the distant
past. Moreover they developed such deeply 'ancient'
Greco-Roman and Biblical memories that motivated them
in their social and religious life and even in everyday life.
All of this looks strange.
Our idea is simple. Russia-Horde of the XVII century and
the territories of Western Europe which had just broken off
(where the new state were forming: France, Germany,
Italy) were the successors of the 'Mongol' Empire, i.e. of
'Ancient' Rome = Biblical Israel. Having buried the Empire
in oblivion and having declared it the kingdom of HordeTatar evil, at the same time its successors cherished the
memories of it as of some ANCIENT beautiful Kingdom
under the names of: 'Ancient' Great Rome, 'Biblical
Israel' And began to idolize the 'ancient archetypes',
already forgetting that in fact these great ancestors lived
quite recently (and not at all where the Scaligerian history
has exiled them to). Hence the veneration with which the
examples of 'Ancient' Rome and Biblical Israel began to
be surrounded with from the XVII century. This is the exact
reason why the palaces of the Russian czars and Western
rulers of the XVII-XVIII cc. were filled with depictions of
Biblical and 'classical' scenes. That is why the XVIII
century is considered to be a century of worshiping

'classical antiquity'. They worshiped not some dilapidated

country-pastoral fairy tales, but the recent and turbulent
history of their own ancestors. Which they rightfully
considered themselves to be involved in. And of which
they were proud. But (in view of the changed policy) not
under its true name Great 'Mongolia' (Great 'Mongol'
Empire), but under nicknames which were made to sound
older 'Ancient' Rome and 'Biblical Israel'.
The following vivid facts become clear. 'The favourite and
almost exclusive subject of interior art of the XVIII
century was an emblem, an allegory, which MOST OF
THE TIME were used to express the ready-made prefabricated images and forms of ANCIENT CLASSICAL
MYTHOLOGY. This, of course, was fully established by
the GENERAL NATURE of education of the XVIII century,
MOSTLY BROUGHT UP ON THE CLASSICS OF THE
ANCIENT AND ROMAN WORLD. The plafonds and walls
in the palaces and chambers of the noblemen were
covered during that time with mythological images, where
the pagan deities (in fact the distorted reflections of the
Horde Khans of the XIV-XVI cc. Author), half naked
were to embody the sacred thoughts and ideas of the
contemporaries. NO MONUMENT, FESTIVITY,
TRIUMPHAL ENTRANCE, ILLUMINATION OR
FIREWORKS, WOULD FAIL TO BE INVESTED WITH
THE ALLEGORIC IMAGES SO BELOVED BY THE
SOCIETY OF THAT TIME. Such was the taste which
characterised the epoch.' [282:1], part 1, p.154.
The following significant facts fit together. On the vaulted

ceiling of the Kremlin Golden Chamber 'there were

depicted KINGS OF ISRAEL standing upright, first there is
David by the doors, then is Solomon and Rehoboam by
the doors into the Golden Chamber, then Abijah, Asa,
Jehoshaphat and finally, the busts - of Uzziah,
Jehoahaz and at the Dining Chamber door arch there is
Ahaz. These depictions of the standing kings somewhat
served as an unmovable support for the images depicted
in the heavens, in the chamber's vault, where a young
czar (Ivan Vassilievich Author), whose head was
crowned with a royal wreath from from on high, from the
hands of an Angel, WAS ALSO AT THE SAME TIME
RECEIVING THE ROYAL STATURE FROM THE HOST
OF THE ANCIENT KINGS OF ISRAEL' [282:1], part 1,
p.161.
Everything is right. The ancient Kings of Israel depicted on
the ceilings and walls of Moscow Golden Chamber were in
particular the following Russian-Horde czars-khans:
# Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi, aka Biblical King David;
# Suleiman the Magnificent, the Sultan of Judaea =
Ottoman Empire, aka King Solomon);
# Georgy Danilovich = Genghis Khan, aka Biblical King
Asa.
Thus the early designers of The Moscow Kremlin
understood everything correctly. And accurately painted
not just some hazy allegory, but the true history of RussiaHorde = Biblical Israel of the XIV-XVIII cc.

And so, there was a lot that was unusual in Moscow

Kremlin from the point of view of the Scaligerian-Romanov
history. But during the epoch of the XVII-XVIII cc.
occupation almost all of the Horde's traces were
extinguished.
Today we are being told about Kremlin of the XVI-XVII cc.,
mainly using the words of foreign travellers, diplomats,
writers and merchants who visited Moscow and left some
kind of notes. But where are the Hordian authors and
documents? Much fewer of those survived. It was driven
into our minds that in poor Russia they were allegedly bad
at writing history down. May we question it. The Hordians
wrote well and a lot. For example, they created the
significant part of the Old Testament including the
Pentateuch [6v]. But in the epoch of the Time of Troubles
and the Romanovs pogrom-occupation they could not hold
on to the major segments of their history. They took it
away from us and attributed it to others. Instead they
invented for us and bequeathed to us the 'gloomy Tatar
yoke'. Which is still taught at school.
14. THE PUBLIC RIDICULE OF SOME SELECTED
BOOKS OF THE HORDIAN BIBLE ORGANISED BY
THE WESTERN REFORMERS WITH THE ROMANOVS.
As we have shown in [6v], the significant part of the Old
Testament was created in Russia-Horde in XIV-XVI cc.
Moreover, some of the books of the Old Testament were
reworked in Moscow in the first half of the XVII century.
However, in the epoch of the break-up of the Empire, a
struggle ensued between Horde and the Romanovs. The

Bible, as a holy Imperial book was also implicated in this

conflict. The Romanovs alongside their Western allies did
their best to obscure the true meaning of the Old
Testament books to conceal the fact that contained in
them was a description of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. It
was necessary to change the attitude towards the Old
Testament, to edit it with a new viewpoint. That is why
alongside the rewriting of many fragments of the Bible
behind the false mask of the 'ancient text restoration' the
Romanovs struck a blow upon the former Hordian-Biblical
beliefs from an unexpected angle. A decision was made to
ridicule the original books of the Old Testament which
were being destroyed at that point in order to set the way
for a new edition of the same books (under the same
names) in people's consciousness. To put this important
plan in action, foreigners - 'Germans', were summoned to
Moscow.
'Under Czar Alexei (Mikhailovich Author) there emerged
in the palace theatrical performances Our past quite
unexpectedly found itself centre stage in a comedic
spectacle, in a programme of similar mockery, only
presented in a different way, the czars way, BESIDES IT
IS OF GERMAN ORIGIN, which consequently meant that
it was somehow more excusable to appear before the old
piety. The Germans acted their plays from the Bible. IT
SEEMED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE
NOTIONS OF THE PAST. But such was the force of the
general movement in our life (Zabelin thinks naively not
understanding the very essence of the events Author),
which carried us closer and closer towards the European

world The impossible and rejected (by the severe

Hordian Domostroy Author) in one way, seemed
possible and accepted by another; and during heated
discussions JUST ABOUT THE LETTERS OF
SCRIPTURE, THE BIBLE WAS PERFORMED IN A
COMIC FASHION ON A PALATIAL STAGE. However the
matter didn't seem to be particularly heinous mainly
because it was PERFORMED BY THE GERMANS, i.e
THE STRANGERS, UNORTHODOX, ALSO REJECTED.
FOR A RUSSIAN HIMSELF IT WAS SOMEHOW
UNNATURAL TO START SUCH AN UNHEARD OF
THING. How would he even dare: what would the tough
authorities of Domostroy said to and do to an innovator'
[282:1], part 2, p.317.
We see how subtly the Romanovs acted. The blow to the
old Hordian Bible was carried out at the hands of the
'Germans', purporting that you can't expect too much of
them. They are not Orthodox, they are outcasts. Let them
mock the 'not so correct' Bible. It is even interesting how
the Germans did it. You see what fun it is, because it is a
comedy. In the end scepticism and mistrust towards
formerly sacred things were successfully and
surreptitiously embedded into society. Instead they quickly
replaced it with new ones, having edited the Biblical text in
the required key. And then they made a loud statement,
that: now everything is in order. We will allow no one to
mock this 'reconstructed' Bible. Even the Germans. As
now the reconstructed Bible suits us, i.e. the Romanovs
and the Western reformers, very nicely. In particular, all
the 'Northern traces' are now removed from the Old

Testament and hardly anyone could guess that many

biblical books are in fact telling us about Russia-Horde of
the XIV-XVI cc. And in order to kill any doubts before they
could grow, as some among the not so well informed were
outraged and argued, it was loudly declared that not only
we have edited the Bible, but finally reconstructed its old,
forgotten, definitive text written many-many years ago. On
the shores of the desolate Dead Sea in Palestine, long
before the beginning of our era (BC).
This shows how the Romanovs foisted their new outlook
on the Biblical history. Presumably not everyone liked that
at the time. Many still remembered the true history of
Russia-Horde, they could see what the Biblical books of
'Esther' and 'Judith' were in fact telling them. They did not
want to watch the buffoonery and ridicule which the former
history was subjected to at that time. In order to break
down this covert but persistent opposition, the Romanovs
ORDERED THAT IT WAS OBLIGATORY FOR ALL
THEIR ATTENDANTS TO BE PRESENT AT THE
PERFORMANCES. Chances are that when the czar's
messenger knocked on the door and politely invited you to
attend 'a comedy', few would dare to refuse. The bare fact
of the czar's ORDER TO TURN UP WITHOUT FAIL
clearly indicates the depth of discrepancies which were
tearing the society apart during that time.
It was probably considered a matter of courtesy not only to
attend the biblical comedies, but also to demonstratively
laugh at the grotesque Assyrians and rightly vanquished
Persians. I.e. at the XVI century Hordians, recent

ancestors of whom were among the audience. It was

unpleasant to some of the courtiers of the XVII century
Moscow, but they had to publically demonstrate their
loyalty.
The underlying struggle surrounding the biblical comedies
at the czar's court was intense. The Hordian opposition did
its best to get its former influence back. There were
grounds for hope. To remind you, at that time and up until
the middle of the XVIII century, before the defeat of
'Pugachev' in the East there existed a vast Hordian state
Moscow Tartary, which the Romanovs feared so much
[4v]. It is not inconceivable that the Hordian opposition in
the Kremlin hoped for the restoration of the Horde in the
very heart of Russia, in Moscow. After all, the boundaries
of Moscow Tartary were just a short distance away.
In any way, as soon as Alexey Mikhailovich died, THE
COMEDIES CEASED AT ONCE, and the jokesters fell
from grace. Domostroy and Stoglav raised their heads.
But later the supporters of the horde still lost.
(Domostroy - Domestic Order; Stoglav - The Book of One
Hundred Chapters is a collection of decisions of the
Russian church council of 1551 that regulated canon law
and ecclesiastical life in the Russian Church, especially
the everyday life and mores of the Russian clergy
Translator's note)
15. THE RADZIVILL CHRONICLE WAS
TENDENTIOUSLY EDITED.

Today's version of the Russian history was created in the

XVIII century based on the sources written and edited in
the late XVII early XVIII cc. This version was written in
the epoch of Peter I, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta
Petrovna. Following the publication of 'History' (History of
the Russian State Translator's note) by N.M.Karamzin
this view point was disseminated among the public. Prior
to this only a narrow circle of people were familiar with it.
Gradually it was incorporated into the school curriculum.
The story of the 'most ancient' Russian Radzivill
manuscript is roughly as follows. It was made in
Knigsberg in the early XVIII century, apparently due to
Peter I visiting the city and immediately prior to this visit.
Most likely some truly old chronicle of the XV-XVI cc. was
used. BUT THIS ANCIENT RECORD SUFFERED
SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION, before it became a part of
the Radzivill chronicle [4v], ch.1. The old original was
destroyed.
Knigsberg 'Nestors' of the XVIII century adhered to
mainly the Romanov version of the old-Russian history,
outlined in the official 'Synopsis' of the XVII century. The
idea was to create, or rather to forge the missing primary
source, an allegedly authentic manuscript, confirming the
Romanov version. Peter approved of the Knigsberg job
and since then the Radzivill chronicle started to be
referred to as the 'most ancient Russian chronicle'. The
primary source on the Russian history has 'emerged at
last'.

But the activities on laying a 'scientific foundation'

underpinning the court version did not end there. To fulfil
the order 'according to the European standards' the
historians from overseas were invited: Bayer, Schlzer,
Mller and others. Fulfilling the order they were given they
wrote a 'smoothed down' variant of the Romanov version
meeting the requirements of contemporary science. Thus
the Romanov version from the court one transformed into
the 'scientific' one.
Still there were left the traces of alternations in the
Radziwill manuscript [4v1], ch.1. This could have
prompted unwanted questions. That is why it was
necessary to keep the original manuscript away from
prying eyes. Only more than hundred years later they
finally published the Radziwill chronicle. Forgetting that it
shouldn't be done by any means. As at that point the
secret was out.
16. AN OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF BULGARIA.
The real Bulgarian history is known to us only since 1280.
Today the years between 1396 and 1700 are considered
to be the dark period of the brutal Ottoman domination.
Even before 1878, fig.97. Prior to 1280 there are phantom
reflections of the period 1280-1700. The factitious
transferral of the documents into the past denuded the
epoch of years 1396-1700 and turned it into a purportedly
dark time. But it has shined an eerily illusive light into the
distant past. Later the allegedly dark period of 1396-1700
declared the 'grim Ottoman yoke in Bulgaria'. Many

Bulgarian chronicles perished or were deliberately

destroyed [6v2], ch.9.
Both in Russia and in Bulgaria the full blooded history of
XIV-XVII cc. Horde named the epoch of the infinite
suffering. Thus by shifting the emphasis' the history was
turned on its head. The Bulgarian history of 1280-1700
should be called the khans and Ottoman's = Attaman's
epoch. At that time Bulgaria was a part of the Ottoman
Empire. The list of the Bulgarian khans includes both the
local rulers, the Imperial governors and the khansemperors of the entire Great Empire. This includes Batu
Khan and George (Terter Tr. note).
The period of the pro-Bulgarian khans of allegedly years
145-581 is the duplicate of the Ottoman Bulgarian epoch
of years 1280-1700 which is furthest pushed back into the
past. Batu Khan, for instance, was dated into the phantom
VII century, i.e. 600-700 years into the past.
Another 'dark period' in Bulgarian history the 'rule of
Byzantine' in 1018-1186 is also a phantom reflection of
the Ottoman = Attaman epoch.
When the absurd wars between Romanov Russia and
Turkey-Atamania began, Bulgaria turned into one of the
battle grounds. The invented myth about the 'grim Turkish
yoke' which was allegedly prevailing over Bulgaria since
XIII century was put to good use by the European and
Romanov diplomats to split Turkey into the Muslim and
Christian Orthodox parts. Muslims and Orthodox
Christians were set against each other.

Next we discovered that the old Bulgarian texts, for

example 'The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans', were
written in exactly the same language as OLD-RUSSIAN
texts (not to be confused with Church Slavonic). They are
practically identical in both the language and the shape of
the letters! Without a prior warning of what text it is Old
Bulgarian or Old Russian it is unlikely one could tell
them apart [6v2]. We had no problem reading it using our
knowledge of Old Russian language. But it is difficult for
us to understand later Bulgarian texts. Unfamiliar endings,
distorted use of prepositions, a lot of new words.
It is clear. Having originated from the Old Russian in the
XIV-XV cc. the Bulgarian language with time deviated from
it and began to develop more or less independently. It did
not get very far, however as there appeared some
noticeable differences. The Bulgarians of the XIV-XVII cc.
still spoke the Old Russian language. Aka the Old
Bulgarian or the former language of the 'Volga population'.
The language of Russia-Horde. Practically unchanged, it
was used in Bulgaria UP UNTIL THE XVIII CENTURY.
The grammar was slightly changed. Very soon the new
Bulgarian language began to differ from the Russian
language. Though they remain close until today, complete
equivalence has gone.
Why was this done? In order to draw the 'ethnicallylinguistic' boundary between the Bulgarians and the
Russians. They strived to deepen the split in the Empire.
The fact that up until the XVIII-XIX cc. there were
practically identical languages in Bulgaria and Russia

clearly contradicted the Scaligerian history. Which claimed

that the Bulgarians and the Russians allegedly lived as
separate nations for many hundreds of years. But how
then did they manage to keep similar languages for such a
long time? As living separately they should have quite
quickly started speaking in different ways. That is why we
insist that the reform of the Bulgarian language was
conducted consciously. The 'new world order' was being
secured and the glaring inconsistencies in the 'Reformist'
history of the Balkans was being smeared over.
The Bulgarians after arriving to Balkans among the
Hordian-Ottoman army in the XIV-XV cc. were simply
Russian. Up until the XVII century the ties between the
Balkans and Russia remained very close. Hence the
language was practically identical. As incidentally we see
in some of parts of Russia rather distant from each other.
For the remote regions of the 'Mongol' Empire which found
themselves more isolated from Russia-Horde the picture
could have been rather different. The language changes
most slowly on the territory of its native land. There is a
large homogeneous population there. But a comparatively
small group of people who found themselves far from their
fatherland - for instance, the Horde-Ottoman army land
in a strange linguistic environment. The language of the
conquerors begins to transform significantly faster due to
the foreign language setting. Probably, something of the
kind happened to the Cossack troops who in the XIV-XV
cc. came to Egypt, the remote regions of Western Europe,
Asia and China, Japan, America and etc.

17. WHERE THE OTTOMANS CAME FROM.

Today the term TURKS is tangled up in the Scaligerian
history. To simplify we should say that the indigenous
population of Asia Minor is called the Turks. It is thought
that the Ottomans are also the Turks, as the historians
trace them from Asia Minor. Allegedly they at first were
attacking Constantinople from the South of Asia Minor,
and then, following their unsuccessful attempts, crossed
over to Europe, to the Balkans and conquered the
developed European countries [455]. In the end, they
turned back and succeeded in conquering Constantinople
in 1453. According to our results the alleged origin of the
Ottomans=Attamans from Asia Minor is the historians'
error. The Ottomans came from the North, from RussiaHorde and the majority of them were Slavs, and some of
them were Russian Turks. I.e. those very Turks, who still
live in Russia in the Volga region.
As the Ottomans-Attamans invaded Turkey-Byzantium
from the Balkans in the XV century, the contemporary
population of the Balkans are primarily the descendants of
those very Ottomans. This is exactly why the famous
Turkish Janissaries were Slavic [5v]. It is difficult to
imagine the strange picture, which today is being imposed
upon us, purporting that the GUARDS JANISSARIES,
the hand-picked elite unit was entirely comprised of the
'foreigners' the Slavs. Moreover this lasted for several
centuries. Based on the structure of the ROYAL GUARD it
is possible to estimate which people had the leading role

in the multinational army. For example, Napoleon's guard

consisted of the French.
Later, as we have already said, in the XVIII-XIX cc. the
Sultan court forgot about its Slavic past. They came to
terms with the disintegration of the Great Empire and
preferred to orientate themselves towards the West.
Dissenting guards of the Slavs-Janissaries 30 thousand
people were slaughtered in 1826 [336], v.5, p.176.
18. ABOUT THE GYPSIES.
The Gypsies are a nomadic people, who to this day do not
recognise national borders. Today, of course, there are
also domicile gypsies, however the traditional way of
Gypsy life is perennial travel. The existence of such
people makes you think that sometime in the past all the
places where they wandered were once a part of a one
sole state. But then the Kingdom should have covered
vast territories of Eurasia and Africa. It seems likely that its
borders roughly match the borders of the Eurasian and
African parts of the Great Empire. The Gypsies call
themselves THE ROMANY, THE ROMAI, i.e. the citizens
of the Roman Empire. Most likely, the gypsies are the
surviving 'living trace' of the Empire. There was a time
when a lot of people were required to maintain the
numerous long caravan tracks connecting the remote
territories. The contemporary gypsies are the descendants
of those, who maintained those tracks. The very nature of
this service suggested the constant relocation together
with the caravans. Their entire existence was defined by
travel. At least until the early XX century the life of

nomadic gypsies was closely connected with the horses.

This is some kind of reminiscence about the 'service as
horsemen' on the caravan tracks. Following the split of the
Empire the professional social class turned, over time, into
a separate nation.
19. THE IDEA OF THE GREAT EMPIRE PROVED TO
BE RESILIENT.
Russia occupied by the Western Europeans in the XVII
century nevertheless 'digested' the pro-Western regime of
the Romanovs. The first Romanovs controlled only a small
part of Central Russia. But subsequently, after the war
with 'Pugachev' in 1773-1775, having secured their
position on the throne and being at the head of a vast
country, the Romanovs felt themselves to be the real
masters of a large and wealthy state. They 'got out from
under control', lost the piety towards their former owners
and decided to revive the Russian Empire in the broad
sense of the word. As vague recollections of the 'Mongol'
Empire still existed in Russian state circles and appealed
to many. Suffice to recall the famous 'Testament of Peter
the Great' in which he puts forward an ambitious program
of conquering the world [4v2], ch.2:7. It is not certain for
sure whether this document was written by Peter himself.
Some historians dispute that. But the very fact that this
'Testament' originated from Peter's court and therefore
reflected the mentality of the time is enough. Though
Peter's I programme was not realised in full, however the
Romanovs succeeded in reviving a part of the former

Horde Empire, although on a much smaller scale. By the

early XX century the Russian Empire acquired an
enormous influence. Western Europe was naturally
bothered by that. So maybe it is not a coincidence that the
revolution, resembling the Time of Troubles in the early
XVII century, took place in Russia in the beginning of the
XX century.
After a prolonged global indoctrination of the people with
the distorted history, an image of 'aggressive Russia' was
formed, who due to its purportedly congenital malignity
constantly strives to expand the sphere of its influence all
over the world. The new chronology clarifies many
accrued misconceptions. It becomes clear, for example,
that historically the union of Russia and Turkey was the
closest. Pan-Slavism and Pan-Turkism is essentially the
same thing. The Slavic conquest of allegedly the IV-V cc.
and the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIII-XIV cc. are the
Slavic-Turkic conquest which commenced from the banks
of Volga-river. The Slavs and the Turks always found
common ground in the Russian-Horde Empire.
Russia and China once had a long shared history. In the
epoch of the Great Empire China was a part of it. It
became independent only after it collapsed, under the
Romanovs. China's animosity towards Romanovs' Russia
during the Manchurian epoch can be attributed to the fact
that the Manchurians left Russia-Horde. Only later the
Manchurians assimilated with China and became Chinese
in the modern sense [5v1], ch.6.

Vague recollections of the former Empire still exist in

Western Europe. Although today people do not fully
realise it, the 'Mongolian' legacy greatly influences modern
life. This was vividly illustrated by the events of the XX
century, when the idea of the ancient Great Empire was
used by various politicians. For example, in Germany and
Italy. It turned out that this idea appeals to many. On this
occasion it was aimed at the war against the USSR in
1942-1945. But this leant heavily on the erroneous
understanding of history.
In the reconstructed picture of the past we discovered a
curious effect which we can tentatively refer to as 'the
swing of the pendulum' or the 'pulsation' of the Great
Empire. The 'Mongol' Empire was either expanding toward
the vast borders, or temporarily diminished. There are
several such pulsations which can be traced back. At first
the ancient Czar-Grad Kingdom which ended with the
revolt in the XIII century. Then the Horde Empire of the
XIII-XVI which collapsed during the Revolt of the XVII
century. Then the Romanovs Russia which once again
spread significantly in many different directions. Followed
by the uprising in the early XX century. Then the emerging
of the USSR with a vast sphere of influence. Then a new
revolt and the collapse of the USSR in 1990s
We will repeat that the main result of our research is not
the reconstruction, fig.98, but the innovative approach of
dating of the events. It is the chronology that forms the
'Backbone' of history and lies at the heart of the
reconstruction.

20. THE DOUBLE-HEADED EAGLE THE SYMBOL OF

THE 'MONGOL' EMPIRE. WHY LATER IT TURNED
INTO THE SINGLE-HEADED EAGLE ON THE
WESTERN EUROPE'S EMBLEMS.
&& TWO-HEADED EAGLE IS FEATURED IN
NUMEROUS MONUMENTS IN EURASIA.
The two-headed eagle - the emblem of the Great Empire
of the XIV-XVI cc. spread all over its territory which at
that time covered Eurasia and the significant parts of
Africa and America. But later, during the falsification of
ancient history, the imperial eagle was 'pushed back into
the past' and declared to be the symbol which allegedly
existed long before the XIV century. As a result beginning
with the XVIII century the historians and archaeologists
when stumbling across here and there onto the mediaeval
depictions of the two-headed 'Mongol' eagle were
compelled to date many of them 'to the deepest past'.
The 'Mongol' eagles can also be seen on the monuments
of 'ancient' Egypt [7v1], ch.5. For example the images of
the eagles on the temples of Karnak in Egypt. Sometimes
in Egypt the heads of the eagles were depicted as the
heads of snakes. This shouldn't surprise us. In RussianHorde heraldry the eagles' heads sometimes resemble
those of a snake. They even depicted a long snakes'
tongue from its beak. Here, for instance, the Imperial
eagle on the state seal of Ivan the Terrible, fig.86 [4v2],
ch.2. Two eagle-snake heads on the long necks, looking
to the East and to the West.

So the images of the Imperial eagle with the snakes'

heads on the temples of 'ancient' Egypt and on the seals
of Russia-Horde of the XV-XVI cc. are essentially the
identical. It is possible that on the early Hordian emblems
which didn't survive to our day the similarity between the
Russian and Egyptian heraldry was even more apparent.
The two-headed eagles on the Mediaeval and 'ancient'
monuments are the Imperial symbolism of the XIV-XVI cc.
All the documents, coins and seals everywhere were
adorned with a two-headed eagle. Its two heads looked
East and West, which symbolised the unity of the East and
the West.
The two-headed eagle reigned practically on every main
mediaeval emblem in Europe. 'It is possible to list the
NUMEROUS ARTEFACTS of sphragistics and
numismatics of Mediaeval Europe (XII-XV cc.) on which
we can see the two-headed eagle: the coins and seal of
Ludwig of Bavaria, the counts of Wurzburg and counts and
dukes of Savoy, the seals of King Wenceslaus of the
House of Luxembourg and his seals as the Czech King
Vaclav IV, the confidential seals, the coins of Bertrand III
of Baux in France, the seals of the Archbishops of
Cologne and Main in Germany, as well as the Fribourg
coins of the city of Palermo, Savoy and Netherlands' [134],
p.13. Etc.
&& FOLLOWING THE REFORMATION REVOLT THE
MAJORITY OF THE WESTERN-EUROPEAN EAGLEEMBLEMS' EAST FACING HEADS WERE 'CUT OFF'.

After the collapse of the Empire some of the split territories

of Western Europe kept the eagle as their national symbol.
As if claiming back a part of the legacy of the Horde
Empire and its history. However the right head was
removed. I.e. they cut off the East head of the imperial
eagle, which was indicating the Eastern metropoly of the
Empire. The Western Europeans only kept 'their own
Western head' of the eagle-emblem. They were striving to
forget as soon as possible that very recently there existed
a UNITED EAST-WEST Kingdom. As a result, since the
XVII-XVIII cc. the majority of the Western European
'national eagles' look Westwards with their one remaining
head. For example the contemporary German eagleemblem. In [7v1], ch.5, we can see the transformation, for
instance, of the German eagle from a two-headed one in
the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. into the one-headed one,
after the uprising of the XVII century.
We can see the two-headed eagle on the old emblem of
the German city of Cologne [7v1], ch.5. Incidentally there
are turbans and pagri depicted on the eagles' heads.
There is something of the kind also on the emblems of the
Emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Conrad. Later these
Hordian-Ottoman 'turbans' would turn into the royal
crowns. We can see such 'Reformist' crowns on the
eagles on the coat of arms of the Romanovs and on the
coat of arms of the Habsburgs since the XVII century. The
depiction of a turban or a pagri on the old emblems of the
empire was natural. The Hordian and the Ottoman czar-

khans, as eventually did the Turkish sultans, often wore a

turban or a pagri on their heads.
On the German map of Tyrol of 1662 we can already see
a one-headed eagle looking West [7v1], ch.5. The
separation of Germany and Austria from the 'Mongol'
Empire became a factor and gradually it was expressed in
the national symbols. It was then when the 'reformed'
German one-headed eagle appeared.
At first the old symbols were 'corrected' carefully and
discretely. Initially the two-headed 'Mongol' eagle was sort
of cut in half to emphasise the split of the Empire in the
Western and Eastern regions. There is an interesting
depiction of the four eagles on the coat of arms of Berlin of
1740, fig.99. The Eastern eagle remained unchanged for
some time as a reminder of the former unity of the Empire.
But the central, i.e. the main eagle is already confidently
looking only West. 'To emphasise' above it there was
depicted another Western eagle. The meaning is clear.
Germany and Western Europe are breaking away from the
metropoly. Eventually the Eastern eagle was removed
altogether. When the danger of the revival of the Empire
was considered quite slim. Out of the four Berlin eagles
only one remained the present day one-headed German
eagle looking West.
There are Western-European emblems, though very few,
where a one-headed eagle looks East. For example, on
one of the German barons' (similar to 'barin'? 'nobleman'
in Russian Translator's note) coats of arms [7v1], ch.5. It
may be that this very family wanted to stress their devotion

to the idea of the 'Mongol' Empire. Among the military

Bavarian coats of arms of the barons = barins (noblemen)
we can see the Ottoman crescents [7v1]. But eventually all
these Imperial, loyalist factions were crushed by the
rebels. Those who survived accepted the new rules of life.
'The cutting off of the eagle-emblems Eastern heads' was
only one element of the 'new ideology' in Europe.
There is an interesting coat of arms on the map of year
1634 of the city of Geneva and Lake of Geneva. The oneheaded eagle is looking West. But it is clear that THERE
USED TO BE A HORDIAN TWO-HEADED EAGLE IN ITS
PLACE BEFORE. In order not to spend too much time on
alterations the reformers simply painted over the right half
of the eagle and painted a key, fig.100. It very well could
be that it was done this way not only in the province of
Geneva, turning the two-headed eagle into a one-headed
one by violently cutting it in half. Then, when the rebellious
emotions calmed down, they simply began to paint the
'Western eagle'.
As far as we could find out while analysing the coats of
arms, maps and etc., the reformers always covered just
the right, i.e. the eastern half of the eagle. I.e. they
covered the unpleasant East. They kept only the good
West for themselves.
On the map of Poland, Silesia and Bohemia of 1634 we
can see a one-headed Polish eagle looking East and a
one-headed Bohemian eagle looking West, fig.101. On the
Western eagle floating above Bohemia and Moravia
RIGHT ON ITS CHEST THERE IS STILL SHINING AN

ENORMOUS OTTOMAN CRESCENT [7v1], ch.5, [4v1],

ch.10:2. It is possible that eventually the Bohemian and
Polish reformers changed their minds and the imperial
crescent which displeased them was removed. In order to
forget the recent past when the Ottoman-Hordian crescent
was reigning over the entire Europe. And not just Europe.
It is hardly the case that anyone in today's Bohemia would
remember that some time ago this country was shielded
by the wings of an eagle with the Ottoman crescent on its
chest.
In the symbolism of the Western Europe of the XVIII-XIX
cc. amongst other things there survived in some places
the two-headed eagles, but the one-headed Western
eagles are still prevalent. We don't know any official
Western-European emblem of any significant state of the
XVII-XIX cc. where a one-headed eagle would look East. If
such do exist, there must be very few.
The Romanovs kept the two-headed eagle as a symbol of
their new Russia. They cherished the idea of restoring the
vast Empire, but this time under their rule. In any case
such intentions are being attributed to Peter I [4v2],
ch.2:17.
21. IN THE EPOCH OF THE REFORMATION AN IMAGE
OF THE 'SHIP OF FOOLS' WAS CREATED, WHICH
ALL OF EUROPE WAS INDUCED TO LAUGH AT. THE
REFORMERS RIDICULED THE HORDE EMPIRE.
In the epoch of Reformation in Europe there was created a
dramatic image of the 'Ship of Fools' [KAZ]. Of course in

society the theme of the 'intelligent people and the fools'

was widely discussed. But only in the epoch of
Reformation this theme was elevated to 'national
importance'. It was instilled into the public consciousness
in the form of an allegory. Allegedly in 1494 a book by
Sebastian Brant 'The Ship of Fools' was published. Where
Brant sometimes is 'speaking of a 'ship of fools' and
sometimes about the entire 'FOOLS FLEET'. [93:1], p.683.
The book is well illustrated and not just by anybody, but by
A.Durer himself. However, we have shown that the works
attributed to him were most likely created a hundred years
later, in XVII century. But nevertheless the illustrations for
'The Ship of Fools' were made by remarkable masters.
The book by Brant itself was chosen only as an excuse to
publish a large number of the woodcuts on a topic
concerning 'The Ship of Fools'. As they have little in
common with the contents of the book, their meaning was
reflected in the captions.
The book owes its resounding success to the woodcuts. It
is clear now what 'fools' were held up to ridicule. The
Great Empire, its institutions, its Christian Orthodox Faith,
the Cossack = Israeli troops - which still had garrisons in
Europe of XVI-XVII cc. The rebels and provocateurs still
feared them. That is why they veiled the satire without
pointing directly at the target of their abuse, as if they
invited mockery of 'fools in general'. Indeed, there are
plenty of fools around us the 'progressive writers', the
destroyers of the Empire kept saying. Officially it was
difficult to accuse them of insulting the Empire. As soon as

anyone was summoned to the local Imperial court (which

was incidentally already submerged in the atmosphere of
unrest) and told that mockery of the Hordian army for
example, was unacceptable, the reformers would then
evasively answer: - We didn't have anything like that in
mind. This is the way we castigate 'fools in general'.
The empty rhetoric was calculated. The books, etchings,
brochures, the propaganda leaflets all successfully played
their role. Stealthily embedded scepticism and thinly
masked appeals to defy the Empire were actively spread
amongst the population. Shattering the former unity,
cultural affinity, language and religion. The attempts of the
remote central power to obstruct all of this would only whet
the appetite of a part of the Western population towards
the 'forbidden fruit' and met with the resistance of the
Western governors, already infected by the idea of the
revolt. It was possibly then, when this rule was firmly
embedded in people's minds: if something is being
forbidden, it means it is interesting. The subtext was as
follows: We, the Hordian governors, so to speak 'ban' you
from reading the rebellious slogans against the Empire,
printed by ourselves. In fact this is the 'correct literature'.
The war against the state was concealed with the motto of
'fighting stupidity'. They counted on the fact, that they
won't oppose the metropoly of the Empire if some of the
Western officials would begin fighting such an obvious
vice as stupidity. As it became clear later on the rebels
were slowly eroding the foundations of the state. They
were trying to sink the 'Ship' of the Empire. To start with

they declared it the 'Ship of Fools'. The called the Empire

itself 'foolish'. And therefore there was no point in
keeping it. Let the majority of the population of Europe still
be faithful to the Imperial idea, all the same the Kingdom
should be split.
The image of the Ship as the symbol of the Empire sailing
across the rough sea of events and controlled by the
czars-khans the 'helmsmen of the Ship' appeared
probably in as early as the XIV-XVI cc. Today they
sometimes speak of a Ship of a state led by the firm hand
of the Ruler. About a wise helmsman who stands at the
helm of the Ship. About the worthy people who firmly
stand at the wheel.
'The Ship of Fools' was a GREAT SUCCESS. THE
SATIRE WAS REPUBLISHED MANY TIMES AND WAS
TRANSLATED INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES The
Book served as an EXAMPLE to the other satirical and
didactical works of so called 'LITERATURE ABOUT
FOOLS' SPREADING IN GERMANY IN THE XVI
CENTURY' [93:1], p.10.
When the Empire was split and the subversive appeals
like 'The Ship of Fools' had lost their edge, they decided to
properly obscure the former rebel-rousing meaning. At first
subtly and then with increasing volume they were arguing
that 'The Ship of Fools' was just a mediaeval joke, a
collection of caricatures used by the wise authors to
scourge human vices. Purporting that they were educating
people in the spirit of honour
and dignity. The descendants of the reformers soon forgot

the past meaning of the propagandist pogrom actions and

began to study them in the scholarly works as some odd
expression of 'folk customs'. Here, for example, in the XVIXVII cc. the Western Europeans all of a sudden and for no
apparent reason took a fancy to contemptuously urinating
over the Ottoman crescent. This custom even passed into
a proverb. Why so?
The content analysis of 'The Ship of Fools' reveals some
interesting facts. It appears that it is possible to lift the veil
off the true essence of things by engaging the materials of
the mediaeval carnivals which at first glance have nothing
to do with it. Today we are being told that allegedly the
Western European carnivals of the XVI-XVII cc. were
regular celebrations where people simply relaxed and had
fun. However, it was not like that at all. At least in the
beginning. You can judge for yourself.
Apparently in the epoch of the Reformation 'The Ship of
Fools' was declared to be a symbol of Hell! They were
urged to take it by storm in a deadly assault [415:1],
p.152-156. I.e. the 'Mongol' Empire was denounced as
'Diabolical', as the 'Empire of Evil'. Under such slogans
they began to perform the propagandist shows, and then
after the collapse of the Empire the cheery carnivals as
a token of the liberation of Russia from the Ottoman
Empire. 'The Ship of Fools' as a symbol of Hell is depicted
on a great many pictures [KAZ], ch.2.
Incidentally, Martin Luther after all was probably the
supporter of the 'Mongol' Empire, though today they
reckon he was one of the reformers. His ideas and

popularity was probably skilfully used after his death,

having distorted and directed it to their own ends. In
response to orgiastic political carnival in allegedly 1539
'Luther in his pastoral message from Wittenberg described
Schembartlauf (carnival Author's note) as A
PARTICULARLY UNGODLY SHOW EXPRESSING
DISREGARD TO THE GOSPELS AND THEREFOR
UNDESIRABLE TO GOD. The historians note the
remarkable role of the carnival of 1539 in the history of
Schembartlauf. It involved not just the CURRENT
RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ASPECT, but also an
incredibly spectacular and skilful decoration of the SHIP
and the entire procession' [415:1], p.153-154.
Who was placed onto the 'Ship of Fools', symbolizing the
Empire? Here is the answer: 'In the buffoon house which
stood on the sledge runners of the 'hell wagon' in 1520
there were a dancing devil, fools, women (according to
a different account a devil, a TURK-PAGAN, a jester and
a naked woman)'[415:1], p.149. The organisers paraded
the naked women, so it was more interesting for the crowd
to watch and to gather as many spectators as possible.
The main characters were intended to be the 'Turkspagans'. They were pointing their Reformist finger at the
truly 'evil people' the Ottomans and the Hordians, who
had to be banished from Europe.
So, the Ship of Fools = Hell Wagon was STORMED and
seized in battle during the Western orgies. Thus, they
attached politico-military meaning to the Ship = Hell. The
Reformers were open and didn't hide the purpose of the

propaganda which was to take up arms and destroy the

'Mongol' Empire.
Considerable funds were invested in the exuberant
execution of the show - lessons. Talented directors,
artists, actors, writers and politicians were summoned.
Supposedly it was becoming dangerous to avoid such
ideological farces. They could have accused you of
'sympathy to the Empire'. As the result these gatherings
were steadily growing.
Following the collapse of the Empire the show-lessons
became unnecessary. They had already played their
destructive role. That is why they were abolished. 'Instead
of the pagan Schembartlauf in 1649 there was introduced
a special Christian day of penitence, fasting and prayers
Some element of Schembartlauf survived in the contests
and the processions of the various guilds, but as one unit
it was never revived But as early as in the XVI, XVII and
XVIII cc. there still continued to be created the illustrated
chronicles of Schembartlauf , WHICH COMMEMORATED
ITS MISCHIEFS AND GLORY FOR ETERNITY AND
WHICH HONOURED THE PATRICIANS OF
NUREMBERG' [415:1], p.156.
It's all clear. The weapon which fulfilled its destiny and
became unwanted was sent to a museum and was
vaguely called 'sweet mischiefs and glory' purporting that
they were only enjoying themselves and had some fun.
Now we shall celebrate our recent past, now we have

successfully burnt 'the Hell Wagon'. The Empire collapsed

'by itself' anyway. We had nothing to do with it.
22. HOW THE 'CORRECT ART' WAS CREATED.
We showed that the reformers of the XVII-XVIII cc.
sometimes used the well-known names of the old artists
and writers of the epoch of the Empire in order to, after the
ruin (or purposeful destruction) of their works, which were
declared 'wrong', attribute these reputable creators to the
later 'correct masterpieces' which were already created in
the spirit of Scaligerian history. They did this to the works
of the artists Albrecht Durer and Raffaello Santi (Raphael),
cartographer Gerardus Mercator, etc. [7v]. Something of
the kind was done with the playwright 'William
Shakespeare' [ScHEK].
After clearing the XVI century in particular of many
authentic originals, the reformers were compelled to
inhabit it with phantoms. Employing 'Durer', 'Raphael',
'Mercator', 'Shakespeare' as an example it turns out that
several groups of anonymous authors worked, amongst
whom there were some very talented ones. 'Ancient
works' were created away from the public eye, the dating
of which were deliberately moved back into the past.
Anonymity was important for the success of the project.
They surrendered their authorship (but not the money) for
the idea which they considered very important. They
created a list of 'their own geniuses', wrote 'true
biographies', painted 'true portraits', declared the findings
of the 'priceless relics' (a lock of hair of a great writer, the
'authentic' alabaster death mask, etc.). A big propaganda

campaign was launched. Stories about 'our true geniuses'

were injected into the school program and popular
literature. The artists created paintings 'on the required
themes', the composers created operas and oratorios.
Using the modern language 'the correct authors were
hyped up in any possible way'. A whirlpool of advertising
was bubbling around them. They were turned into the
symbols of reformation used in the ideological struggle. As
well as for the 'correct' education of young people.
The newly formed Western elites which emerged from the
rebellion and take-over strived to proclaim and reinforce
their independence and significance as soon as possible.
Not only in politics, but in fine art, literature, music, science
and the military arts. Having created a required
'foundation', they immediately declared Western Europe to
be the 'centre of absolutely everything'. The works were
generously paid for. The money was available as after the
collapse of the Great Empire the provinces stopped paying
tax to Russia-Horde and the Ottoman Empire Attamania.
Besides, vast riches were moved out of Russia during the
Times of Troubles in the XVII century.
Today researchers here and there stumble across the
traces of this backstage activity of the reformers. For
example in the case of 'Shakespeare'. But not
understanding the core of the matter any longer they count
the discovered facts of mystification or falsification merely
as separate and isolated against the background of 'on the
whole true history'. It is incorrect. The problem is much
deeper. This very problem we are exposing.

23. THE METHOD OF WORD-MATCH BETWEEN THE

LANGUAGES: WE DISCOVER WORDS FROM
DIFFERENT LANGUAGES SIMILAR IN SOUND AND AT
THE SAME TIME SIMILAR IN MEANING.
After we have reconstructed the framework of the true
chronology using the mathematical and astronomic
methods it is interesting to look at the evolution of the
languages and writing. In the 'Mongol' Empire the main
languages were Slavic and Turkic. The national language
was Slavic. After the collapse of the Empire the reformers
decided to create new languages in the splinter regions in
order to be independent of the metropolis linguistically as
well.
Before then in the XVI-XVII cc. the new rulers summoned
the special people who were assigned to 'invent the new
languages'. That's what the science of linguistics was
created for. At that point it served a practical purpose.
However the hastily created languages ('ancient' Latin,
'ancient' Greek, French, English, German, Spanish, Italian,
etc.) inevitably formed the basis from the Slavic language
in its broadest sense. The reformers simply did not have
different material. Therefore the invented languages were
to bear the 'Slavic stamp' on them. In [7v2] we provided
various evidence of this. Earlier the 'Slavic traces' were
either ignored or played down, as the people in the XVIIIXX cc. were used to inaccurate chronology. The very
thought of 'ancient' Latin originating from the Slavic
language was impossible. The new chronology removes
this taboo.

What methods did the reformers-'linguists' use? We have

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

Later on, when by the XIX century the openly political task
of creating the 'new languages' was achieved overall, the
linguists lost their national status of the reformers. In the
XIX-XX cc. their role was reduced to merely preserving the
newly invented languages. The linguistic science
concentrated on solving their domestic issues. In the XIXXX cc. they began the 'reconstruction of the history of the
ancient languages' erroneously dating their origin (Latin for
example) into the deepest antiquity. Having forgotten that
all of this took place relatively recently, just 150-200 years
ago.
# Another 'reformist technique' of the XVII-XVIII century is
clearly seen from the example of the French language.
The population was forced not to vocalize some of the
letters or combinations. A present-day example: instead of
Peugeot you ought to pronounce 'Pego'. As a result the
spoken text became different from the old original. Such
'progressive technique' was effective as it submerged into
oblivion the former Slavonic sounding of many old words.
# Previously they used to have two ways of reading: left to
right (as the present-day Europeans do) and right to left
(as the Arabs and the Jews do). The reformers used it
proactively. In many cases they changed the direction of
reading. As a result the old Slavonic words became
difficult to recognise.
# According to the Russian custom the affirmative nodding
of the head meant and means now agreement and the
shaking of the head left and right means denial. In the

epoch of the Reformation they changed the meaning of

those gestures on the territory of Bulgaria and now they
nod to disagree and shake their head when agree.
We discovered various parallelisms between the
SLAVONIC LANGUAGE AND LATIN. At present there are
nearly 3570 Russian words in our Vocabulary of
Parallelisms. Apparently at least nearly 3500 of the
'semantic groups' of the Latin words, around 2700 groups
of the English words and around 1170 groups of German
words originated from them. We paid particular attention to
Latin which is today considered to be the foundation of
many Western-European languages. Altogether there
turned out to be 15800 words in our Dictionary which are
presently thought to be foreign (Latin, English, et.). I.e. a
total of nearly 15800 'foreign' words originated from 3570
semantic Slavonic groups in the Middle Ages. Therefore
on average, approximately 4 'foreign' words originated
from each Slavonic group (15800: 3570 = 4,4).
Such an amount of primary words around 2800 or even
3570 semantic groups, which ended up in our Vocabulary
was apparently quite sufficient for the meaningful
communication between people in Mediaeval Times. That
said such parallels go well beyond our discoveries.
The comparison principle which we suggested as the
basis for our Dictionary of Parallelisms, is rather simple,
although most likely, is quite new. We searched for the
words SIMULTANEOUSLY SIMILAR IN MEANING AND

SIMILAR IN SOUND, i.e. we suggested a 'method of

semantic equations'. Let us specify our idea.
FIRSTLY: Looking through, for example, the Russian-Latin
dictionary, we were looking for Slavonic words and Latin
words, which would MEAN THE SAME THING, i.e. would
HAVE THE SAME MEANING, which are usually given in
the dictionary as translations of this Russian word. In other
words, the 'parallel' Slavonic and Latin words should be
APPROXIMATELY SIMILAR SEMANTICALLY and
SOUNDING SIMILAR. We have then also processed the
Latin-Russian dictionary. I.e. moving step by step through
the Latin words we analysed their Russian translations,
finding the parallels SEMANTIC SIMILARITY AND AT
THE SAME TIME SIMILARITY IN SOUND.
SECONDLY: having discovered the words-synonyms
(Russian and Latin and vice versa Latin and Russian)
which HAD THE SAME MEANING AND AT THE SAME
TIME CLOSE IN SOUND, we compared their spelling, i.e.
the letters and the sounds expressed by them. As a result
those transitions which at some point transformed
Slavonic words into Latin became more apparent. At the
same time it became clear which sounds exactly
transformed into which sounds, which letters 'turned
upside down', which of them 'mirrored' each other, etc. As
a result we often succeeded in reconstructing the
transformations of the Slavonic words into Latin.
In other words, by 'equating' two words 'semantically', i.e.
a Russian word and a matching Latin word, we acquire a
'semantic equation', from which we can clearly see which

transitions of sounds and letters took place. The method of

the semantic equations is useful when analysing the
origins of many modern languages from the Slavonic root
in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc.
Some of the parallelisms were noticed by the linguists
earlier, but the Scaligerian chronology which virtually
banned such comparisons prevented them from assessing
them and carrying out work on a full scale, similar to ours.
We paid special attention to the Slavonic-Latin parallels.
As the Latin roots are present in many European
Languages. THUS HAVING ESTABLISHED THE ORIGIN
OF THE 'CLASSICAL LATIN' FROM THE SLAVONIC
ROOT, WE ALSO AUTOMATICALLY PRESENT A
NUMBER OF SLAVONIC ROOTS IN OTHER WESTERNEUROPEAN LANGUAGES.
24. THE SLAVONIC LANGUAGE AND LATIN.
It follows from the New Chronology that writing emerged
more or less simultaneously with the creation of the
languages. People communicated with each other not only
verbally, but also in writing. The conversationalists
perceived the words not only by the way they sounded,
but also through their spelling. However at that time the
lettering could get mixed up. This distorted the words and
the sounds. People were unfamiliar with 'suffixes',
'prefixes', 'roots', etc. then. They perceived the word AS A
WHOLE, the way it sounded. Only later in the XVII-XIX cc.
there emerged the linguistic theories which studied the
'constituent parts' of the words.

A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SLAVONIC-LATIN matches

we have discovered is of a particular importance. As both
historians and linguists claim in unison that Latin is
extremely ancient. Purporting that at the time, when the
'most ancient' Romans were exquisitely discussing
mathematics, poetry and the fate and fortunes of the
universe in the silver-tongued Latin, the rest of Eurasian
peoples (with the exception of the even more 'ancient' and
exquisite Greeks) still lived cooped up in the cold caves by
smoking fires. Exchanging awkward gestures and guttural
sounds. Allegedly there was no mention of any Slavonic
languages, let alone any Slavonic writing. This picture is
fundamentally incorrect.
The linguistic theories of the origins and evolution of the
languages are entirely based on the presupposed and
known Scaligerian chronology. With the change of the
chronology the 'theories' also radically transform. Using its
own internal methods the linguistics fails to determine not
only the absolute dating, but in the majority of cases
even the relative ones.
Thus in the Latin-Russian dictionary we analysed every
Latin word and all the Russian translations-synonyms.
Usually there are several of such translations. In a large
number of cases directly amongst them we would discover
a Russian word, the distortion of which sometime before
had led to a corresponding Latin word. Notably, WHEN
COMPARING THE RUSSIAN ORIGINAL AND ITS LATIN
REFLECTION (which had the same meaning and similar
sound), we discovered the typical transitions of the

consonants. Such distortions can be attributed to the

variation in the spelling of some letters. In the XIII-XVII cc.
There were several alphabets in use, where the same
letters-consonants were depicted generally in the same
way, but their position on the line sometimes varied. A
letter 'p' could be written as 'b', 'q', 'd', which later led to the
transition of the sound 'p' into the sounds 'b', 'q', 'd'.
Following the solidifying of the new Western languages
originating from the Slavonic language, such variations
'ossified' and were recorded in the textbooks.
Here is an example. The Latin word 'mixtio' means
'mixture', 'mixing'. Its Slavonic original word was probably
'' (sounds 'meshat', means 'to mix' in Russian).
Comparing and its Latin reflection MIXITO we
discover that the Russian letter '' (Sh) transitioned here
into the Latin 'X'.
Another illustration. The Latin word 'moenia' means 'city
walls', 'fortification', 'tower', 'wall'. This prompts an idea
that the Slavonic original here was the word ''
(sounds like 'TYN' in Russian), where incidentally the
Russian word '' (sounds like 'stena', means 'a wall')
originates from. When comparing with its Latin
reflection MOENIA we see that the Russian T transformed
here into the Latin M. It is clear why. As the Russian ''
spelled the same way as 'm', i.e. in a form of three sticks
with a bar above, which is virtually identical with the Latin
'm'. In such form the consonant 'm' (the Russian '' with
three sticks) became a part of some Latin words.

25. THE SAME WORD COULD BE READ IN

DIFFERENT WAYS.
The philologists brought up on the Scaligerian Chronology
think that the transitions and confusion of sounds took
place mainly in the pre-writing epoch. I.e. they were
determined only by different pronunciation by different
people, by 'different voice-boxes'. That is why, they said,
we can't speak about the possible transitions of the
sounds because of the mix up in letters due to their close
spelling. At the heart of this opinion is the hypothesis that
the languages were formed before writing.
But according to the new chronology many languages
emerged already during the epoch of writing. That is why
the transitions of the sounds often appeared due to the
mix up of the letters depicted on paper. The same letter
written in a different way on a line could have led to the
confusion of the sounds.
Such transitions of the consonants is not only possible in
theory, but was discovered by us when 'solving the
semantic equations'. The Scaligerian chronology turned
many things upside down, including the linguistic matters.
A large number of parallels we noticed between the main,
primary words of the Russian language and Latin cannot
be considered accidental. A question arises: who
borrowed the words from whom? What language
originated from what language? Did the Latin word
PEDESTAL form by merging two Russian words PIATA

(heel of the foot in Russian) = PEDE and STOL (table) =

STAL? Or vice versa the two old Russian words PIATA
and STOL were formed by splitting a mysterious foreign
PEDESTAL which appeared in Russia? In our view in this
case, as in a great number of other cases, it is obvious
that the Latin is borrowing from Russian.
Having said that, the meaning on the whole remained. For
example, the Latin MUSCERDA = 'myshinyi pomiot'
(mouse droppings), most likely formed by fusion of the
Slavonic words MYSH+SRAT' (MOUSE+CRAP).
Improbable that the process was in reverse: that the
'ancient' Latin sweetly sounding MUSCERDA split later
into two Slavonic words and , which began
their independent lives.
We discovered another fact. Sometimes the Slavonic
words turned into the 'foreign' ones as the result of
rearranging the consonants inside a word when reading it
incorrectly. The fact is that in the XI-XVI cc. The letter
order in a word was not exactly fixed. The letters were
written not strictly in sequence along the line (as we do it
today), but sometimes one under the other, to the side,
above or underneath each other, varying in size and
slanting differently. The letters were 'put on their side',
turned around and mirrored. A word was 'drawn' in a form
of a little heap of letters, the order of reading could vary.
Every method of reading of a 'heap'-hieroglyph was
determined by the trajectory of the eyes movement, by the
order of the transition of your glance from letter to letter.
Therefore it was possible to 'read' different words 'out' of

the same one 'word-hieroglyph', fig.102. The zigzag lines

consecutively passing through the white points show
various ways of reading the very same 'heap of letters'
[7v2].
Here we come across the traces of the old way of
recording of words in the form of the pictures-hieroglyphs,
like in the Ancient Egypt. If the meaning of the text was
forgotten then the complex picture could be read in
different ways, which led to confusion.
We'll remind you that a word could be read both left to
right and right to left. For example the Russian word
(spike) and the Russian word (cereal) could
have been derived from each other when read in revise
order and exchanging S into Z (-). Besides, they used
to write the words without vowel marking, just with the
consonants. That is why the latest vowel markings of the
same 'frame of consonants' could vary: kolos = KLS --->
ZLK = zlak.
Most likely, the Christian Book of Psalms and the 'Ancient'
Egyptian Book of the Dead are virtually the same book, or,
which is more precise, they both date back to the same
primary source [5v2], ch.4:8.
The people, who were probably writing the Book of
Psalms in its more or less modern form, had in front of
them an old Hieroglyphic text, inscribed with 'pictures'.
Their reading was ambiguous, not mono-semantic, and
besides the meaning of the text was almost forgotten.
Hence the intense imagery of the Book of Psalms and its
continual repetitions. The same picture is described with

words several times. The Book of Psalms looks unusual in

comparison with the later texts, which were by then written
using letters aligned in an orderly fashion. That is why
today the Book of Psalms is difficult to understand in
places.
The Book of Psalms was probably partially written by
Christ himself. It conveys Christ's inner turmoil at the time
of his persecution, then his enthronement and the last
days before his execution. Some of the Psalms from the
Old Church Slavonic Book of Psalms are possibly not the
translations, but the ORIGINALS. We have already said
that Christ for a long time lived in Russia and spoke the
Slavonic language very well [TsRS], ch.3.
26. PAGANISM.
Let us show an example of how the confusion in regards
to the words led to some serious repercussions. The
words DOL, DOLU mean: underside, lowland, valley,
lower hem in a dress. According to Vladimir Dal
(Explanatory Dictionary Translator's note): DOLU means
beneath, on the ground, downwards. Let us also
remember the Church expression: DOLU is below, down,
low; for example POKLONITSA DOLU (to bow to the
ground). It is probably from here the word
IDOLOPOKLONNIKI (worshipers of idols) originated, i.e.
those, who 'bow low', DOLU+POKLONNIKI (those who
bow low to the ground), DOLU POKLONITSA (to bow to
the ground). Originally all the believers were referred to in
this way, were bowing low when praying, touching the
floor with their hand, and sometimes even head or

forehead. Even today Muslims getting on their knees, as in

the original Christianity of the XII-XV cc., when bowing
touch the ground with their foreheads. The same low
bows, but in a slightly different form, survive in the
Russian Orthodox Church until present day. But following
the religious schisms in the XVI-XVII cc. in Romanovs
Russia, and in Western Europe (where the Slavonic
language was still in use, though it was being forced out
by the new languages like Latin) the formerly neutral word
IDOLOPOKLONNIKI (idol worshipers) acquired a negative
meaning. In Russia the Romanovs changed the style of
the churches and the character of church life [4]. In the
parts of the Great Empire which split off from it some of
the original Orthodox customs were also changed in order
to separate from the metropoly in the religious sense as
well.
Today Catholics rarely do low prostrations. In the
Western-European churches the custom of getting onto
their knees during the service has disappeared. Instead
long benched-seats were made in front of which there is
placed a step-like panel. In the certain moments during the
prayer you have to slightly touch it with your knee
remaining seated. Having separated in the religious sense
the Western priests condemned and changed some
former Orthodox Catholic rituals. Including the direction of
the sign of the cross. The Muslims, who also split off from
the original Christianity, annulled crossing altogether.
The reformers used the fact that the Russian word DOLU
also meant 'vile' and 'low' and tendentiously interpreted it

in a negative way. As a result in the XVII-XVIII cc. the

word IDOLOPOKLONNIKI in some church circles began
to be disapproved of: purporting that it was they who
worship the bad gods. The same was done to the word
IDOL, i.e. virtually DOLU, which today is perceived as
something primitive, some kind of 'wrong' deity, idol. Thus
they swapped white into black and vice versa.
27. THE ASTRONOMICAL DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
1. (Year 1725) Horoscope dating to the time of the rule of
the grandson of the very first Yellow Emperor of China
Huangdi. Allegedly the first half of the third millennia BC.
In fact: 6 March Old Style (Julian calendar) 1725, see
[3v2] or our book 'Pegaya Orda' ('Piebald Horde').
2. (Year 1741) ZODIAC FZ del FALCONETTO from
MANTUA. Fresco decoration on the walls of the so called
'Sala dello Zodiaco del Falconetto' (Hall of the Zodiac) in
the Seconda Palazzina gia Dalla Valle. Italy, Mantua,
allegedly 1520. In fact: 3-4 Julian calendar 1741 [GR],
Introduction.
3. (Year 1741) ROMAN ZODIAC FA OF JUPITER.
Allegedly the 'classical' stone carving. In fact: 5 June
Julian calendar 1741 (ERIZ].
4. (Year 1781) ZODIAC OF URANUS RP1 IN CHAMBER
OF THE COURT JUSTICE IN PADUA (Palazzo della
Ragione). Frescos on the walls of the upper chamber.

Italy, Padua, allegedly 1315-1317. In fact: 23-25 April

1781 [GRK], ch.4.
Chapter 9.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIX CENTURY
1. CRITIQUE OF SCALIGER'S CHRONOLOGY.
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) Doctorpsychoanalyst. 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.
2. EVEN IN THE XVIII 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 XVIII-XIX CC.
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 WesternEuropean 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.
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.
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 academicsHISTORIANS in the Russian Academy of Sciences in the
XVIII-XIX were foreign. Who created the Romanov-Miller
version?
IT APPEARS THAT ALL OF THE ACADEMICSHISTORIANS 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 Mller 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.
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.
3. THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE, THE CASTS OF THE
GREAT EMPIRE, THE MEDIAEVAL JUDAISM.
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.
4. HOW THE EMPIRE WAS RULED.
# 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 RussiaHorde? 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 RussiaHorde and the Ottoman EmpireAtamania.

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 HordiansCossacks. 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.
5. THE FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY IN THE XVII-XVIII
CC.
&& THE ROMANOV ARCHAEOLOGISTSPOGROMISTS.
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 18511854 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 RussianHorde 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'
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.

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 XVIXVII 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'
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.
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 backwardnessThe 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 RussianHordian 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 XVIIXVIII 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.
6. THE CZAR-GRAD KINGDOM OF THE XI-XII CC. AND
THE HORDE EMPIRE OF THE XIII-XVI CC. ARE THE
ARCHETYPES OF ALL THE MAIN 'ANCIENT
KINGDOMS' IN THE SCALIGERIAN HISTORY.
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 4001327.
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.
7. 'RUSSIA THE HOMELAND OF ELEPHANTS'.
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.
8. THE GUNPOWDER AND THE CANONS.
As we understand it now, the gunpowder and the canon
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 canons 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 canons to be 'locallymade' or 'of local invention'. Having forgotten that some
time ago (though not that long ago) these canons 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 canons
'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 canon 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
canons 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
'canon', 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 canons 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 canons 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 canons.
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 canon
production was in Russia-Horde.
9. THE ASTRONOMIC DATING OF THE NEW
CHRONOLOGY.
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'.