A page from a Russian school textbook:
.."First of all, the interfluve of the Volga and Oka, the core of the formation of the Russian people. It was from here that the Russians settled across the vast territory of Russia to the north, east and south."
And here is a map of that very heart, vigorously RussianOka-Volga quadrangle
(until about 1350)
.
Indigenous Finno-Ugric peoples - Merya (since the mid-1700s it has already been completely denationalized to the degree of Russianness) yes, moksha yes, erzya (on the map, Arzamas still bears the undistorted name Erd zyamas, translated as Erzya-earth) yes, bastard (today also Russian) yes, muroma ( And these are Russians there are, there are Veps, there are Mari.
Find Russians here:
If you say, it was a long time ago, it's the 1300s, here's the 19th century.
Back then, there were much fewer Russified people in Russia than today.
(It is characteristic that the author of the quote about contemporary Russians, himself also Russian in the first generation, from Ukrainians Sukhomlyn-ov - dry mlyn in translation into Russian is a dry mill):
This is 1830, early 19th century.
But even at the beginning of the 20th century, almost the entire north of Russia, the very north, about which the Russians lie to us today, that it was there that the ancient primordial Slavic Russia was preserved in all its purity, it turns out that they did not yet know the Russian language.
As evidenced by another map published in the Russian Empire (in 1914).
Read and watch here:
Picture for attraction and understanding:
A group of northern aliens of Russia. Small Veps Putin in the center in the second row.
Photographic card No. 72. A group of northern Russian foreigners from N.A. Shabunin's album Journey to the North, 1906
And at the end, just one question:
-Who will show me a map of the ethnic lands of the Russian people, such lands on the territory of Russia where the Russian Slavs would be an aboriginal = autochthonous = indigenous people?
I want to see it at least once in my life.
This post is also posted on:
AFTER THIS, THE BOTH COUNTS UNITED AND LIVED TOGETHER, AND EACH GOT THE WOMAN WITH WHOM HE FIRST MATED FOR A WIFE. Husbands, however, could not learn the language of their wives, while wives learned the language of their husbands. When at last they began to understand each other, the men told the Amazons the following: “... We can no longer lead such a life and therefore we want to return to our own and live with our people again. YOU ALONE WILL BE OUR WIVES AND WE WILL HAVE NO OTHERS. To this the Amazons replied: “We cannot live with your women. After all, our customs are not the same as theirs ... If you want us to be your wives ... then go to your parents and receive your share of the inheritance. When you return, let's live on our own."
The young men obeyed their wives and did so: they returned to the Amazons, having received their share of the inheritance. Then the women said to them: “We are terrified at the thought that we will have to live in this country: because for us you have lost your fathers, and we have done great harm to your country. BUT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE US AS A WIFE, LET'S DO THIS TOGETHER: LETS GO OUT OF THIS COUNTRY AND LIVE BEHIND THE TANAIS RIVER.
The young men agreed to this. They crossed the Tanais and then three days went east from Tanais and three days north from Lake Meotida. Arriving in the area where they live to this day, they settled there. Since then, Savromatian women have retained their ancient customs: together with their husbands and even without them, they go hunting on horseback, go on a campaign and wear the same clothes with men.
SAUROMATS SPEAK SCYTHIAN, but from time immemorial it has been wrong, since the Amazons did not master this language well, p. 214–216.
In fact, here Herodotus again repeated the plot of the Serf War, and in a version quite close to the abduction of the Sabine women, according to Titus Livy. Judge for yourself.
1) According to Herodotus, the Hellenes during the war CAPTURED WOMEN - AMAZONS and went with them to their homeland. According to Titus Livy, the Romans kidnap the Sabine women. According to the Russian - Horde version, serfs - slaves took the wives of their masters.
2) According to Herodotus, the Amazons were soon left "without men" again. Allegedly, they killed all the Hellenes who captured them. This motif of WOMEN WITHOUT HUSBANDS (MEN) sounds both in the version of Titus Livius and in the Novgorod version. Wives were left without husbands for one reason or another.
3) According to Herodotus, Amazon women ended up in the country of the Scythians. There was a fight between them and the Scythians. There were even dead. Realizing that they were dealing with women, the Scythians decided NOT TO KILL THE AMAZONS, BUT, ON THE CONTRAST, TAKE THEM AS WIFE FOR THEIR YOUNG PEOPLE. This plot almost coincides with the story told by Titus Livy. He also claims that the Romans decided to KIDNAP THE SABINE WOMEN IN ORDER TO TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WIFE AND TO EXTEND THEIR GENERATION. Of course, no one was going to kill the Sabine women. The men - Sabines, who were present at the abduction of wives and Sabine girls, got scared and did not show real military resistance to the Romans. The Russian - Horde version muffledly, without any details, speaks of "the abduction of wives by serfs." It is only reported that the wives of the Scythians allegedly decided to become slave wives, as they believed in the death of their husbands, who had gone on a long trip.
4) Herodotus clarifies how exactly the Scythian plan was brought to life. The Scythians came up with a CLICK. In order to lull the vigilance and militancy of the Amazons, the Scythian youths had to pitch their camp not far from them and, in the event of persecution by the Amazons, temporarily retreat. But then it was recommended to slowly approach and break the camp again. This had to be done with caution until the Amazons got used to, put up with the presence of the Scythians and had sexual intercourse with them.
The Cunning motif also sounds vividly in the Roman version of Titus Livius. Romulus and the Romans also misled the Sabines by throwing a feast to which they invited neighbors with their wives and daughters. When they arrived, the Romans unexpectedly, according to a conventional sign, rushed to the Sabine women and kidnapped them. In the Greek version of Herodotus, the motive for the forcible abduction of women is greatly softened and replaced by the gradual addiction of the Amazons to the young Scythians who are not far from them. As we have already noted, the Russian Novgorod version also says that the wives of the Scythians SAMI decided to take serfs as their husbands, since they mistakenly considered their husbands to have died in the war. Thus, the motive of voluntary marriage sounds. We see that the story of Herodotus agrees well with both the version of Titus Livius and the Russian - Horde version.
5) According to Herodotus, in the end, the suspicion of the Amazons was replaced by love for the young men - the Scythians, who so long sought their attention. As a result, the Amazons became the wives of the Scythians. The Roman version of Titus Livy tells the same story. The abducted Sabine women at first, naturally, grieved for their former families, but the Romans who abducted them tried in every possible way to appease the women. As a result, the initial resentment was replaced by love and respect. Sabine women became good wives of the Romans. The Russian - Horde version also reports on the VOLUNTARY entry of the wives of Novgorodians into marriage with serfs.
6) According to Herodotus, the event takes place in Scythia. That is, as we understand it, in Russia - the Horde. Probably in the epoch of the XIII - beginning of the XIV century AD. e., when the Trojan king Aeneas = Prince Rurik and his descendants founded the Royal Rome in the Mesopotamia of the Oka and Volga. Herodotus also reports that the young Scythians and their Amazon wives set off on a long journey to found a new kingdom. It is clearly stated that they go northeast from the Tanais River, that is, from the Don River. Recall that on the old maps the Don was called Tanais, see the book "New Chronology of Russia". But if you move to the northeast from the Don River for a continuation, as Herodotus says, three days to the east and three days to the north, then you can find yourself just in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Which, as we showed in the book "The Beginning of the Horde Russia" became the metropolis of Tsarist Rome, founded here by Aeneas and his descendants. Thus, the testimony of Herodotus, Titus Livius, Virgil and other "ancient" authors in this paragraph are in good agreement both with each other and with the Russian - Horde version. According to which, Novgorod became the metropolis of the new Kingdom. By virtue of our results, this is Yaroslavl on the Volga, or, more generally, the area of several cities around Yaroslavl.
CONCLUSION. In the "History" of Herodotus there are two very close stories about the Kholopya war of the Novgorodians, probably XIII - early XIV century AD. e.
So, the story of the "ancient" Herodotus about the wives - the Amazons is directly connected with the Russian - Horde history of the Kholopia war near Yaroslavl - Novgorod. Here it is appropriate to recall that, according to the numerous facts we have discovered, the “ancient Amazons” are the Russian-Horde Cossacks. The wives of the Cossacks who lived on the Don and on the Volga, see "New Chronology of Russia", ch. 4:6; "Empire", ch. 9:20 am. In particular, on ancient maps, the "Land of the Amazons" was repeatedly depicted in Russia, in the Mesopotamia of the Volga and Don. Such, for example, is the map of Charles V and Ferdinand, given and studied by us in the book "New Chronology of Russia", ch. 4, illus. 4.8.
36. WHY IN THE EPOCH OF THE ROMANOVS THE NAME "NOVGOROD" WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM YAROSLAVL WAS TRANSFERED EXACTLY TO THE NORTH-WEST ON THE SHORE OF LAKE ILMEN?
As we showed in the book "New Chronology of Russia" and our other publications, the annalistic Veliky Novgorod is the city of Yaroslavl on the Volga. Or rather, the name of the whole region, which included several more cities, in particular Rostov and Suzdal. But in the epoch of the 17th century, the name "Novgorod" was taken away from Yaroslavl and assigned to a small town, a former neighborhood - a prison in the northwest of Russia, at Lake Ilmen, at the mouth of the river, which was called VOLKHOV. The question is why EXACTLY HERE was transferred - on paper and on maps - the famous annalistic name NOVGOROD, and along with it the no less famous name VOLGA? After all, it is clear that the word VOLHOV is just a slightly distorted name of the VOLGA.
Rice. 1.218. Fragment of a map by S. Herberstein allegedly dated 1546, which generally correctly shows the surroundings of the Northern Dvina. Taken from , map P
The answers may vary. However, among them there is one that deserves serious attention. Let's turn to old maps Muscovy, compiled by Western European cartographers and travelers of the 16th-17th centuries. Attention is drawn to the following curious circumstance. These maps depict the Northern Dvina and its environs quite well, and more or less correctly show the towns and villages of this region. See, for example, in fig. 1.218 the corresponding fragment of the map by S. Herberstein, allegedly from 1546, in fig. 1.25 a fragment of the map of Frederick de Wit in 1670, in fig. 1.219 - drawing of an old map by Guillaume Delisle of 1706. It can be seen that Western cartographers knew quite well those areas where Western merchants and merchant ships arrived by the Northern Sea Route. They climbed up the Dvina and other rivers of this region, eventually reaching Yaroslavl, the largest trading center of that era. See the modern map in fig. 1.216 and 1.214. But Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, the environs of the city of Moscow and, in general, the lands to the south and west of Yaroslavl, Western cartographers knew much worse. They even had difficulties with Moscow. That is, with the capital of Russia of the XVI century! For example, on the same map by S. Herberstein, allegedly from 1546, the city of Moscow is not marked. Only the name of the land is written - MOSCOW (Moscowia), see fig. 1.218.
2. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCOVERED THE IDENTIFICATION OF TSAR ROME WITH THE SECOND AND THIRD ROMAN EMPIRES, AS WELL AS WITH THE GREAT = "MONGOLIAN" EMPIRE.
In the book "Foundations of History", ch.6, it was shown that the Royal Rome of allegedly 753-509 BC, that is, the First Roman Empire in our terminology, is a phantom reflection of the Second Roman Empire, allegedly from the 1st century BC .e. until the 3rd century AD She is also the Third Roman Empire, allegedly 300-552 AD. It is also the Great = "Mongolian" Empire of the epoch of the XIII-XVI centuries AD. For details, see also our book "The Baptism of Russia", Appendix 2. It turns out that the famous "ancient" historian Titus Livius, the author of the fundamental work "History from the Foundation of the City", was in fact a chronicler of the Great = "Mongolian" Empire XIII-XVI centuries. He lived, most likely, in Western Europe. Further, we will see that in many places in his book Titus Livius proclaims the point of view, which today is called Jewish. Although, at the same time, he is probably a Christian. But not in the modern sense of the word, but in the sense of the era of the XV-XVII centuries.
FIRST CONSEQUENCE.
Relying on the dates obtained by us earlier by statistical and astronomical methods, we immediately extract an important CONSEQUENCE. Since the chroniclers placed Emperor Constantine I the Great at the beginning of the Second Roman Empire, there SHOULD BE A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CHRONICAL BIOGRAPHY OF ROMULUS - THE FIRST RULER OF ROYAL ROME - AND THE CHRONICAL BIOGRAPHY OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT. THAT IS - Tsar-Khan DMITRY IVANOVICH DONSKOY, as shown in our book "The Baptism of Russia". Our conclusion is justified. This will be discussed in this chapter.
SECOND CONSEQUENCE.
Relying on the dates obtained by us earlier by statistical and astronomical methods, we get one more important CONCLUSION. Since the chroniclers placed the era of Christ at the beginning of the Second Roman Empire, there SHOULD BE A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CHRONICAL BIOGRAPHY OF ROMULUS - THE FIRST RULER OF ROYAL ROME - AND THE CHRONICAL BIOGRAPHY OF JESUS CHRIST. THAT IS - THE EMPEROR ANDRONIKUS, as shown in our book "The King of the Slavs". This conclusion is also justified. We will present this material in this chapter.
The first Roman king described by Titus Livy is Romulus. It is believed that HE FOUNDED ROME. As we showed in the book "The Beginning of Horde Russia", the Latin authors called the foundation of Rome, most likely, the unification of Russia-Horde in the XIII century AD. Russia was united by the Trojan king Aeneas, who is also Rurik of the Russian chronicles, who arrived in Russia after the fall of Troy at the beginning of the 13th century AD. "Ancient" sources say that Aeneas and his companions arrived in the great country Etruria, p.32. That is, most likely, to TARTARIA (Tartaria = TRTR --> TRR = Etruria). It is believed that Etruria is the name of the Etruscan country. That is, according to our results, the RUSSIAN countries, see "Empire", ch.15. The Royal Rome that arose here was, therefore, surrounded by Et-Russian, that is, Russian, lands. Titus Livy quotes the words of the leader of the Albans, addressed to the Roman king Tullus: "To you, Tullus, I would like to remind you of this. HOW GREAT THE POWER OF THE ETRUSIANS SURROUNDING AND OUR POSSESSIONS, AND ESPECIALLY YOURS, you, as their closest neighbor, know even better than we: THEIR POWER IS GREAT ON LAND, THEY ARE MORE STRONGER ON THE SEA", v.1, p.30.
According to our results, the city of Yaroslavl in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus became the metropolis of united Russia. He is Veliky Novgorod of Russian chronicles. Soon, under Romulus and Remus, the descendants of Aeneas-Rurik, Russia-Horde is further strengthened and passes into a new quality. There is a Great = "Mongolian" Empire. Therefore, on the pages of the "ancient" chronicles, the unification of Russia-Horde and the imminent emergence of the Great Empire could be glued together, identified and called the "foundation of Rome." Thus, "ANTIQUE" ROYAL ROMUL, FOUNDED BY ROMULUS, UNDERSTANDING AS A CITY AND AS A KINGDOM, IS THE GREAT = "MONGOLIAN" EMPIRE.
In addition, as shown in the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods", King Romulus is also partly a reflection of the Roman Emperor Constantine I the Great, allegedly from the 4th century AD, fig. 1.11. That is, according to our results, important information about the Horde Tsar-Khan Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, who lived in the XIV century, is woven into the chronicle "biography" of Romulus. The triple correspondence between the king Romulus, the emperor Constantine the Great and the biblical king Jeroboam I is described in the book "Methods", ch.2:7. In particular, the struggle of Constantine with Licinius (Maxentius) was reflected in the pages of the work of Titus Livius as a struggle between Romulus and Remus. Remus was killed by Romulus. In the Bible, all this is described as the struggle of the biblical kings Jeroboam and Rehoboam.
According to the "ancient classics", Rome was founded by Romulus allegedly around 753 BC. The partial identification of Romulus with Emperor Constantine the Great, which we discovered, means that we are talking about the founding of New Rome by Constantine allegedly around 300-330 AD. The chronological shift here is approximately 1053-1083 years, since 753 + 300 = 1053, and 753 + 330 = 1083. This is the so-called Roman shift, discovered and studied in detail by A.T. Fomenko in the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods" . Recall that, according to the Scaligerian history, Emperor Constantine the Great decided to found a new capital of the Empire and moved the capital from Old Rome to New Rome, on the Bosphorus. Thus, in one legend, two stories probably merged. Namely, about the foundation of Old Rome and the foundation of New Rome. Hence the confusion between Romulus, the founder of the Old, Royal Rome, and Constantine the Great, the founder of the New Rome on the Bosphorus. The two images partially stuck together on the pages of later chronicles. See the chronological shift diagram in Fig. 1.12.
Figure 1.13 shows an old bronze image of Constantine I. Figure 1.14 shows a precious shrine for the right hand (hand) of Constantine the Great, kept in the treasury of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The jewel belonged to Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century and was transferred from Czar-Grad to Moscow by Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople (1572-1579). He personally arrived in Moscow and presented the shrine to the Russian Tsar-Khan Fyodor Ivanovich, p.304. Today, there are no relics of Constantine in this ark.
Let us repeat once again that the foundation of Tsarskoye = Old Rome is, apparently, the unification of Russia-Horde by Tsar Aeneas-John in the 13th century into a single powerful state. Aeneas arrived in Russia from the Bosphorus Czar-Grad = Troy = Jerusalem, burned in the Trojan War, at the very beginning of the 13th century AD. Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVI centuries was later described by "ancient" authors as Ancient Rome. The Roman metropolis was located in the Mesopotamia of the Oka and Volga.
The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to New Rome by Constantine the Great is probably an event at the end of the 14th century AD. Emperor Constantine I, aka the Russian-Horde Tsar-Khan Dmitry Donskoy, after the victory in the Battle of Kulikovo, arrived in Tsar-Grad and declared it the second capital of the Empire. This capital became the second after the first, namely, after the main metropolis in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, which existed at least since the 13th century. Having made apostolic Christianity the religion of the entire vast "Mongolian" Empire, Konstantin = Dmitry Donskoy decided, apparently, to place the spiritual and religious center of the Empire in the old Tsar-Grad = Evangelical Jerusalem, where Christ was crucified in 1185, fig. 1.12. The military and administrative center of the Empire, Constantine the Great kept in Russia-Horde. That is, in the biblical Assyria-Syria.
From what has been said, it follows that some chroniclers and cartographers could confuse OLD ROME and NEW ROME. As was stated in detail in the book "Foundations of History", ch.6, the confusion between them was reflected in several options for transferring the capital of the Roman Empire. In some versions, it was transferred from Old Rome to New Rome. And in others, on the contrary, from New Rome to Old.
3. ON OLD SWEDISH MAPS "NEW ROME" REALLY DISPLAYED IN RUSSIA, IN THE BETWEEN OKA AND VOLGA.
It is natural to expect that if "ancient" Rome was really founded on Russia and for a long time, in the XIV-XVI centuries, was located in the area between the Oka and Volga, then, despite the "Scaligerian purge", at least some old maps should survive, where on territory of Russia, traces of the name ROME have been preserved. Now we will present such cards. Let us turn to the old maps that were presented at the exhibition "Russia and Sweden in the 17th century", held in Moscow, at the State Historical Museum in 2001. See also information about the exhibition in the May 2001 issue of the magazine "Moscow today & tomorrow", pp.16-23. We thank A.I. Shatalkin, an employee of the Moscow State University, who drew our attention to these maps and noted that they contain the name "Rome New" on the territory of Russia.
The author of the map shown in Fig. 1.15 is "Nicholas Piskator the Elder (Dutch. N. Vischer, N. Visscher, often N. Fischer), 1618 - c. 1679, representative of the Piscator dynasty, Dutch cartographers late XVI - early 18th century A map made in the workshop of a famous scientist and cartographer captures the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe", pp.69-70. Figures 1.16 and 1.17 show two of its fragments. Figure 1.18 shows an enlarged fragment of a part of Central Russia.
In Figure 1.18 we see two Russian cities with the same name: "New Rome" (Roma nova). The first one is located very close to Moscow, see Fig. 1.19. The second one is on the left bank of the Volga, not far from the right bank of Yaroslavl, fig. 1.20. Later, the Volga city "New Rome" began to be called ROMANOV, fig. 1.21. It became the left-bank part of the city of Romanovo-Borisoglebsk.
The next map of Russia was made by Frederick de Wit in 1670. We present its fragment in Figure 1.22, where, again, near Moscow, as well as on the left bank of the Volga, near the right bank of Yaroslavl (Ierislow), two "New Romes" (Roma Nova) are marked, see Figure 1.23 and Figure. 1.24.
By the way, in Fig.1.18 and Fig.1.20, just below the Volga New Rome, also on the left bank, a city with an interesting name "Saint Jacob" (Iacobi Suetoy) is indicated. The same city of St. James is also indicated on the map of Frederic de Wit, Fig. 1.24, but a little further from the Volga. Today, there is no longer a city with that name on the Volga.
Note that the area around Vladimir is named WOLODI MERA. It is possible that such a record, in the form of two words, reflected the memories that once the capital of the Great = "Mongolian" Empire was located here. Therefore, in ancient times the city was called "I own the World" (WOLODI MERA), that is, VLADIMIR.
We have already expressed the idea that the usurpers Romanovs, who came to power in Russia after the Great Troubles, could derive their surname from the phrase Roma nova, that is, "New Rome". Thus, they probably emphasized that the OLD ROME, that is, the Rome of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI centuries, was now replaced by the "New Rome", the Rome of the rebellious reformers. Or the new rulers took the surname of the Romanovs, considering themselves the "winners" of the Horde New Rome of the 16th century. Recall that in the 16th century Moscow became the capital of Russia-Horde, which could well be called NEW ROME, in contrast to OLD ROME = Yaroslavl on the Volga. According to our results, Yaroslavl = Veliky Novgorod was the first capital of the Empire. See the details in the book "Biblical Russia".
It is worth noting that a lot of cities are marked on the map of Frederick de Wit along the Northern Dvina, Fig. 1.25. There are even more of them than indicated near Moscow and to the south. Moreover, on the map of Piscator the Elder, a large number of cities are also indicated on Novaya Zemlya, Fig. 1.26. So in that era these lands were densely populated.
But back to the history of "ancient" Rome.
4. A QUARGE BETWEEN ROMULUS AND REMUS, ENDING IN THE MURDER OF REMUS, THIS IS THE BATTLE OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT WITH MAXENTIUS (LICINIA). THAT IS THE BATTLE OF KULIKOV 1380.
4.1. Testimonies of Livy and Plutarch.
Let us add new evidence to the correspondence between Romulus and Constantine the Great already found in the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods". As we have already said, the annalistic "biography" of Romulus is two-layered. One layer corresponds to Constantine I, that is, Dmitry Donskoy. The second layer - to the emperor Andronicus-Christ. Now we will focus on the first layer.
Titus Livy and Plutarch talk about the confrontation between Romulus and Remus as follows.
Titus Livius:<<Но в эти замыслы (создания царства - Авт.) вмешалось наследственное зло, жажда царской власти... Братья (Ромул и Рем - Авт.) были близнецы... и вот, чтобы БОГИ... ПТИЧЬИМ ЗНАМЕНИЕМ указали, кому наречь своим именем город, кому править новым государством, Ромул местом наблюдения избрал Палатин, а Рем - Авентин. Рему, как передают, первому ЯВИЛОСЬ ЗНАМЕНИЕ - шесть коршунов, - и о знамении уже возвестили, когда РОМУЛУ ПРЕДСТАВИЛОСЬ двойное против этого число птиц. Каждого из братьев толпа приверженцев провозгласила царем... Началась перебранка, и ВЗАИМНОЕ ОЗЛОБЛЕНИЕ ПРИВЕЛО К КРОВОПРОЛИТИЮ; В СУМЯТИЦЕ РЕМ ПОЛУЧИЛ СМЕРТЕЛЬНЫЙ УДАР. Более распространен, впрочем, другой рассказ - будто Рем в насмешку над братом ПЕРЕСКОЧИЛ ЧЕРЕЗ НОВЫЕ СТЕНЫ и Ромул в гневе убил его, воскликнув при этом: "Так да погибнет всякий, кто перескочит через мои стены">>, v.1, p.14-15.
Plutarch is more detailed.<<Когда братья решили построить город, между ними тут же вышла ссора из-за выбора места. Ромул заложил "КВАДРАТНЫЙ", иначе "ЧЕТЫРЕХУГОЛЬНЫЙ" Рим, и хотел избрать это место для постройки города, Рем же наметил для этого укрепленный пункт на Авентине, названный в его честь Ремонием, нынешний Рингарий. Они условились решить свой спор гаданием по полету птиц и сели отдельно. Говорят, Рем увидел шесть коршунов, Ромул - двенадцать, по другим же, Рем увидел их действительно, Ромул солгал: КОГДА ПРИШЕЛ РЕМ, ТОГДА ТОЛЬКО ПОКАЗАЛИСЬ ДВЕНАДЦАТЬ КОРШУНОВ РОМУЛА>> , p.40. Further, Plutarch, for some reason, embarks on a long discussion about the kite bird, about its habits, etc. About half the page, Plutarch "sings an ode" to the kite, praising this bird in every possible way.
Then Plutarch returns to the quarrel between Romulus and Remus. "Having learned about the deceit, Rem became angry and when Romulus KOPAL ROV, with which he wanted to surround the wall of the future city, began to laugh at his work, then interfere with it. Finally, HE JUMPED OVER THE DITCH AND WAS KILLED ON THE SITE, some say - by Romulus himself , others - by one of the comrades, Celer", p.41.
4.2. THE LEGEND ABOUT THE FOUNDATION OF ROMULUS ABUSED INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF THE EMPIRE CAPITAL FROM OLD ROME TO NEW ROME by CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
"Ancient classics" say that the quarrel between Romulus and Remus occurred during the laying of the city of Rome in Latinia, Etruria. It is believed that we are talking about the foundation of Old Rome allegedly around 753 BC. But, as was shown in the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods", a significant contribution to this legend was made by the transfer of the capital of the Empire by Constantine the Great from Old Rome to New Rome on the Bosphorus allegedly around 330 AD.
According to our results, Fig. 1.12, the foundation of Old Rome is the creation in the XIII century AD. Aeneas-John and his descendants, Romulus and Remus, united Russia-Horde with the metropolis in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. This was the actual beginning of the Great = "Mongolian" Empire. And the transfer of the capital of the Empire by Constantine the Great to the Bosporus is the transformation of Tsar-Grad into the religious Christian capital of the "Mongolian" Empire under Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great, at the end of the XIV century. Interestingly, "in the most ancient versions, Aeneas is the father of Romulus or Remus", p.24.
4.3. THE HEAVENLY SIGN TO ROMULUS AND REMU AT THE FOUNDATION OF ROME IS THE "VISION OF THE CROSS" IN THE SKY TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT DURING THE BATTLE WITH MAXENTIUS (LICINIA).
When laying Rome, the heavenly sign to Romulus and Remus plays an important role. Namely, THE APPEARANCE OF KITES IN THE SKY - six for Remus and twelve birds for Romulus. Most likely, here we are talking about the VISION OF THE CROSS IN THE SKY to Constantine the Great before the start of his battle with Maxentius = Licinius. See details in our book "The Baptism of Russia". Recall that before the battle between Constantine and Maxentius, allegedly in 312 (it is also the battle with Licinius, allegedly in 323), a cross "appeared" in the sky, announcing victory to Emperor Constantine. This event is considered very famous. It was repeatedly discussed by medieval authors, both secular and religious. In fact, it was probably about the first use of firearms by Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy. See our book "The Baptism of Russia".
As we can see, the heavenly sign to Constantine the Great was also reflected in the history of Imperial Rome as a heavenly sign to Romulus and Remus. In both cases, this event is associated with the foundation, or transfer, of the capital of Rome.
By the way, Plutarch reports that Romulus laid the FOUR-ANGULAR or SQUARE Rome. This event is directly connected with the heavenly sign of Romulus: as soon as he founded the FOUR-COOLED Rome, he immediately saw the divine SIGN. It turns out that it was somehow connected with the shape of a square or with something quadrangular. Probably, in this form, Plutarch refracted the vision of the Christian CROSS to Constantine the Great. After all, an ordinary Christian cross is sometimes called FOUR-ANGULAR, FOUR-ENDED, because it has four ends. Some modifications of the cross are called six-pointed, for example, the star of David, fig. 1.27, fig. 1.28, eight-pointed, etc.
As we now understand, the essence of the conflict between Romulus (Constantine the Great = Dmitry Donskoy) and Remus (Maxentius = Khan Mamai) was the dispute between apostolic, popular Christianity and tribal, royal Christianity. Plutarch allegorically presents it this way. Like, Romulus and Remus lay two cities, two rival capitals. And the question is solved - "whose is better"?
The question is, why do Plutarch and Titus Livius talk about kites that appeared in the sky to Romulus and Remus? Let us propose a hypothesis, which in itself does not prove anything, but perhaps clarifies the essence of the matter. In Latin, "kite" is written as MILVUS. And the famous battle between Constantine and Maxentius took place at Ponte Milvio. Moreover, one of the main episodes of the battle unfolded on the MILVIO bridge (on the MILVIA bridge) across the Tiber River, p.93. The famous Vatican fresco by Giulio Romano is called: "The Victory of Constantine over Maxentius at Ponte Milvio". The huge fresco was created according to the plan of Raphael allegedly in the 16th century, p.269. The Milvio Bridge played a prominent role in the battle. They write like this: "Christianity won in the battle at the MILVIA bridge. This victory marked the beginning of a new era in the history of mankind", p.94. Thus, in the history of the battle between Constantine and Maxentius, the term MILVIO is present, as the name of the bridge over the Tiber, on which the decisive military episode took place; see below for details.
And now let's pay attention to the fact that the Latin words MILVUS = kite and MILVIO = name of the bridge practically coincide. It seems that the later chroniclers, or editors, Titus Livius and Plutarch, peering at the old primary sources lying in front of them (then "accidentally lost"), did not understand, confused the names. And instead of the MILVIO bridge, MILVUS, that is, kites, "appeared" under their pen. This is where the wild imagination kicked in. And Plutarch began to explain with inspiration to his readers - who are kites; why they appeared to Romulus; why these birds are remarkable; why they were given such importance; what "they eat; whether they eat carrion; how often they can be seen. And so on and so forth, p. and Rema. But not already understanding the essence of the matter and mentioning the "kites", he decided to linger on this episode and additionally speculate "on the theme of birds" in order to emphasize the importance of the plot. What "must be said here specifically about" kites = MILVIO "Plutarch, probably didn't imagine it very well. Therefore, he acted in a simple way: he wrote out all the information about kites from the encyclopedia about animals and birds. Having filled half the sheet with a vague story, and "done his duty," he moved on with relief.
We encounter an interesting phenomenon again and again. Old records were sometimes misunderstood by later chroniclers and, as a result, slightly distorted. After that, they were overgrown with a bouquet of invented fantastic details. Today, relying on the new chronology, in many cases it is possible to clear the authentic information from the later obscure "explanations". Although, as you can see, it is not easy.
4.4. THE MURDER OF REM IN THE SKILL AND THE DEATH OF MAXENTIUS (KHAN MAMAI) ON THE FIELD OF THE KULIKOV BATTLE.
According to Titus Livy and Plutarch, immediately after the heavenly sign, a military skirmish occurs in which REM DIES. One version of events claims that he was killed by Romulus.
Similarly, after the vision of the heavenly cross to the emperor Constantine, his battle with Maxentius begins allegedly in 312, in which Constantine wins. MAXENTIUS IS KILLED IN BATTLE. His duplicate was also killed - Licinius, who acted as an opponent of Constantine the Great in another phantom reflection of the same battle, allegedly in 323. Licinius was allegedly executed in 325. See our book "The Baptism of Russia".
Thus, in all the listed versions, the backbone of events is extremely similar.
4.5. THE JUMP OF ROMULUS OVER THE DITCH AND THE FALL OF MAXENTIUS INTO THE TIBR FROM THE MILVIA BRIDGE. THE DEATH OF REMUS AND THE DEATH OF MAXENTIUS.
According to Plutarch, Remus jumped over a certain DITCH AND FOR THIS (!?) WAS KILLED ON THE SITE, p.41. That is, it must be assumed right in the ditch or directly next to it. Moreover, the moat surrounded the city of Rome, founded by Romulus. It must be assumed that the moat was soon going to be filled with water. Maybe it's already filled with water. This was usually done with all the defensive ditches that surrounded the walls of fortified medieval cities.
So, the following picture emerges. Rem jumps over the moat. A moat surrounds the walls of the capital. The moat is designed to be filled with water. Maybe already flooded. Rem is killed right next to the moat or in the moat itself.
Since, as we understand, here Plutarch is talking about some important episode of the battle between Emperor Constantine and Maxentius, it is natural to ask the question: what kind of "jump" of Remus-Maxentius across the ditch is he really talking about here? The answer comes as soon as the question is asked. We mean the CENTRAL EPISODE of the battle between Constantine the Great and Maxentius.
Some "ancient" sources report that Maxentius DRONKED IN THE RIVER. This information is presented in the book as follows. At the very end of the battle, the "bridge (the Milvian bridge over the Tiber River - Auth.) collapsed under the excessive weight of the Praetorians in metal armor. Together with them, MAXENTIUS WAS IN THE WATER ... Two hours later ... on the other side of the river he (Konstantin - Auth.) noticed a warrior trying to get ashore. Golden armor betrayed in him the very first person in the enemy army (that is, Maxentius - Auth.) ... He (Constantine the Great - Auth.) spurred his horse and rushed to the shore. The course of the river was quite strong, the stream more than once overwhelmed both the rider and the horse with its head. But finally, the hooves touched the bottom, and Konstantin got out not far from the place where the body of Maxentius in the golden shell ALREADY BEGINNING TO DROWN. The enemy was dead ", p.93.
So we understand what Plutarch actually said here. Romulus = Constantine attacked Maxentius = Remus after the Milvio bridge over the Tiber River collapsed. Maxentius-Rem died "in the moat", that is, in the river. This is Rem's "jump" over the moat, which brought him death.
Figure 1.29 shows one of the paintings depicting the battle at the Milvian Bridge in Italian Rome. Warriors fall from the bridge into the river. A similar image is on the high relief of the Arch of Constantine in Rome. See also Russian Facial Arch, fig. 1.29a. Today we are offered to consider that the annalistic Milvian Bridge is located in Italian Rome and even show it to numerous tourists, fig. 1.30 and fig. 1.31. This is mistake. In fact, the battle of Emperor Constantine = Dmitry Donskoy with his opponent Maxentius = Khan Mamai took place in completely different places. In Russia, on the territory of the future Moscow, where the fierce Battle of Kulikovo unfolded, see the book "New Chronology of Russia". And the bridge in Italian Rome was called "Milvian" much later. Already after here - on paper! - moved the events that took place very far from modern Italy. Namely, in LATIN = HUMAN country. That is, in RUTENIA = ARMY country = Russia-Horde.
Fig.1.29. Battle of the Milvio Bridge over the Tiber River. Pieter Lastman (1583-1633). Taken from the Internet. See also the high relief of the Triumphal Arch of Constantine in, p.88.
Fig.1.29a. Battle of the Milvio Bridge (Fulvius or Milvian Bridge). Russian Facial Arch. Taken from, World History, book 6, p.177, sheet LH-83.
Fig.1.30. The bridge in modern Rome, which was called Milvian after the battle of Konstantin = Dmitry Donskoy with Maxentius = Khan Mamai was mistakenly transferred here, to Italy (on paper), on the Kulikovo field in Moscow. Taken from the Internet. See also, p.95.
Fig.1.31. Another photo of the Milvian Bridge in modern Italian Rome. Taken from, insert between pp. 112-113.
CONCLUSION. Part of the "antique" legends about Romulus and Remus, which tells about their quarrel and the murder of Remus, is one of the options for describing the battle between Constantine the Great and Maxentius that has come down to our time. That is, the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 on the territory of the future Moscow, on the banks of the Yauza River.
4.6. THE MYTH ABOUT ROMULUS AND RHEMS CONSISTS OF TWO LAYERS: EVENTS OF THE END OF THE XII - BEGINNING OF THE XIII CENTURY AND EVENTS OF THE END OF THE XIV CENTURY.
It turns out that the chronicle "biography" of Romulus presents both facts from the life of Emperor Andronicus-Christ of the XII century - a contemporary of Aeneas-John, and from the life of Emperor Dmitry Donskoy of the XIV century, that is, Constantine I the Great.
In the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods" it was shown that in the "biography" of Romulus, gospel stories are clearly visible, there are vivid parallels with Christ. From Fig.1.11 it can be seen that when identifying the Royal Rome, described by Titus Livius, with the Third Roman Empire, the end of the annalistic "biography" of Romulus is partially combined with Basil the Great. He is the biblical king Asa. But, as revealed in the book "Methods", both Basil the Great and the biblical Asa are phantom reflections of Jesus Christ. That is why there is a noticeable "Christian trace" in the legends about Romulus.
A closer analysis shows that the correspondence between Romulus and Christ is much deeper than what was discovered at the first stage of our research in the books "Foundations of History" and "Methods". The full picture became much clearer after in the book "The King of the Slavs", on the basis of the independent dating of the gospel events calculated by us in 2003, we presented a striking correspondence between Christ and the emperor Andronicus Komnenos of the XII century. We also recall that Christ, during his long stay in Russia, was reflected in the pages of Russian chronicles as Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky (XII century), and also as the Apostle Andrew the First-Called (supposedly I century). Returning after this again to the chronicle "biography" of Romulus, we noticed new correspondences with Andronicus-Christ, which had previously eluded our attention.
So, we repeat that in the Scaligerian history, Christ is placed at the beginning of the Second Roman Empire, in the supposedly 1st century AD. And since the beginning of the Royal Rome - allegedly around 753 BC. - coincides with the beginning of the Second Roman Empire - allegedly around the 1st century AD, then we should expect that at the very beginning of Royal Rome there should be a story about Christ. Since it is from him, from the events of the end of the 12th century AD, that the prehistory of the Great Empire of the 13th-16th centuries begins, the phantom reflections of which are all three of the "ancient" Roman empires listed above: the First = Royal Rome, the Second and Third Roman Empires, Fig. .1.32, fig.1.33, fig.1.34. Our conclusion is fully justified and now we turn to a detailed analysis.
Let us explain that in the figures given here, in the very top line, called "Rus II", all the rulers of the Great = "Mongolian" Empire are sequentially listed. The period of time covered by the Empire is divided into 41 segments, each of which indicates the king-khans who ruled at that time. The second line "Rus I" is a phantom reflection of the Great Empire during a downward shift of 300-400 years. The next three lines depict, respectively, the Third Roman Empire (Rome III), the Second Roman Empire (Rome II) and the Royal Rome (Rome I). Since, when overlapping, the chroniclers sometimes got confused in the descriptions of the kings who ruled in approximately the same era, in some places the correspondence is blurred.
This scheme is presented in more detail in our book "The Baptism of Russia", where other phantom reflections of the "Mongolian" Empire are added.
All the results presented in this book have been obtained recently, are new and are published for the first time. This work follows our books "The Beginning of the Horde Russia" and "The Baptism of Russia".
The authors discovered new and extremely important information about the Virgin Mary and Emperor Andronicus-Christ (Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky), the Slave War of the Novgorodians, Prince Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai, Prince Alexander Nevsky and the Battle of the Ice on the pages of the ancient "History of Rome" by Titus Livius, the works of Plutarch and the Old Testament.
In this book, we continue to draw new and often unexpected consequences from the statistical and astronomical datings of past events that we have obtained earlier. That is, from the new chronology we created. Mathematical and astronomical proofs of the actual new chronology are presented by us in previous books, primarily in the books "Foundations of History", "Methods", "Stars". We will not repeat them here.
What do we mean by reporting new information that we have discovered and significantly expand our knowledge of many famous people and events ancient world? We are not talking about the discovery by us of any fundamentally new, previously unknown manuscripts or inscriptions. Extracted, say, from some dusty, forgotten archives or as a result of excavations. We mainly work with well-known ancient texts. Although sometimes we did manage to find by ourselves or with the help of colleagues exceptionally rare and unique historical materials, which turned out to be very valuable for the new chronology. But still, we focus on well-known "ancient" works, the Bible, numerous medieval chronicles and manuscripts. Our discovery - which, by the way, was quite unexpected for us - is that these generally known texts contain, it turns out, a lot of unknown, firmly forgotten, "buried" by the editors of the 16th-18th centuries. And this deeply buried information needs to be “digged up”. Sometimes with great difficulty. Being brought to light, they turn out to be fragments of a once rich and detailed picture of the past, forgotten fragments of the biographies of famous heroes. Cleaning the debris from dirt and later deposits, we illuminate with bright light many half-forgotten or completely forgotten facts of the past. The authors do not deal with issues of faith and theology and do not discuss any of the church dogmas. The book deals exclusively with questions of a historical and chronological nature.
The legend of Romulus and Remus has been known to everyone since childhood. History textbooks, fascinating novels and chic Hollywood films tell about the great "ancient" Rome. The flight of King Aeneas from the burning Troy and his arrival in the homeland of his ancestors - in the rich Crowded country (Latinia). A stern she-wolf feeds her milk to the abandoned royal children - Romulus and Remus. Created by the great Etruscans, a bronze statue of a proud grinning wolf in the Vatican Museum. The babies grow up and Romulus founds Rome. The mighty Roman Empire rises. The iron legions of Rome conquer the world. The prediction of the gods is coming true that Rome will rule the entire universe. Bloody gladiator fights in the arena of the huge Colosseum. Annunciation. The Virgin Mary embraces two babies - Christ and John the Baptist. The death of John the Baptist and the crucifixion of Christ. Solar eclipse and earthquake at the time of Jesus' death. Holy Resurrection of Christ. Assumption of the Mother of God and the death of the legendary beauty, the Roman woman Lucretia. Ferocious tigers and lions are set against the first Christians, who are dying a martyr's death in front of roaring with delight pagan Romans, dressed in beautiful togas with a blood-red border. Cruel emperor Nero in a flower wreath sings a song on the podium of a huge amphitheater. The great Roman historian Titus Livy speaks admiringly of Imperial Rome in his famous History from the Foundation of the City. The great Greek historian Plutarch writes biographies of prominent Romans and Greeks...
It is believed that an educated person should know a lot of the history of ancient Rome. And this is certainly correct. Roman history is indeed the backbone of ancient history. Many modern states are rightly proud of the fact that their roots go back to "ancient" Rome, that many European and Asian cities were first founded by Roman legions in the era of the expansion of the Empire in all directions.
In this book, we show that the "ancient" Imperial Rome is a state that arose in the Mesopotamia of the Oka and the Volga, that is, in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, in the XIII - early XIV centuries. Another name for the Royal Rome is the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, which, according to the new chronology, existed in the XIV-XVI centuries AD. e. The point of view accepted today that "ancient" Rome conquered the entire civilized world of that time, IS RESPONSIBLE TO REALITY. However, with one amendment - this happened not long before our era, as Scaligerian history assures us, but in the era of the XIV-XVI centuries. It was at this time that the Great = "Mongolian" Empire - that is, Russia-Horde, according to our reconstruction - covered almost the entire world.
We found that on the pages of the famous works of "ancient" Roman authors, for example, Titus Livius, MUCH AND RESPECTIVE SPEAK ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST. Recall that, according to our research (see the book "The King of the Slavs"), Christ is described in the Byzantine chronicles as Emperor Andronicus of the XII century AD. e., and in Russian - as the great Russian prince Andrei Bogolyubsky (partially). Thus, if we talk about secular history, then we are talking about the mother of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus the Elder. WE ARE FOR THE FIRST TIME PRESENTING THE OLD SECULAR SOURCES TELLING ABOUT THE MOTHER OF GOD BY THE MOUTH OF CONTEMPORARIES. In particular, the assertion of the Scaligerian version is refuted, that Mary the Mother of God was described by her contemporaries allegedly only in religious sources and was practically not reflected in the pages of the “ancient” secular literature of that era. The information we have discovered throws a new bright light on the life of Mary the Mother of God.
We show that the emperor Andronicus-Christ was also reflected in the pages of the famous "ancient" authors - Titus Livius and Plutarch. Recall that the Scaligerian version insists that Christ was described by his contemporaries only in church sources and is practically not described on the pages of "ancient" secular literature. In other words, Scaligerian historians claim that none of the secular chroniclers-contemporaries of Christ considered it necessary to leave information about him in his chronicle. Or, at least, such information has not reached us, with rare and, moreover, dubious exceptions. In the books "Tsar of the Slavs" and "The Beginning of Horde Russia" we showed that this is far from being the case. It turned out that Andronicus-Christ was well known to many secular authors - his contemporaries. Whose works are cited, for example, by a later Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates. Further, it turned out that the life of Christ was described not only by Byzantine secular writers, but also by Russian chroniclers. They knew Christ as the great Russian prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. And also - as the Apostle Andrew the First-Called. Further, we showed that many plots of the chronicle "biography" of Andronicus-Christ were included in the "antique" stories about the famous Roman emperor Julius Caesar.
In this book, we significantly expand the list of “ancient” secular texts and authors who speak a lot and in detail about Andronicus-Christ, as well as about Tsar-Khan Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, under whom apostolic Christianity was adopted in the Empire. First of all, this refers to the famous books "History from the Foundation of the City" by Titus Livy and "Comparative Lives" by Plutarch. It turned out that Christ is known to us today under two of his secular names. Namely, as the famous Romulus, the first king of "ancient" Imperial Rome. And also as Servius Tullius, the sixth, penultimate king of Imperial Rome.
A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky
ROYAL ROME IN THE BETWEEN OKA AND VOLGA
(New information about the Virgin Mary and Andronicus-Christ, the Slavic War of the Novgorodians, Dmitry Donskoy and Mamai, Alexander Nevsky and the Battle of the Ice on the pages of the ancient "History of Rome" by Titus Livius and the Old Testament)
Foreword
All the results presented in this book have been obtained recently, are new and are published for the first time. This work follows our books "The Beginning of the Horde Russia" and "The Baptism of Russia".
The authors discovered new and extremely important information about the Virgin Mary and Emperor Andronicus-Christ (Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky), the Slave War of the Novgorodians, Prince Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai, Prince Alexander Nevsky and the Battle of the Ice on the pages of the ancient "History of Rome" by Titus Livius, the works of Plutarch and the Old Testament.
In this book, we continue to draw new and often unexpected consequences from the statistical and astronomical datings of past events that we have obtained earlier. That is, from the new chronology we created. Mathematical and astronomical proofs of the actual new chronology are presented by us in previous books, primarily in the books "Foundations of History", "Methods", "Stars". We will not repeat them here.
What do we mean by reporting new information that we have discovered and greatly expand our knowledge of many famous people and events of the ancient world? We are not talking about the discovery by us of any fundamentally new, previously unknown manuscripts or inscriptions. Extracted, say, from some dusty, forgotten archives or as a result of excavations. We mainly work with well-known ancient texts. Although sometimes we did manage to find by ourselves or with the help of colleagues exceptionally rare and unique historical materials, which turned out to be very valuable for the new chronology. But still, we focus on well-known "ancient" works, the Bible, numerous medieval chronicles and manuscripts. Our discovery - which, by the way, was rather unexpected for us - is that these generally known texts contain, it turns out, a lot of unknown, firmly forgotten, "buried" by the editors of the 16th-18th centuries. And this deeply buried information needs to be “digged up”. Sometimes with great difficulty. Being brought to light, they turn out to be fragments of a once rich and detailed picture of the past, forgotten fragments of the biographies of famous heroes. Cleaning the debris from dirt and later deposits, we illuminate with bright light many half-forgotten or completely forgotten facts of the past. The authors do not deal with issues of faith and theology and do not discuss any of the church dogmas. The book deals exclusively with questions of a historical and chronological nature.
The legend of Romulus and Remus has been known to everyone since childhood. History textbooks, fascinating novels and chic Hollywood films tell about the great "ancient" Rome. The flight of King Aeneas from the burning Troy and his arrival in the homeland of his ancestors - in the rich Crowded country (Latinia). A stern she-wolf feeds her abandoned royal children - Romulus and Remus - with milk. Created by the great Etruscans, a bronze statue of a proud grinning wolf in the Vatican Museum. The babies grow up and Romulus founds Rome. The mighty Roman Empire rises. The iron legions of Rome conquer the world. The prediction of the gods is coming true that Rome will rule the entire universe. Bloody gladiator fights in the arena of the huge Colosseum. Annunciation. The Virgin Mary hugs two babies - Christ and John the Baptist. The death of John the Baptist and the crucifixion of Christ. Solar eclipse and earthquake at the time of Jesus' death. Holy Resurrection of Christ. Assumption of the Mother of God and the death of the legendary beauty, the Roman woman Lucretia. Ferocious tigers and lions are set against the first Christians, who are dying a martyr's death in front of roaring with delight pagan Romans, dressed in beautiful togas with a blood-red border. Cruel emperor Nero in a flower wreath sings a song on the podium of a huge amphitheater. The great Roman historian Titus Livy speaks admiringly of Imperial Rome in his famous History from the Foundation of the City. The great Greek historian Plutarch writes biographies of prominent Romans and Greeks...
It is believed that an educated person should know a lot of the history of ancient Rome. And this is certainly correct. Roman history is indeed the backbone of ancient history. Many modern states are rightly proud of the fact that their roots go back to "ancient" Rome, that many European and Asian cities were first founded by Roman legions in the era of the expansion of the Empire in all directions.
In this book, we show that the "ancient" Imperial Rome is a state that arose in the Mesopotamia of the Oka and the Volga, that is, in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia, in the XIII - early XIV centuries. Another name for the Royal Rome is the Great = "Mongolian" Empire, which, according to the new chronology, existed in the XIV-XVI centuries AD. e. The point of view accepted today that "ancient" Rome conquered the entire civilized world of that time, IS RESPONSIBLE TO REALITY. However, with one amendment - this happened not long before our era, as the Scaligerian history assures us, but in the era of the XIV-XVI centuries. It was at this time that the Great = "Mongolian" Empire - that is, Russia-Horde, according to our reconstruction - covered almost the entire world.
We found that on the pages of the famous works of "ancient" Roman authors, for example, Titus Livius, MUCH AND RESPECTIVE SPEAK ABOUT THE VIRGIN MARY, THE MOTHER OF CHRIST. Recall that, according to our research (see the book "The King of the Slavs"), Christ is described in the Byzantine chronicles as Emperor Andronicus of the XII century AD. e., and in Russian - as the great Russian prince Andrei Bogolyubsky (partially). Thus, if we talk about secular history, then we are talking about the mother of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus the Elder. FOR THE FIRST TIME WE PRESENT THE OLD SECULAR SOURCES TELLING ABOUT THE MOTHER OF GOD BY THE MOUTH OF CONTEMPORARIES. In particular, the assertion of the Scaligerian version is refuted, that Mary the Mother of God was described by her contemporaries allegedly only in religious sources and was practically not reflected in the pages of the “ancient” secular literature of that era. The information we have discovered throws a new bright light on the life of Mary the Mother of God.
We show that the emperor Andronicus-Christ was also reflected in the pages of the famous "ancient" authors - Titus Livius and Plutarch. Recall that the Scaligerian version insists that Christ was described by his contemporaries only in church sources and is practically not described on the pages of "ancient" secular literature. In other words, Scaligerian historians claim that none of the secular chroniclers-contemporaries of Christ considered it necessary to leave information about him in his chronicle. Or, at least, such information has not reached us, with rare and, moreover, dubious exceptions. In the books "Tsar of the Slavs" and "The Beginning of the Horde Russia" we showed that this is far from being the case. It turned out that Andronicus-Christ was well known to many secular authors - his contemporaries. Whose works are cited, for example, by a later Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates. Further, it turned out that the life of Christ was described not only by Byzantine secular writers, but also by Russian chroniclers. They knew Christ as the great Russian prince Andrei Bogolyubsky. And also - as the Apostle Andrew the First-Called. Further, we showed that many plots of the chronicle "biography" of Andronicus-Christ were included in the "antique" stories about the famous Roman emperor Julius Caesar.
In this book, we significantly expand the list of "ancient" secular texts and authors who speak a lot and in detail about Andronicus-Christ, as well as about Tsar-Khan Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy, under whom apostolic Christianity was adopted in the Empire. First of all, this refers to the famous books "History from the Foundation of the City" by Titus Livy and "Comparative Lives" by Plutarch. It turned out that Christ is known to us today under two of his secular names. Namely, as the famous Romulus, the first king of the "ancient" Imperial Rome. And also as Servius Tullius, the sixth, penultimate king of Imperial Rome.
In the books “Cossacks-arias: from Russia to India” and “Baptism of Russia”, we showed that the famous Battle of Kulikovo in 1380 was also reflected in many “ancient” primary sources, which today are classified as “deep antiquity”. In particular, in the Bible, "ancient" Indian epic, "ancient" mythology, Roman history. In this book, we present new vivid reflections of the Battle of Kulikovo and its main participants - Dmitry Donskoy and Khan Mamai, which we discovered in the "History" of Titus Livius and the Bible. This makes it possible to illuminate more vividly the great religious battle for the establishment of apostolic Christianity in the Great = "Mongolian" Empire. Now the description of the Battle of Kulikovo becomes much more saturated, since we add new sources to the sources about it known earlier, which were mistakenly attributed to completely different eras and events of the "remote past". Now that historical events and their descriptions have begun to “take their places” correctly, much of history has become clearer.
