A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij.
New chronology and new concept of the english history.
British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire
---------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij
---------------------------------------------------------------
(SHORT SCHEME)
ABSTRACT
This article is devoted to the investigation of
traditional version of English chronology and English history. It
should be mentioned that this tradition was established only in
15-17th cc.(and especially by Scaliger and Petavius) as a result
of attempts to construct the global chronology of Europe and Asia
at that time.
The results of our investigation show that modern version of
English history (which is in fact a slightly modernized version
of 15-16th cc.), was artificially prolonged backward and became
much more long as it was in reality. The real history of England,
as it was reflected in written documents, was much more short.
The same is true for other countries.
In correct version, ancient and medieval English events are
to be transferred to the epoch which begins from 9-10th cc.
Moreover, many of these events prove to be the reflections of
certain events from real Byzantine-Roman history of 9-15th cc.
Consequently, the Great Britain Empire is a direct successor of
medieval Byzantine Empire.
This effect for English history corresponds to the similar
"shortening effects" for traditional histories of other countries
(Italy, Greece, Egypt, Russia etc.). Such effects were discovered
earlier by the authors (see our previous publications). A
discussion of the whole problem of global chronology and a
history of this problem one can find in [1],[24]. English history
is not an exemption from the "rule".
We do not think that all speculations which are suggested
here are final ones. Surely, they are subject to further
corrections and clarification. Nevertheless, the general concept
is quite clear and seems to be a final one.
The aim of present work is only to present main points of our
new version of reconstruction of the real English history.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL ENGLISH HISTORY
2.1. The most old English chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum"
2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum".
"Histoires of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of
Monmouth"
2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles
2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations and
countries according to ancient English chronicles?
2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history
2.3.1. Scotland and England: two parallel "dynastic
streams"
2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D. England
as the Roman colony
2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830. Six kingdoms and their
union
2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. The epoch is finished by
Danish conquest and then by disintegration of
Dutch kingdom in England
2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066. Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon
dynasty and it's fall
2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327. Norman dynasty and after
it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards
2.3.7. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.
3. PARALLELS BETWEEN ENGLISH AND BYZANTINE-ROMAN HISTORY. GREAT
BRITAIN EMPIRE AS THE DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF MEDIEVAL BYZANTINE-ROMAN
EMPIRE
3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams of England and
Byzantine-Roman empire
3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England
from one side and medieval Byzantine empire from another side.
General concept of correspondence between English and
Byzantine histories
3.3. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism
table")
3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and Byzantine
history 378-553 A.D. 275-year shift
3.3.2. English history of 800-1040 and Byzantine
history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift
3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and Byzantine
history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift
4. CORRECT ENGLISH HISTORY IS MORE SHORT IN TIME BUT MUCH MORE
DENSE IN EVENTS THAN IT IS SUGGESTED BY TEXTBOOKS
4.1. Our new concept of English history
4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
into the medieval English history (of the island
Anglia)?
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK ABOUT
REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered Britain
(and the first king of britts)
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a contemporary
of Julius Caesar?
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way? Problem
of vowels restoration
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical
localizations
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands?
5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
5.10. Where was London located in 10-11th cc.A.D.?
5.11. Who were scots in 10-12th cc.A.D. and were did they live?
Where was Scotland located in 10-12th cc.A.D.?
5.12. Five original languages of ancient Britain. Which
nations used these languages and where did they live
in 10-12th cc.A.D.?
5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms
Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
10-12th cc.A.D.?
5.14. A shift of originally Byzantine map to the land of
modern Great Britain resulted in duplicating of many
geographical terms
5.15. William I the Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066
A.D. The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.
5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine
empire have the same origin
5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story
5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's
conqueror
5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from
Byzantine and English chronicles
5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English
chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to
galats and who they were?
REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
This work belongs to the scope of investigations carried out
by authors in order to give a critical analysis of ancient and
medieval chronology, and also - to try a reconstruction of real
ancient chronology. The whole history of the problem one can find
in A.T.Fomenko's books [1],[24]. In these books some new
statistical methods of obtaining true dates for ancient events
recorded in old chronicles were suggested. As a result, a new
chronology of Europe, Asia, Egypt and Northern Africa based on a
statistical investigation of ancient texts, was suggested in
[1],[24]. One also can find there a list of all publications by
A.T.Fomenko and his colleagues devoted to chronological problems.
This new concept of global history and chronology confirms
some ideas which were expressed by different scientists in
16-20th cc. The most important were ideas of famous Russian
scientist N.A.Morozov (1854-1946) who had an extremely wide range
of scientific interests in many different branches of natural
science and history. Very interesting works devoted to the
problems of traditional chronology were written by Isaac Newton,
J.Gardouin, R.Baldauf, E.Johnson and others.
As a result of application of statistical methods to
historical science, A.T.Fomenko discovered a "fiber structure" of
our modern "textbook in ancient and medieval history". In such a
way we will call a modern chronological tradition in history
which is expressed in all our textbooks. It was proved that this
"textbook" consist of four more short "textbooks" which speak
about the same events, the same historical epochs. These short
"textbooks" were then shifted one with respect to other on the
time axis and then glued together preserving these shifts. The
result is our modern "textbook" which shows the history much
longer than it was in reality. To be more precise, we speak here
only about a "written" history, i.e., such history which left
it's traces in written documents which finally, after their
certain evolution, we possess today. Of course before it, there
was a long "pre-written" history, but information about it is
lost.
Resume is as follows. History which we in principle could
learn about today, starts only in 9-10th cc. "A.D." (i.e.,
1100-1200 years ago). And the very name "A.D." attached to the
era which we use now, is not correct.
New results concerning the problem of reconstruction of real
ancient chronology one can find in two last Fomenko's books
[4,5] devoted to history and chronology.
An important step to the reconstruction of real ancient
chronology was made by publication of a book [3] written by
A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the
true date of compilation of a famous ancient scientific
manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was (approximately)
determined as a result of statistical analysis of numerical
astronomical data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is assumed
that the "Almagest" was compiled not later than in 2nd c. A.D. In
[3] it is proved that the real date of it's compilation belongs
to the time interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
Later, in 1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In Russian history
there also were discovered chronological shifts and duplicates.
It proves to be very much different from well-known version of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of Romanov dynasty
reign in Russia. The book "Chronology and General Concept of
Russian History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is being
printed (in Russian).
In 1992-1993 authors recognized that the history of
development of English chronology and English history itself is a
very interesting and important point in the whole scope of global
chronology reconstruction. In our analysis of Russian old
documents it was necessary to use also some English documents.
And immediately we came upon several such amazing facts that, it
become quite clear to us that English history (which is rather
"spoiled" in modern "textbook") gives new and important
information to the reconstruction of real chronology of Europe
and Asia.
We tried our best to make this work independent from our
previous works. Nevertheless, such dependence exists. That is why
we recommend to anyone who really wants to understand the whole
problem of reconstruction the English history as it as in
reality, to look through mentioned above books and scientific
publications by authors. We believe that this work is good for
the beginning and it could serve as a starting point to the
reader. We tried to avoid citation from other our works here (as
far as it was possible).
It is pleasure for us to thank Mrs. Laura Alexander (USA) for
her excellent assistance in arranging materials concerning
English history. Her energy very much inspired our work on
English history.
We thank T.N.Fomenko for several good ideas which improved
some of our results concerning parallels between English and
Byzantine history and also for valuable remarks which made this
text better.
2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF ENGLISH HISTORY
2.1. The most old English chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
To understand a material we are going to present here, it
would be better if a reader knows main things from English, Roman
and Byzantine history. As to Roman and Byzantine history, we
assume that it is more or less the case. But old English history
is not so generally well-known. That is why we are going to
present here a brief review of "English history textbook".
Surely, we could simply suggest that a reader looks through
one of modern books concerned with English history before he
reads this paper. But all such books are necessarily the
secondary texts which, in fact, copy an information from more old
texts and documents devoted to English history. The problem is
that this coping proves to be not so good (part of information is
lost). That is why we prefer to analyse medieval historical texts
themselves rather then modern textbooks, which are based on them.
An important advantage of these medieval texts is that they were
written more close to the time of creation of now traditional
global chronological version (it was I.Scaliger's one). Our
experience says that an information about old history was been
lost while publishing new and new textbooks from that time up to
now. Medieval texts are more valuable for reconstruction of real
history.
Our analysis was based mostly on three famous medieval
English chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius' "Historia
Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum"
[9]. In fact, these texts form a basis for modern concept of old
and medieval English history.
Also we used well-known "Chronological Tables" which were
compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of 19th c. These
fundamental tables cover all historical epochs which seemed
important to experts in the end of 19th century.
Now it is assumed that so-called "legendary" English history
started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in 12-13th cc. B.C.
Nevertheless a 1000-year period from Trojan war to the epoch of
Julius Caesar (1st c. B.C.) is considered usually as a "dark
time".
From the time of creation and establishment of modern
chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and D.Petavius in 16-17th
cc.) it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60
B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But it is
known today that documents speak about English history only from
approximately 1 A.D., i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It
was the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its records ([2],
p.4).
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle consists of several separate
manuscripts:
Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle
(60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),
Manuscript B: The Abigdon Chronicle I
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),
Manuscript C: The Abigdon Chronicle II
(60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),
Manuscript D: The Worcester Chronicle
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079),
(with twelfth-century addition 1080 - 1130 A.D.),
Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),
Manuscript F: The Bilingual Canterbury Epitome
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).
It is well-known that all these manuscripts duplicate each
other in the sense that they all speak about the same events, but
in more or less details. That is why all they are placed in the
publication [2] parallel to each other in a very convenient
manner, which makes it easy to compare different records
concerning the same year. Maybe, all these manuscripts have the
same written original and in fact represent different scripts of
one old chronicle.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle covers an epoch from 1 A.D. to 11th
century (except manuscript E which stops in 1153).
It is traditionally assumed that all these manuscripts were
written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in the form which we
have today. But it is only a hypothesis which is strongly based
on the Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very natural. For
example, manuscript A exists now only in two "copies" and both of
them were made only in 16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The original
version (from which these two copies were made) was practically
burned out in a fire. As to other manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, their history is not clear from [2]. For example, it
is not pointed out what were the methods of determining of dates
when existing copies were made. One could have an idea that the
dating was as follows: if last records of these manuscripts refer
to 11-12th cc., then the copies we now posses are necessarily
written just in that form in 11-12th cc. Leaving aside other
objections, we must say that this speculation in fully based on
Scaliger's chronology. If real dates of last mentioned events
change, then such dating of a manuscript would also change.
Difficulties with reconstruction of a true story for origin
of these manuscripts are well-known among experts. For
example David Knowles had to claim that:
"The question of provenance and interdependence of the
various versions [of the Chronicle] are so complicated that any
discussion soon assumes the appearance of an essay in higher
mathematics" ([2],p.xxxi).
Moreover, G.N.Garmonsway says that any modern analysis of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles Plummer's revision
(1892-1899) of it's original edition published by John Earle in
1865. It should be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again
"associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with certain persons
from 16th century - Archbishop Parker (1504-1575) and Archbishop
Laud (1573-1645). Here is his text:
"Any account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary based
on Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John Earle (1865)
which was published in two volumes by the Oxford University Press
in 1892-9... Plummer's edition... gives prominence on opposite
pages to manuscripts A and E, associated respectively with the
names of Archbishop Parker (1504-75) and Archbishop Laud
(1573-1645);...The other manuscripts were once in the possession
of Sir Robert Cotton (1571-1631), and are to be found in the
Cottonian collection of manuscripts in the British
Museum"([2],p.xxxi).
It seems that all the manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
which are available today were actually written (or revised) not
earlier than in 15-16th centuries. However, they are considered
to be written in this form in 11-12th cc. Probably the only
reason for such point of view is that traditional dates of the
last events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle belong to this epoch:
11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It is possible that
events from 11-12th cc. were described by somebody in 15-16th cc.
and we actually possess his secondary text which could be very
far from an original version. And also, the dates of events from
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle strongly depend on a used chronological
concept. If it changes then the dating of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
would change automatically.
There is a strong argument which suggests that manuscripts
of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a rather late origin.
The problem is that all these manuscripts use modern "A.D." era
which came into regular practical use only in 15th century. It is
a known fact in traditional history. Later we will also present
some facts which suggest that the authors of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle were already familiar with J.Scaliger's chronological
concept (16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological concept
of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
was written much later then it is usually accepted.
The reason for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be paid such great
attention in our reconstruction of English history is very
simple. It turns out that
"Thanks to the example of Bede, the Chronicle is the first
history written in English to use his mastery innovation of
reckoning years as from the Incarnation of Our Lord - "Years of
Grace" as they were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).
Concerning the way of presenting dates in Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we should make a remark. It is accepted that in
medieval England they used for "A.D." era the following formula:
"Years from the Incarnation of Our Lord". It is accepted today
that this formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of Grace".
But this equivalence in not so evident and requires a special
investigation. (We will return to this subject later and discuss
it in more details). Note that there is a strange similarity
between two well-known names-terms
Grace - Greece.
Maybe the original (and forgotten today) meaning of a
formula "Years of Grace" differs from one which is accepted
today. Maybe it was "years in Greece", "Greek years" or something
like this. It is possible also that there is a relation between
terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of Christ associated
in some sense with a name of country "Greece"? For example Christ
religion = "Greece religion"? It might be because in medieval
epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine empire, and another it's
name was Romea, Rome. So Christian, "Roman" religion could be
called also as "Greek religion"; but if so then there might be a
confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old "Greek", Byzantine
era which was used sometimes, as well as "A.D.", with it's
thousands omitted. It could be not obvious which era was actually
used in an old documents which indicate "Years of Grace". Of
course, such kind of similarity between different terms could not
be considered as very strong arguments supporting any point of
view. It play a role of preliminary speculations and should be
considered as a serious argument only in the case when it appears
(repeats) constantly in a long historical parallelism, when
similar names arise simultaneously for hundreds of years in two
different epochs after one of them is shifted in time as a whole
and then compared with another one.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written in a very laconic manner,
it was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them devoted to
a certain year. Many years are not described at all (there are
some lacunas in the text). It is considered today that
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks about events from the beginning of
A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1. The text of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle seem to be really very old. Absence of long and
"beautifully designed" periods in the text (typical for
historical literature of 15-16th cc.) suggests that Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle is an important historical document which was based on
some really ancient records. Surely, it was edited in 16-17th cc.
and a main question is: what credit should we give to
chronologists of 15-17 centuries who actually dated events in
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as we have it now?
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum".
Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" is a rather short text, only
about 24 pages in [8].
There exist more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius' book which
are known today (see [8]).
"The earliest manuscripts are dated today by 9th or 10th
centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even 14th centuries. In
some of the manuscripts are indications that the author was
Gildas. Nennius is called as the author sufficiently rare. Thus,
this manuscript is possibly - compilation... The original text
was lost, we do not have it today. But there exists its Irish
translation of 11th century" ([8],p.269).
Translation was made from the publication: "Nennius et
l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934.
Some manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals Cambriae",
which is considered to be compiled approximately in 954 A.D.
Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" does not have nor chronological
subdivision neither any chronological notes except the following
two ones:
1) A table titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at
the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time distances in
years between some biblical events - and already according to
Scaliger's calculations, which were carried out only in 16th c.
2) Chapter XVI of the "Historia" has a section titled "The
ground of the dating" , which speaks about the relative distances
(in years) between a few events from English history.
In both cases chronological notes are very brief.
Resume is that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote the
"Historia". It's original text does not exist today, a
translation which is considered to be carried out in 11th c. The
text does not have it's own chronological scale. Surely, all
questions which arise with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, refer to
"Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is written in a free
artistic manner with many stylistic accessories. It suggests that
this manuscript is of rather late origin. Such text could be
written only in an atmosphere of a deep and well developed
literary tradition when many people use writing and reading books
and paper is not a treasure.
It is accepted today that Nennius describes certain events in
a time interval from the epoch of Trojan war to 10-11th cc. A.D.
In fact it is a result of only a traditional chronological
concept (which suggests that short Nennius' text covers an
extremely large 2000-year historical period) that one could find
today giant lacunas in chronology of "Historia". Fig. 1 shows by
a dotted line the epoch which is considered to be covered by
"Historia". According to traditional chronological concept
Nennius easily omits whole centuries in his story, makes giant
chronological jumps without any explanations. He seems not to
notice it at all and continues his story after such jumps as if
nothing was missed.
2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum".
"Histories of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth".
It is generally accepted today that this chronicle was
written in 30th or 40th of 12th century ([8], p.196) by
Galfridus Monemutensis who based it on Nennius' text, sometimes
even copying Nennius "errors" ([8], p.231, comments to chap. 17;
see also [8], p.244). Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather big
one - about 130 pages in [8]. In opposition to Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle his text has no chronological subdivision (no indication
about years). His writing style was rather complicated, with many
accessories, moralities, philosophical excursions et cetera.
Galfridus is even considered to be not a historian only but also
a poet. Surely, the traditional point of view that Galfridus
wrote his book after Nennius, is correct. It is known also that
Galfridus made an extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History of the
English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9], p.244). It is
assumed that Bede's "History" covers 597-731 A.D.
It is remarkable that modern commentators point out "the
extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation of the antique
tradition" ([9], p.207). For example, Galfridus not only used
ancient plots, but also copied a stylistic manner of ancient
authors ([9], p.207). It seems that Galfridus writes his book
being fully influenced by the atmosphere of antiquity. It was
pointed out that Galfridus copies some of his topics directly
from ancient authors (for example, from Stacius), but does not
give any references ([9], p.236).
Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" was extremely
popular in medieval times. "Today we have about two hundreds (! -
Auth.) copies of his "History",... which were written in
different places starting from 12th century and until 15th
century, i.e., up to appearance of the first printed edition"
([9],p.228). At first time "Historia" was printed in Paris in
1508.
Fig. 1 shows a historical epoch which is assumed to be
covered by Galfridus' text (according to traditional chronology).
Notice that it is approximately the same time interval as for
Nennius' case: namely, from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D. Of
course, Galfridus' book is much bigger then Nennius' one, but
being referred again to the giant 2000-year time interval, it
could not cover it all without huge lacunas. And really,
traditional chronology states that Galfridus "omit" large
historical epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself does
not mind it at all. He calmly continues his story without
notifying a reader that he sometimes actually misses whole
historical epochs in his chronology.
2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles
In our work we use also some other English chronicles of
9-13th centuries, particularly those represented in a book by
V.I.Matuzova "English medieval documents" [10]. Here we would
like to present a very interesting list which was compiled by
V.I.Matuzova as a result of her investigation of these chronicles
rather then to characterize them in details. We will discuss this
subject in the next section.
2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations
and countries according to ancient English chronicles?
Many people use to think that medieval chronicles refer to
such well-known areas (regions) as England, London, Russia, Kiev
etc. with just the same names as today, and so in general there
is no problem to recognize what place old documents are speaking
about. Sometimes, in more new documents, it is actually the case.
But in more old, original documents such situation seems to be
rather an exception then a rule. Old chronicles very often use
absolutely different geographical names and it is a nontrivial
task to understand what regions (areas, towns et cetera) they are
really speaking about.
It is also a problem that old documents in general use many
different names for each country, land, nation etc. Very often
these names have nothing to do with those we use today. The names
of ancient nations, countries and cities which are known today,
were fixed only in 18-20th centuries. But before that time there
were various opinions concerning what names to use. These
opinions were often quite different from each other. It is a very
interesting question to analyse the names which were used in
medieval English documents for cities, nations and countries
which are so well-known today with their modern names. It turns
out after such analysis, that medieval authors seem to have quite
different views on old and ancient history. That is why modern
specialists in history usually claim that almost all medieval
people were "extremely wrong" in history, that they had
"fantastic concepts" about it, "confused and mixed historical
epochs", "did not distinguish antiquity and medieval epoch" and
so on.
In a following list some medieval "synonyms" of modern
accepted names and terms are presented. Each entry of the list
shows a modern term and is followed by it's medieval synonyms.
AZOV SEA = ALANIA =
Meotedisc lakes, Valana,
Meotedisc fen, Alania,
Maeotidi lacus, Valana,
Maeotidi paludes, Valvy,
palus Maeotis, Polovtzy ?! - see below.
paludes Maeotis,
paludes Maeotidae,
Paluz Meotidienes.
ALBANIANS = AMAZONS LAND =
Liubene, Maegda land,
Albani. Maegda londe,
Amazonia.
BULGARIANS = BUG RIVER =
Wlgari, Armilla.
Bulgari,
Bougreis.
VANDALS = HUNGARY =
Wandali, Hungaria,
Sea-cost Slavs. Hunia,
Ungaria,
Minor Ungaria.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE = VALACHIANS =
Graecia, Coralli,
Constantinopolis, Blachi,
Ilac,
Blac,
Turks ! (see below).
VALACHIA = VOLGA RIVER =
Balchia. Ethilia.
GALITZK-VOLYNSK RUSSIA = GERMANY =
Galacia, Gothia,
Gallacia. Mesia,
Theutonia,
Germania,
Allemania,
Jermaine.
HIBERNIC OCEAN = HIBERNIA =
The English Channel Ireland (!)
Hibernicum occeanum.
GOTHIA = GUNNS =
Germany, Hunni,
Island Gotland, Huni,
Scandinavia, Hun.
Tavrida (=old name of Crimea).
DACKS = DENMARK =
Dani, Denemearc,
Daneis. Dacia,
Dania,
Desemone.
DUTCH = DARDANELLES (the strait) =
Daci, St. Georg strait =
Dani, branchium Sancti Georgii.
Norddene,
Denen.
DERBENT (passage) = DNEPR RIVER =
Alexander gates = Aper.
Alexandres herga,
Porta ferrea Alexandri,
claustra Alexandri.
DOGI = DON RIVER =
Russians (see below). Danai,
Thanais,
Tanais.
MEDIEVAL RUSSIA = DANUBE RIVER =
Susie, Danubius,
Russie, Hister,
Ruissie, Danuvius,
Rusia, Damaius,
Russia, Deinphirus,
Ruthenia, Danube.
Rutenia,
Ruthia,
Ruthena,
Ruscia,
Russcia,
Russya,
Rosie.
IRON GATES = IRELAND =
see "Derbent". Hybernia.
ICELAND = CAUCASUS =
Ysolandia. beorg Taurus,
Caucasus.
CASPIAN SEA = CASSARIA =
Caspia garsecge, Chasaria (! (see below)
mare Caspium.
KIEV = CHINESE =
Chyo (!), Cathaii.
Cleva (!),
Riona (!),
CORALLS = RED SEA =
Wlaches (see above), mare Rubrum.
Turks (see above),
ENGLISH CHANNEL = MARBURG =
Hibernic ocean = Merseburg.
Hibernicum occeanum.
MESIA = MONGOLIANS =
Moesia = Germany (see above), Moal,
Tatars (see above),
NARVA = GERMANS =
Armilla. Germanici=
Germani,
Teutonici,
Theutonici,
Allemanni.
NETHERLANDS = NORMANS =
Frisia, Arise. Nordmenn.
OCEAN= PECHENEGS (medieval
neighbours of Russians) =
Garsecg, Getae.
Oceano,
Oceanus,
Occeanus,
Ocean.
POLOVTZY (medieval
neighbours of Russians) =
PRUSSIA =
Planeti, Prutenia (!).
Captac, (P-Rutenia = P-Russia).
Cumani, PRUSSES =
Comanii, Prateni,
Alani, Pruteni,
Values, Pructeni,
Valani. Prusceni,
(See Comment 1.) Praceni,
Pruceni.
RIONA = RUGS =
Kiev (see above) Russians, , Sea-cost
Slavs (see below)
RUSSIANS = RUTHENS =
Russii, Russians (see above)
Dogi (!),
Rugi (!),
Rutheni (!),
Rusceni.
THE ARCTIC OCEAN = SITHIA =
Scith ocean = Sciffia garsecg, Scithia (see above)
Occeanus Septentrionalis,
mare Scythicum.
SCANDINAVIANS = SCITHIA =
Gothi. Sithia,
SCYTHS Barbaria,
Scithes, Scithia,
Scythae, Scythia,
Cit (!). Sice (!).
SEA-SIDE SCLAVI = TAVR =
Winedas, Caucasus (see above)
Wandali, TAVRIDA (CRIMEA) =
Roge. Gothia (!!!)
TANAIS = TATARS (MONGOLS) =
Don (see above) Tartareori,
gens Tartarins,
TYRRHENIAN SEA = Tartari,
mare Tyrene. Tartariti,
Tartarii,
Tattari,
Tatari,
Tartarii,
Thartarei.
TURKS = URAL MOUNTAINS =
Coralli, Riffeng beorgum,
Thurki, Hyberborei montes,
Turci, montes Riph(a)eis,
Blachi, Ilac, Blac (!!!). Hyperborei montes.
FRANCE = FRISIA =
Gallia, The Netherlands (see
Francia. above.)
CHASARIA = CHASARS =
Cassaria, Chazari.
Cessaria (!!!).
CHIO = BLACK SEA =
Kiev (see above) Euxinus,
Pontius,
SCOTLAND = mare Ponticum,
Scotia, mare Majus.
Gutlonde.
CHINGIS-CHAN = JAROSLAV THE WISE
Cingis, (Kiev Princeps Magnus) =
Churchitan, Malesclodus,
Zingiton, Malescoldus.
Chircam, Juriscloth (= Jurius-
Cliyrcam Georgius),
Gurgatan, Juliusclodius (= Julius-
Cecarcarus, Clodius).
Ingischam, Julius Claudius.
Tharsis (!),
DAVID (!),
PRESBYTER IOHANNES (!!).
One remark about Jaroslav the Wise. He was known in medieval
England as "Malescoldus". According to M.N.Alexeev [12] there
were also some other names which were applied to Jaroslav the
Wise in Western historical tradition:
Juriscloht (from Jurius-Georgius),
Juliusclodius (!),
(the last form of Jaroslav's name was used by Norman historian of
12th century - Gijom),
Julius Claudius,
(this form used by Orderic Vitali).
Let us present a typical example of old English historical
text:
"He escaped to the kingdom of Dogs, which we prefer to call
RUSSIA. When the king of [this] land - MALESCLODUS - learned
about him, he was given a great honor" ([13],[14]).
Here is a Latin original text:
"Aufugit ad regnum Dogorum, quod nos melius vocamus Russiam.
Quem rex terrae Malescoldus nomine, ut cognovit quis esset,
honeste retinuit" [13].
Imagine please reading this old text without looking at the
modern comments which suggest that Dogs Kingdom means the same as
Russia. The text would look like this:
"He escaped to the Kingdom of Dogs. When the king of that
land learned about him, he was given a great honor."
Most probably such text would be understood as a story
treating some medieval events in England or Scotland. The word
"Dogs" seems to designate a population in some part of England or
Scotland and the name "Malescoldus" very much looks like a name
of medieval English or Scottish king. Such an interpretation
looks rather natural. One knows from Scottish history, for
example, that there were several kings with a name "Malcolm",
close to "Malescoldus": Malcolm I (943-958), Malcolm II
(1004-1034), Malcolm III (1057-1093) etc.
But such interpretation of this text would definitely
transform some of ancient Russian events into English ones, i.e.,
into ones which are thought to happen on the land of modern
England. This example suggests that even a direct understanding,
not to say about an interpretation, of an old historical text
could be rather ambiguous.
Differences between medieval English writer's opinion and
modern way of understanding and interpretation of medieval terms
occur for texts written in 9-15th centuries (not so old texts,
from the point of view of modern tradition). It means that there
exist several possibilities to interpret medieval documents. The
way of such interpretation which is in general use now, proves to
be not unique. It is only one of possible ways, maybe not the
best one. We are going to show here that this standard way is
really not enough supported by original documents. The above
vocabulary of synonyms (medieval terms-duplicates) is very useful
for our analysis of English history.
2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history
2.3.1. Scotland and England: two parallel "dynastic streams"
Fig. 1 shows a rough scheme of the English history as it is
considered today. The beginning of English history is placed in
the 1st century B.C. (Julius Caesar's conquest of England).
Starting at this moment and going up to 400 A.D., English
chronicles talk in fact about Roman history. Sometimes they only
mention that certain Roman emperor visit England. According to
English chronicles there were no independent kings in England
before 400 A.D.
We will take J.Blair's "Chronological tables" as a source of
information about general structure of English chronology. These
tables were compiled in the end of 18th c., but the new
information which became available after that time, have not
changed the whole picture of English history and so this
information is not very important for us now.
In 5th century A.D. the Roman power in England came to the
end and in that time the first English kings appeared.
It was a moment when English history divided into:
a) history of England and
b) history of Scotland.
In other words, two dynastic streams began in 5th c.:
a) English stream and
b) Scottish stream.
These two dynastic streams develop in parallel up to 1603
when they transformed into a single dynastic stream of the Great
Britain.
In 404 A.D. the long dynasty of Scottish kings began with
the king Fergus I. It ends in 1603 when a united kingdom of Great
Britain appeared with it's first king Jacob I (1603-1625).
Scottish dynasty looks "very good organized": it practically does
not have simultaneous reigns of different kings, it does not have
breaks and epochs of anarchy also. Being represented graphically
on a time axis, this dynasty covers a 1200-year time interval
from 404 to 1603 A.D. in a very nice, extremely "regular" manner:
reigns of Scottish kings cover one by one without intersections
all this time interval. It is a fine example of "carefully
written history". See dotted line in the Fig.1. The absence of
simultaneous reigns suggests that Scotland was a "geographically
homogeneous" kingdom: it never was divided into several
independent parts.
English history shows a strong contrast to Scottish one in
it's structure.
2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D.
England as the Roman colony.
Time period from 60 B.C. to the beginning of the era A.D. is
considered today as an epoch of conquest of England by Roman army
under the command of Julius Caesar.
Period from 1st century A.D. to 445 A.D. is considered to be
an epoch of Roman occupation of England. England was a Roman
colony at that epoch, and there were no English kings, because
England was ruled formally by Roman emperors themselves. The
description of this period in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in fact a
compilation from Roman history of 1st - 5th (middle) centuries
A.D. as it appears in Scaliger's version of chronology.
It was 409 A.D. when, according to the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, Romans were defeated by Goths, leave England and their
power was never restored after that date:
"In this year the city of Romans was taken by assault by the
Goths, eleven hundred and ten years after it was built.
Afterwards, beyond that, the kings of the Romans ruled no longer
in Britain; in all they had reigned there four hundred and
seventy years since Julius Caesar first came to the country"
([2],p.11).
2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830.
Six kingdoms and their union.
From 445 A.D. we see six kingdoms on the English land. Each
of these kingdoms has it's own dynastic stream of rulers. Namely
they are
Brittany = Britain,
Saxons = Kent,
Sussex = South Saxons,
Wessex = West Saxons,
Essex = East Saxons,
Mercia.
These six kingdoms exist up to 828 A.D. when they all are
destroyed in a war and instead of them one kingdom is established
- the kingdom of England. It is the time of Egbert, who becomes
the first king of united England. The time of about 830 A.D.
could be called, following [6],[7], as the end of Six Kingdoms.
"It was 829 A.D., the time of Wessex king Egbert, when all
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms united into one feudal kingdom" [11, p.
172]. See Commentary 2 which speaks about the term "Saxon".
2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. This epoch
is finished by Danish conquest and then by
disintegration of Dutch kingdom in England.
Beginning from 830 A.D. English chronicles speak about only
one dynastic stream of kings (in united kingdom of England).
In the period 1016-1040 A.D. there was a crucial point in
English history. In 1016 Danish king Cnut Danish the Great
occupied England. He become the king of England, Denmark and
Norway simultaneously. But his state proved to be not stable and
after his death in 1035 it was divided. A representative of old
English dynasty Edward "The Confessor" (1042-1066) became a king
in England after that division. The year 1040 is represented in
the Fig.1 as one of the most important break points in English
history.
2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066.
Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon dynasty and it's fall
The reign of Edward "The Confessor" finished in 1066 A.D.,
which is a well-known date in English history. In that year
Edward died and after that England was occupied by Normans with
their leader William I Conqueror the Bastard. In 1066 William the
Conqueror defeated English-Saxon king Harold in Hastings battle
and as a result became an English king himself. Period of his
reign was 1066-1087. This well-known date (1066 A.D.) is also
represented in the Fig.1.
2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327.
Norman dynasty and after it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards.
This epoch starts with the beginning of Norman dynasty which
ruled England up to 1153 or 1154 ([7], p. 327). Just after it the
next, Anjou dynasty started in England. It existed from 1154 to
1272 ([7], p. 327).
In 1263-1267 a civil war broke out in England ([11], p.260).
After that, in the end of 13th c.- beginning of 14th c., the new
monarchy was established in England. First kings in this new
dynasty were Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II (1307-1327). In
the end of the considered time period there was a war between
England from one side and Wells, Scotland and Ireland from
another side. England tried to occupy these regions but it's
attempt was not successful. In 1314 Scots won.
2.3.6. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.
This period is started with the reign of Edward III
(1327-1377) and is finished with the establishment of Great
Britain as a union of England and Scotland.
The last period from 1600 to the present time is a
well-known history, which we do not doubt and do not analyse
here.
Resume.
We see that English history could be divided into several
periods which are separated by well-known "break point" dates. We
argue that these division is not occasional one. It reflects the
existence of duplicates and chronological shifts in English
history.
3. PARALLELS BETWEEN ENGLISH AND BYZANTINE-ROMAN HISTORY.
GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE AS THE DIRECT SUCCESSOR
OF MEDIEVAL BYZANTINE-ROMAN EMPIRE.
3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams
of England and Byzantine-Roman Empire.
We saw that old English chronicles claim that England was a
Roman colony for the first 400 years of it's history. Moreover,
when they speak about England at that times, they speak more
about Rome and Byzantine empire then about England itself. That
is why an idea of comparison of English and Roman-Byzantine
dynastic streams seems quite natural. For this purpose we used
the Global Chronological Map, which was already made by
A.T.Fomenko including dynastic streams of Rome, Byzantine empire
and England.
Even first glance on this map shows a surprising statistical
similarity of general structure for density of reigns in
Roman-Byzantine empire and in English dynastic streams. Such
specific "density picture" exists only for these two dynastic
streams - Roman-Byzantine and English ones. Now we are going to
describe this picture.
Consider a partition of time interval from 1st to 1700 A.D.
by decades. Let us calculate the number of kings in England whose
reigns intersect with a certain decade. For example if some
decade is covered by a reign of only one king then let us assign
number 1 to this decade. If it is covered by two reigns then we
assign number 2 to it, and so on. As a result of this procedure
we obtain a graph which shows us how many kings ruled inside each
decade. We call this graph as "density graph" for a given
dynastic stream.
Because of absence of kings in England before 400 A.D. the
values of density graph in that time interval are zero.
Approximately in 440 A.D. there were established 6 dynasties in
England (six kingdoms, see above) which existed up to
(approximately) 830 A.D. when English kingdoms were united. After
that union there was only one English dynasty up to present time
[2].
Similar procedure was applied to the dynastic stream of
Roman-Byzantine empire from 1st to 1500 A.D. Information about
all Roman and Byzantine emperors of 1st-15th centuries was used.
From 1st c. to 4th c. all Roman emperors are supposed to stay in
Italian Rome (and in it's colonies), and after 330 A.D. another
Roman dynasty in New Rome = Constantinople appeared. So, up to
6th c. there were two parallel Roman dynastic streams (sometimes
they had intensive intersections). In 6th c. after a known Gothic
war western Rome lost it's status as emperor's residence. From
that time only one Roman dynasty stream in Constantinople = New
Rome was existing constantly up to 1453. In 1453 after siege of
Constantinople by Turks this stream was finished.
The result of our calculations is shown in the Fig.2. There
are two curves in the Fig.2. At the bottom one can see a density
graph for Roman-Byzantine empire, and on the top - for England.
Note that English chronology is shifted down as the whole block
by approximately 275-year shift.
Both graphs look very similar. Both of them start with a
period of low density and then, at the same moment the density
increases very sharply. Periods of such high density have
approximately the same length and the same amplitude in both
cases. Then the sharp fall of density occurs simultaneously in
these graphs. After that both of them are approximately constant.
Their value changes mostly in a range of 1-2 reigns per decade
for remaining several hundreds years.
High density zone in English chronology is located
approximately in 445-830 A.D., and for Roman-Byzantine empire
this zone constitutes 170-550 A.D. The length is approximately
380 years in both cases. The duration of the historical periods
in England and in Roman-Byzantine empire being compared
constitutes about one and a half thousand years.
We should say once more that such specific density graphs
could not be find in other dynastic streams. It is a feature of
English and Roman-Byzantine history only.
Fig.3 compares density graphs for England and
Roman-Byzantine empire in a very rough way: only high density
zones are represented from the graphs. Fig.3 clearly shows that
the chronological shift between English and Roman-Byzantine
history is equal to approximately 275 years.
Of course, above method of comparison for two different
histories is very rough and could not be considered as a basis
for any statements. But such similarity for density graphs is
probably a reflection of the same origin of these two dynastic
streams (on a long time period). It is also possible that one of
them is a reflection of another one. Moreover, some well-known
facts from old English history could support this possibility.
For example, it is well-known that the old name of England
and English people was not "England" but "Anglia", "Angles" (from
"Angel"), maybe "Angeln" ([2], p.12-13,289). Term "Angels" as a
name of population appears in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at a date 443
A.D. After that this term is used constantly. The first king
which was called as "king of Anglia (England)" was Athelstan
(925-940) ([7],p.340).
Note that "Angels" was also a famous noble feudal family in
Byzantine which includes Byzantine emperor dynasty of Angels
(1185-1204) ([15], p.166).
The natural question arises: may be the name "England" -
"Angels" - "Anglia" is the reflection of the name of Byzantine
dynasty Angels of 11-12th cc.?
It was only some preliminary remarks. They could only to
suggest that some connection between English and Byzantine
ancient history seem to exist. More careful analysis says that
these histories on a long time period are the same.
Remark. When we speak about a "dynasty stream" we mean simply
a sequence of kings in a certain kingdom which is ordered in
time. We do not care about family relations between these kings
(which is usually included in term "dynasty").
3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England
from one side and medieval Byzantine Empire from another side.
General concept of correspondence between English and
Byzantine histories.
We have discovered that there exists a strong parallelism
between durations of reigns for English history of 640-1327 A.D.
from one side and Byzantine history of 378-830 A.D. continued by
Byzantine history of 1143-1453 A.D. from another side. This
parallelism is represented in a visual form at the bottom of
Fig.1.
More precisely, we discovered that:
1) Dynastic stream of English kings from 640 to 1040 A.D.
(400-year period) is a duplicate (reflection) of Byzantine
dynastic stream from 378 to 830 A.D. (452-year period). These two
dynastic streams coincide after 210-year chronological shift.
It means that there exists a subsequence ("dynastic stream")
of English kings whose reigns cover time interval 640-1040 and a
subsequence of Byzantine emperors whose reigns cover time
interval 378-830, such that they duplicate each other. Note that
not all kings or emperors from these epochs are included in those
dynastic streams. It is possible because often there were several
corulers (i.e., kings or emperors which ruled simultaneously).
2) The next period of English kingdom history: from 1040 to
1327 (287-year period) duplicates Byzantine dynasty history from
1143 to 1453 A.D. (310-year period). These two dynastic streams
coincide after 120-year chronological shift.
3) Dynastic stream of Byzantine emperors from 830 to 1143 also
duplicates the same English dynastic history of 1040-1327. It is
quite natural because Byzantine history has it's own duplicates
inside it. In particular, Byzantine history of 830-1143
duplicates Byzantine history of 1143-1453. For details see
[1],[24].
4) The ends of time intervals from English history
duplicating Byzantine history coincide with the break points in
English history which we pointed out earlier.
5) The ends of time intervals from Byzantine history
duplicating English history also prove to be certain natural
break points in Byzantine history. They generate a partition of
the whole Byzantine history into 4 parts which we will denote by
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1, Byzantine empire-2 and
Byzantine empire-3.
3.3. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism table")
3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and
Byzantine history of 378-553 A.D.
275-year shift.
We used J.Blair's Tables [2] as the first main source of
chronological information and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the second
one. Below we use an abbreviation ASC for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Note that sometimes different chronological tables contain a
slightly different data, but these differences do not influence
the parallelism which we are going to present here.
_________________________________________________________________
English history Byzantine history
_________________________________________________________________
English history of 640-830. Byzantine history of 378-553.
Wessex kings - one of the six Byzantine emperors dynasty
kingdoms in England of 400-830. starting from the foundation of
This dynastic stream is a part New Rome = Constantinople.
of the dense sequence of kings This dynastic stream is a part
whose reigns cover the time of the dense sequence of kings
axis with high multiplicity. whose reigns cover the time
See Figs.2,3. axis with high multiplicity.
This period of Byzantine history
is denoted as Byzantine-0 on Fig.1.
See Figs.2,3.
__________________________________________________________________
Commentary. Durations of reigns are shown in brackets
(rounded off to whole years). In the left column the whole list
of English kings is presented. In the right column almost all
Byzantine emperors appear. Only absent are names of some emperors
with very short reign and co-emperors of those ones who are
presented here. Note that all English kings (with only few
exceptions of very short reigns) are included in this
parallelism.
__________________________________________________________________
1. Cenwalch 643-672 king of 1. Theodosius I The Great
Wessex and 643-647 as the king 378 or 379 - 395 (16)
of Sussex. He ruled 29 or 25
years, if we consider only his
rule in Wessex (after 647 A.D.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Seaxburh 672-674 (2), ?
wife of K.Cenwel. Short rule
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cens 674-686 (12) according 2. Arcadius 395-408 (13)
to Blair. In Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we see here two kings:
Escwine + Centwine (9 years in
total)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caedwalla 686-688 (2). ?
Short rule
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ine 686-727 (39) according 3. Theodosius II 408-450 (42)
to Blair and (37) according to
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (= ASC)
------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Aethelheard 727-740 (13), 4. Leo I 457-474 (17)
and (14) according to ASC
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Cuthread 740-754 (14) accor- 5. Zeno 474-491 (17)
ding to Blair and (17) in ASC (he ruled two times)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigeberht 754 (1). Short rule ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Cynewulf 754-784 (30) accor- 6. Anastasius
ding to Blair and (31) in ASC 491-518 (27)
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Beorhtric 784-800 (16) 7. Justin I 518-527 (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Egbert 800-838 (38). In 828 8. Justinian I The Great. In
A.D.(i.e., at the 28th year of 553 A.D.(i.e. at the 26th year
his rule) he consolidated all of his rule) he defeated the
six kingdoms into one - Anglia. Goths (this is well-known Gothic
The last 10 years he ruled as war) and became unique emperor
the king of Anglia. He is consi- in Roman-Byzantine empire. He
dered as distinguished king in ruled during his last 12 years
English history without any corulers. Well-known
emperor in Byzantine history
________________________________________________________________
3.3.2. English history of 830-1040 and
Byzantine history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift.
__________________________________________________________________
English epoch of 830-1040. Byzantine epoch of 553-830.
Anglia after consolidation into Is denoted as "Byzantine
one kingdom (see Blair [6]). empire-1" in the Fig.1.
__________________________________________________________________
9. Aethelberht 860-866 (6) 9. Justin II 565-578 (13)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aethelbald 10. Tiberius Constantinus
857-860 (3) 578-582 (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aethelwulf 838-857 (19) 11. Maurice 582-602 (20)
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Aethelred 866-872 (6) 12. Phocas 602-610 (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the old English chroniclers transposed two kings, namely -
the kings Aethelwulf (see No.11) and Aethelberht (see No.9) were
placed in another order (their Byzantine originals are Justin II
and Maurice). This confusion has a simple explanation: all four
English kings of this period have very similar names beginning
from "Aethel".
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Alfred The Great 872-900 (28) 13. Heraclius
according to Blair and 871-901 610-641 (31)
(30) according to Bemont and
Monod ([7],p.340)
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward the Elder 14. Constans II
900-925 (25) Pogonatus 641-668 (26)
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Athelstan 925-941 (16). 15. Constantine IV
It is supposed today that he was 668-685 (17)
the first who took the name king
of Anglia ([7],p.340)
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Confusion: the war with 16. Well-known confusion in
Northumbria. The Anglo-Saxon Byzantine history in the end of
Chronicle mentions about 7th century - beginning of 8th
three main kings of this period: century. Here there are several
Edmund I 941-948 (7), emperors with a short rules:
Eadred 948-955 (7), Leontius II 695-698
Eadwig 955-959 (4). All these or 694-697, Tiberius III 697-704
kings ruled relatively short or 698-705, Justinian II 705-711,
period Philippicus Bardanes 711-713,
Anastasius II 713-715 or 716,
Theodosius III 715 or 716-717
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, both confusion epochs (English and Byzantine) are matched
under the rigid chronological shift. We did not discuss here the
details because of mess structure of the chronicles of this time
period
------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edgar 959-975 (16)+ Edward 17. Leo III Isaurian or
"The Martyr" 975-978 (3), and the Syrian 717-741 (24)
totally (after summation) they
give 19 years. Their names are
similar and consequently their
union is natural
------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Aethelred II "The Unready" 18. Constantine V Copronimus
978-1013 (35) 741-775 (34)
------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cnut The Great Danish 19. Constantine VI Porphyrogenitus
1017-1036 (19). His death 780-797 (17). Let us note that
indicates the disintegration now we are in the end of historical
of Danish empire. Thus, this epoch which was marked out in
epoch is finished by the well- [1] and [24] as Byzantine empire-1
known event in the history of (527-840). Thus, in this column
Anglia. Let us note that this of our table we came to some
fragment of English history is important turning-point in
matched with Byzantine epoch Byzantine history
under 210 (or 275)-year shift
(approximately)
_________________________________________________________________
The old English chronicles placed in the end of this epoch
(in history of Anglia) two "short" kings:
Harold I Danish (1036-1039, ruled 3 years) and
Harthacnut (1039-1041, ruled 2 years).
We did not find the Byzantine duplicate-original for Harthacnut,
but the original-duplicate for Harold I will be demonstrated below
__________________________________________________________________
We continue the motion along English history in the left
column of the table. The parallel with Byzantine history will
continue (in the right column). But this parallel becomes more
clear and evident if we take the next epoch "Byzantine empire-3"
(1143-1453) instead of the epoch "Byzantine empire-2" (Fig.1). As
we explained before, these two epochs of Byzantine history are
parallel, i.e. they are duplicates (of course, not identical).
Consequently, we will list in the right column of the table the
emperors from "Byzantine empire-3" and also will indicate here
their duplicates from "Byzantine empire-2". And we will see that
the parallelism between English and Byzantine history will
continue until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
__________________________________________________________________
3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and
Byzantine history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift.
__________________________________________________________________
English epoch of 1040-1327 Byzantine epoch of 1143-1453.
Is marked as "Byzantine empire-3"
in the Fig.1. It is the original
for "Byzantine empire-2"
__________________________________________________________________
20. Edward "The Confessor" 20. Manuel I Comnenus
1041-1066 (25) 1143-1180 (37)
------------------------------------------------------------------
The death of Edward "The Confes- After the death of Manuel I the
sor" indicates the beginning of hard time for Byzantine empire
Norman invasion. It is possible, began and the turning-point is
that English chronicles mean the well-known crusade and the
here in reality "Roman invasion" conquest of Constantinople in
because there is the parallel 1204. It is supposed today that
between some periods of Roman Italian Rome organized the
history and Norman history invasion in Byzantine empire
(see [1],[24])
------------------------------------------------------------------
The commentary to the dynastic stream of English history.
After the death of Edward "The Confessor" a new king Harold II
"Godwinson" took the throne. He ruled only 1 year and was killed
in 1066 in the battle near Hastings. From the other hand it is
known ([7],p.343) that in reality he got a great political power
in 1054 when Edward was alive. But the English chronicles placed
just before the rule of Edward "The Confessor" one more "short"
(i.e. with a short rule) Harold, namely Harold I "Harefoot"
(1036-1039) who ruled only 3 years. It is possible that this
Harold I is simply the reflection of Harold II
------------------------------------------------------------------
21. "Doubled Harold", i.e. 21. Isaac II Angelus 1185-1195,
Harold I Danish (1036-1039) and then he lost the power and
then Harold II (1066 year). appeared on Byzantine throne
Harold II ruled only 9 months. again in 1203 (second time). He
It is clear that this "doubled ruled no more than 1 year and
Harold" is the reflection of finally lost the power in 1204,
Byzantine"doubled Isaac Angelus", after the conquest of Constanti-
who ruled two times. His second nople by crusaders. Thus, his
rule was short: less than 1 year second rule was no more than 1
year
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman conquest of Anglia. The The conquest of Byzantine empire
famous battle near Hastings in by crusaders. Famous fourth
1066 crusade 1199-1204
------------------------------------------------------------------
We will speak later and more detailed about the parallel between
these events
------------------------------------------------------------------
22. William I of Normandy 22. Theodore I Lascaris
(Bastard) The Conqueror 1066- 1204-1222 (18). In 1204 a new
-1087 (21). His rule starts the Nicaean empire starts on the
new Norman dynasty in Anglia territory of Byzantine empire. The
reflection of Theodore in Byzantine
empire-2 is Basil I the Macedonian
867-887 (19)
------------------------------------------------------------------
23. William II "Rufus" 1087-1101 23. Possibly, there is some mess
(14). Thus, here we have 14 in the chronicles when they describe
years and in the right column the Norman dynasty and Nicaean
we have 11 or 12 years. We see empire. The first conjecture:
here some confusion in the the original preimage for William II
chronicles because in the right is lost. Second conjecture: this is
column Isaac II Angelus ruled again Isaac II Angelus. But in this
twice case the chronicle took the whole
his rule: 1185-1195 and then 1203-
-1204, i.e. totally 11 or 12 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Henry I 1101-1135 24. John III Vatatzes
(34 or 35 years) 1222-1254 or 1256 (32). His
reflection in Byzantine empire-2
is Leo VI "The Philosopher"
886-912 (26)
------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Stephen of Blois 1135-1154 25. Michael VIII 1259 or 1260
(19). King Stephen finishes the until 1282 or 1283 (23). His
Norman dynasty in Anglia ([7],p. reflection in Byzantine empire-2
357). The next king Henry II is Romanus I 919-945 (26).
starts a new Anjou dynasty in Michael VIII starts a new
Anglia Palaeologus dynasty which lasts
from 1261 until 1453
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the rigid chronological shift matches
English Norman dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Angelus
and then matches
the next Anjou dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Palaeologus
------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Henry II Plantagenet 26. Andronicus II Palaeologus
1154-1189 (35). Note that both 1282 or 1283 - 1328 (46). If
terms Plantagenet and calculated from 1283 to 1320 -
Porphyrogenetus have the same the moment when his co-ruler
meaning: "one who was born in Andronicus III began to reign
a shirt". This term has well- then duration of Andronicus II
known meaning - see commentary reign is 37 years. He was
below reflected as Constantine VII
910 or 912 - 959 (47),(49)
in Byzantine empire-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary.
Term (name) "Porphyrogenetus" = "Porphyro" + "Genitus" could be
interpreted as "one, who was born in porphyr". It says about
birth in a "royal attributes", maybe "royal clothes", "royal
shirt". It suggests a rare case from medical practice when a baby
is born "in a shirt", i.e. still in placenta (placenta sounds
similar to "planta" - part of "Plantagenet"). In old times such
cases were considered as a sign of outstanding future for the
baby (good or bad one). We see in English version (left column) a
name Plantagenet, i.e. Planta + Genet. It means exactly "birth in
a planta, in a cover" - the same as "birth in a shirt"
------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Henry II established a known 27. Michael VIII. He was just
dynasty of Plantagenets (House before Andronicus II. He
of Plantagenet) in English established a known dynasty of
history. This dynasty was Palaeologus in the history of
finished in 1329 with Richard Byzantine. This dynasty covers
II. So, this dynasty covers time time interval 1261-1453 (up to
interval 1154-1399 ([27], p.346). the siege of Constantinople)
([27], p.636).
------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the chronological shift which we discovered puts together two
dynasties: Palaeologus' and Plantagenets. Dynasty of Palaeologus'
is finished in 1453 and reflecting them Plantagenets continue up
to 1399.
------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Richard I Coeur de Lion 28. Andronicus III Palaeologus
1189-1199 (10). Duration of 1320-1328-1341. Formally his
his reign is 10 years which reign lasts 21 years (1320-1341),
is close to 13 years - duration but his reign as unique emperor
of reign of his analog (without corulers) was only for
(original) in Byzantine 13 years (1328-1341). In 1328
empire finished the reign of his coruler
- emperor Andronicus II.
------------------------------------------------------------------
29.John Santer 1199-1216 (17) 29. John VI Cantacuzenus
1341 or 1347 - 1355 (15)
------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Henry III 1216-1272 (56). 30. John V Palaeologus 1341-1391
Henry III was the last king in (50). His has a reflection in
Anjou dynasty in England. Byzantine empire-2: Basil II
Dynasty of Palaeologus in Bulgaroktonos (975 or 976 -
Byzantine empire (right column) 1025). Basil II Bulgaroktonos'
is not finished at this point reign was for 49 or 50 years.
but it is near to the end
------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Edward I 1272-1307 (35) 31. Manuel II Palaeologus
1391-1425 (33 or 34).
------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Edward II Caervarven 32. John VIII Palaeologus
1307-1327 (20) 1424-1448 (23 or 24).
------------------------------------------------------------------
End of parallelism. In 1453 Constantinople was seized
by Turks and Byzantine Empire
changed to Turkey.
___________________________________________________________________
Fig.4 illustrates this parallelism. It is important that
durations of reign fit each other so well in the case when the
same chronological shift was applied to all reigns. All dynasty
was shifted as a whole, it's internal time was unchanged.
Fig.5 shows the same parallelism in a different form which is
designed for visual comparison of durations of reign in both
dynasties. For quantitative comparison we used numerical
characteristic of a distance between two arbitrary dynasties,
which was introduced in [1],[24]. It appears that this "distance"
drops into a range of values which are normal only for strongly
dependent dynasties (details about this numerical characteristic
one can find in [1],[24]). Recall that two dynasties are called as
dependent ones if they both reflect the same real dynasty.
Dependence of these two dynasties (we mean statistical
dependence of reign durations) is the main result of this paper.
It is in fact a formal result and we might finish on it. But many
not formal questions follow after this result is claimed. Main of
them is: what real events lay under both of these two dynasties?
What was the real history?
4. CORRECT ENGLISH HISTORY IS MORE SHORT IN TIME BUT MUCH MORE
DENSE IN EVENTS THAN IT IS SUGGESTED BY TEXTBOOKS
4.1. Our new concept of English history
The answer follows definitely from the above parallelism and
from the Fig.1. Naturally, the more new dynasty (one which was
later in time) is to be supposed as original one. This is a
Byzantine dynasty 1143-1453 A.D. It was denoted above as
Byzantine empire-3. In [1],[24] it was discovered that Byzantine
empire-3 is a source of information for it's reflections
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1 and Byzantine empire-2.
Roughly speaking the whole Byzantine history is constructed from
several blocks - duplicates of the same epoch: 1143-1453 A.D. As
we discovered, English history being stringed to the English
kings dynasty is a duplicate of Byzantine history up to 1327 A.D.
(in English chronology) = 1450 A.D. (in Byzantine chronology).
Middle of 15th century was a time from which we have enough
information, so Byzantine dynasty of that time was surely a real
one. It suggests that Byzantine is an original in above
parallelism, and England before 1327 A.D. - a reflection. It
could be seen from the Fig.1 how English history before 1327 A.D.
was constructed from several reflections of Byzantine Empire of
1143-1453 A.D.
As a resume we present the follows hypothesis.
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks
more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved
in [1],[24] that Roman history of that time reflects real events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and
Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real
events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th
cc. in Byzantine empire.
4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in
Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name
of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)
5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are
thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch
before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to
certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly
speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine
chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then
modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in
England.
6) The time when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most probably the epoch of
9-10th centuries. Now we have only very few information about
that early period of English history on the island. So the
description of English history of 9-13 cc. is in fact rather
fragmentary. But this information about real island events was
then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine empire. The
resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine fiber"
we can see now as the English history of 9-13th cc.
7) Starting from 14th century English history speaks about
real events in England only. Roughly speaking, traditional
version of English history becomes correct from 14th c.
8) One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that in ancient English chronicles there are chronological
details about, for example, how many years there were between the
Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological
details often agree with Scaliger's (modern) chronological
concept." The answer is follows.
At first, note that chronological and astronomical data from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with modern
historical version. See [1],[24].
In the second, even if we see that a direct chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it
says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have
today, were finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was exactly
the time when modern chronological concept was worked out (in
general). Such direct chronological statements are simply the
traces of chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that time
historians "calculated" the dates of ancient events and then
placed (for reader's convenience) the results of their
(medieval!) calculations inside ancient historical texts. The
fact that chronological statements in different ancient texts
often agree means that today we have mostly the results of work
of only one medieval chronological school. It was the
chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by
Roman-Catholic church.
Often, astronomical calculations were used for chronological
purposes. In this case there could be certain astrological
motivations in medieval astronomical calculations for chronology.
Medieval scientists, and historians among them, often trusted
astrology and could use it in their considerations. Maybe
medieval astrologers tried to solve problems like these: what was
the planetary configuration at the moment of coronation of
Justinian I (or when ancient lunar eclipses occurred etc.)?
Results of such astronomical calculations of 15-16th cc. could
be placed in ancient texts to make their chronology more clear.
It was large work and it might be very useful if the calculations
were correct. Unfortunately, medieval astronomers and historians
made a lot of mistakes. These mistakes are discussed in [1],[24].
As a result of such mistakes, ancient chronicles got an incorrect
chronological skeleton. This incorrect chronology was then
supported by church authorities and by medieval scientific
schools. It was the chronology which we have now in our
textbooks. And today, our contemporaries - the historians and
chronologists - take the ancient chronicles (from archives) and
with pleasure discover in them the "astronomical and
chronological information". Then, basing on the modern theory,
they date the described eclipses, horoscopes (i.e., the
configuration of the planets along the zodiacal constellations).
After this, historians discover (with great pleasure) that
sometimes these records from "ancient chronicles" satisfy to the
Scaliger's chronology (and, consequently, are correct). Of
course, sometimes there are some contradictions. And sometimes -
very serious. The real explanation is as follows: the medieval
methods for calculations were more rough that modern ones. Then
in each such case the modern chronologists "correct" these
"records of ancient chronicler". As a result, they form the
illusion of the correctness of traditional Scaliger's version of
ancient chronology. But what the modern historians really do when
the results of modern astronomical calculations sharply disagree
with Scaliger's chronology? As we know today (see, for example,
[1],[24]) the list of such contradictions is very long. This fact
shows that Scaliger's chronological version is wrong. But in all
such cases the modern historians start to speak (with a great
irritation and displeasure) about "ignorance of ancient observers
and chroniclers", about "impossibility to apply the modern
scientific methods to the analysis an ancient texts" etc.
The visual picture of our chronological conjecture you can
see in the Fig.6.
4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
into medieval English history (of the island Anglia)?
The answer will be extremely simple if we will erase from
our minds the picture which is imposed by traditional Scaliger's
chronology.
Starting from 11th century, several crusades storm the
Byzantine empire. Several feudal crusaders' states
were founded on the territory of Byzantine empire in 11-14th cc.
In these states many nations were mixed: local population, the
crusaders from England, France, Germany, Italy etc. In these
crusaders' regions and in Byzantine empire the new culture was
created, in particular, were written a historical chronicles.
Among Byzantine inhabitants were a lot of people from Europe, in
particular, from some island, which later will be called England.
In 1453 A.D. Turks conquered Constantinople. Byzantine
empire was ruined and the crowds of its inhabitants leaved the
country. Many of them returned in the Europe, in their old
homeland. In particular, - in the island Anglia. These
descendants of crusaders took with them their Byzantine
historical chronicle, because these texts describe their own real
history in Byzantine empire (during many years - one or two
hundreds years). Several decades passed. On the island Anglia
starts the writing its history (i.e., the history of the people
living on the island). In 16-17th centuries some qualified
historians appear and start to create the general history of the
whole land Anglia ("from the beginning"). They search for ancient
documents. Suddenly they find several old trunks with "very old"
documents. The documents are dusty, the paper is very fragile,
and the old books fall to pieces. These chronicles were
transported from Byzantine empire. But now (in 16-17th cc.)
nobody knew this. Unfortunately, the prehistory of these trunks
is forgotten. And, unfortunately, is forgotten that these
chronicles describe the history of ANOTHER LAND. The English
historians of 16-17th centuries carefully analyse these texts as
the history "of island England" and put them into the basis of
"old British-island history, which started many centuries ago".
In some strong sense they were right because really the authors
of the chronicles were closely connected with island Anglia (but,
let us repeat, described ANOTHER LAND - Byzantine empire).
This process is quite natural and does not suggest any
special falsification of the history. Such natural errors were
inevitable at the first steps of creating of the general history.
As a result, appeared such chronicles as Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, the Nennius' chronicle etc. After some time this wrong
version of an old English history stand stockstill, becomes a
"monument". Further historians simply modify (only a little) the
initial scheme of the history, add some new documents. And only
today, using some statistical and other methods we start to
discover some strange regularities inside the "history textbook"
and start to realize that the real history was possibly
sufficiently shorter and that today we need to remove from the
"old English history" its "Byzantine part" and return this piece
to its right place (in time and in the geographical sense).
This procedure is very painful. We realize this because we
discovered the same problem in the old Russian history, when we
also found several chronological duplicates.
General remark. It is possible, that this process of
"insertion of an old Byzantine chronicles" in the beginning of a
"local history" is presented for several different regions which
were closely connected with Byzantine empire. In particular, it
is true for Russia, for England, for Rome, for Greece.
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK
ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered
Britain (and the first king of Britts)
We have analyzed above the durations of rules and suggested
the conjecture that old English history is "a chronological
reflection" if one period of real Byzantine history. The
following question immediately arises: what about old English
chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or there are some
contradictions? Let us take these chronicles and let us read them
once more by "fresh sight", without a priori "school" hypothesis
about "great antiquity" of these sources.
Now we recall to the reader well-known facts from
traditional history of England (Anglia in old texts). Let us
take, for example
"Historia Brittonum" of Nennius,
"Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis
and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Galfridus calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In
brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as follows. After the
end of the Trojan War and after the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero
Aeneas arrived on the ship in Italy. After two or three
generation his great-grandson Brutus was born ([9],p.6-7). By the
way, Nennius thinks that "time distance" between Aeneas and Brutus
is sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that "the distance"
between Trojan war and Brutus is about several hundreds years.
However, this difference is not so important for us.
Then Brutus leaved Italy and arrived it Greece, where
becomes the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus collects
the large fleet and then his army (on the fleet) leaves Greece.
After some time they landed on some "island", began the battle
with local people, won the war and founded the new kingdom.
This is Britain.
Brutus is the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain.
Today they are considered as legendary heroes, because, according
to traditional chronology, these events were "in a deep past"
(before Jesus Christ).
Nennius tells the analogous story of Brutus (but more
short). Nennius definitely states that Brutus "arrived on the
island, which was called by HIS NAME, i.e., on the island
Britain, then populated the island by his posterity and lived
there. From this day and before now the Britain is populated"
([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the name of Brutus.
Then Nennius informs us about opinion of some other authors,
that "island Britain was called by the name of Britt, son of
Isicion, who was the son of Alan" ([8],p.172). But according to
the most widespread and authoritative version (which is quoted by
Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of Brutus, who was ROMAN
CONSUL (! - Auth.)" ([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of
Britain was Roman consul.
This statement is extremely strange and impossible from the
point of view traditional Scaliger's chronology, because Rome was
founded only about 753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this
Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no Rome!
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that:
"The first inhabitants of this land were the Britons, who
came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..." ([2],p.3).
It is quite clear that here the name Armenia points out on
the Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which was called
Romai-Romania. Thus, as we see, the English chronicle again
connects Britain and Roman-Byzantine empire.
Of course, today this statement of old chronicle is declared
by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary is as follows:
"instead of erroneous name Armenia one should read Armorica =
Brittany" ([2],p.3). However, the replacement of Armenia by
Armorica does not help to traditional history: the name Armorica
also can be connected with the name of Roman-Byzantine empire.
Our conclusion does not change.
Thus, old English chronicles state that Britain was at first
conquered by Roman consul Brutus, who arrived there with a
military fleet and founded the British kingdom. He became the
first king of an island Britain.
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a
contemporary of Julius Caesar?
It seems that the answer is quite clear.
We need only to understand - when lived this remarkable
Roman consul (according to traditional chronology)? It is very
simple. The qualified reader already prompts to us the right
answer: it was 1st century B.C. In this century we see (in modern
textbook in ancient history) the well-known Roman consul Brutus -
the friend and brother-in-arms of Julius Caesar. Brutus took
part in many campaigns of Julius Caesar. Then Brutus betrayed
Caesar - his patron and protector. We remember from our "scholar
childhood" the bitter words of Caesar: "And you, Brutus", which
Caesar said when Brutus struck him by the sword.
As we also known, the traitorous murder of Caesar - one of
the most important episode in "biography" of ancient Roman consul
Brutus. It is remarkable, but the old English chronicles also
speak about this episode but in a slightly different words. They
state that Brutus (the first Britts' king) killed his farther.
This murder is considered by chronicles as accidental,
unintentional. Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow and accidentally
killed "his farther" ([8],p.173). In our opinion, this is
slightly distorted Roman story about murder of Julius Caesar by
Brutus. Here "farther" is Caesar - former friend and protector of
Brutus.
Because of this terrible murder, the people expel Brutus
from his native land. It was done in both stories: in Roman and
in English. Brutus started on a journey.
Our simple and natural conjecture is as follows: in the old
English story about conquest of Britain acts Brutus - the
contemporary of Julius Caesar. As we saw, this conjecture is
supported by ancient documents, although they do not call
directly Brutus as friend or enemy of Caesar. Indeed, all
chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was conquered by Julius
Caesar. Some interesting details are reported. Namely, Caesar
arrived in Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted of
about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of the land became a
complicated problem and soon Caesar returned in Britain with the
fleet consisting of 600 (!) ships. After the battle the local
army of natives were defeated and Romans founded the new kingdom.
Moreover, Nennius claims that Julius Caesar WAS THE FIRST ROMAN
who arrived on the island Britain and conquered the kingdom and
Britts ([8],p.176).
Thus, if Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, and
if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain,
then BRUTUS and JULIUS CAESAR are simply CONTEMPORARIES and
brothers-in-arms. This conclusion evidently follows from old
English chronicles.
Let us resume these corollaries in the form of some table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brutus - the first king of Britts Julius Caesar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The first Roman arrived on 1. The first Roman arrived on
the island, conquered the land the island, conquered the
and founded the kingdom country and also founded the
kingdom
2. Arrived in Britain with great 2. Was the head of great military
military fleet fleet which invaded into the land
3. "Accidentally" killed his 3. His contemporary - Roman Brutus,
farther by arrow Caesar's friend, traitorously
killed Caesar (= "his farther-
-protector")
4. The murder of Brutus' father 4. Well-known story: the murder
by his son was predicted in of Julius Caesar was predicted
advance by prophet (see Nennius, by Roman prophet (see, for
[8],p.173) example, Plutarch
5. Afterwards Brutus was expelled 5. Romans expelled Brutus as great
from his native land (as the men traitor, because he killed Julius
who committed the murder) Caesar
6. Roman consul Brutus starts 6. Julius Caesar lived (according
the history of Britain traditional chronology) in 1st c.
B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, from the position of common sense we immediately date
the epoch of the first Brutus' conquest of Britain (with his
contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st century A.D. Let us note, that
this our statement is not new in reality. All experts know that
Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D. All experts know
that Brutus was the first who conquered Britain. We simply
combine these two facts and formulate the evident conclusion:
"Ancient" Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts,
the first king of Britain, the "starting person" of the whole
English history - is a contemporary on Julius Caesar, i.e.,
well-known in classical Roman history consul Brutus.
The reader qualified in ancient history can, of course
recall here also the second known Brutus in Roman history, who
acted allegedly about 6th c.B.C. in Rome. He expel ed the Roman
kings from the capital and founded the Roman republic. But this
historical epoch is in reality another chronological duplicate
(copy), reflection of the epoch of Julius Caesar. It was
discovered in [1],[24]. Consequently, the attempt to identify the
Brutus = the first king of Britts - with "another Brutus" -
fails. We again come to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st century
A.D. according to traditional chronology). Let us recall here,
that according to chronological results, obtained in [1],[24],
the epoch of Julius Caesar is in reality the duplicate
(reflection) of the epoch of 10-11th cc.A.D.
The reader can ask us: why we discuss in such details such
evident question (the identification of Brutus - the first king
of Britts - with Brutus of Caesar's epoch)?
Our answer is as follows. This our statement is mortally
dangerous to the traditional chronology of England (and not only
England). This is the explanation why the traditional historians
try to avoid any serious discussion about the assertion of
English chronicles, that Brutus was Roman consul and that Britts
are the descendants of Romans. In particular, the modern
commentators of Nennius and Galfridus (A.S.Bobovich and
M.A.Bobovich) irritatedly write: "The (medieval - Auth.) idea to
deduce the origin of Britts from Romans and Trojans is not so
original: already in 6th century A.D. the Frank's rulers deduced
their origin from Trojans (and, in our opinion, they were right,
see the discussion about this subject in [1],[24] - Auth.)"
([9],p.270). And then commentators add carefully: "There are
several Brutus in Roman history". They do not continue and do not
discuss this remark, and now we realize - why. If you start to
analyse the "Brutus' problem", you (as we demonstrated above)
will make the inevitable (and catastrophic for traditional
chronology) conclusion that "English Brutus" was the contemporary
of Julius Caesar.
BUT WHY THIS CONCLUSION US SO DANGEROUS?
At first, because in this case the so called "ancient
legendary British history" is immediately moved upwards by
approximately 1000-year shift in the epoch of 1-13th A.D. and
moreover, in 10-15th cc.A.D.
Such corollary, of course, is completely unacceptable (and
totally fantastic) to any modern traditional historian. But there
are some another, sufficiently more dangerous corollaries.
About this - our next section.
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles
The "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis is strung
on the pivot of biblical history. This means that sometimes, when
speaking about the events of British history, Galfridus inserts
the phrases similar to this: In Judea the prophet Samuel ruled
at this time ([9],p.20). These rare phrases are scattered along
the chronicle and form the rough (and very brief) skeleton of
biblical history of prophets and biblical kings, which is closely
interwoven with the stream of British history. But, by the way,
Galfridus does not give any absolute dates. His chronology is
completely relative, i.e., he tells only - in the time of which
biblical kings (or prophets) were occurred some of British events.
Thus, when analyzing the English chronology in a unprejudiced
way, we meet the necessity to start the analysis of biblical
chronology also. Let us do it and we will see what we will obtain.
The evident identification of "English Brutus" with
well-known Brutus from the epoch of Julius Caesar, is impossible
for traditional historian because in this case the whole biblical
chronology is automatically moved from its traditional place (in
time) upwards by about at least 1000-year shift ! In reality this
shift will be sufficiently more: about 1800 years! See [1],[24].
Indeed, if "English Brutus" (the forefather of Britts) is
placed in 1st century B.C., then, according to the "Historia
Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis, ALL BASIC EVENTS OF BIBLICAL
HISTORY should be distributed on time axis from 1st century A.D.
until 13th century A.D. Here we mean: the history of all
biblical prophets, the history of the kingdom of Judah and the
kingdom of Israel et cetera. On the face of it, such conclusion
is completely impossible! Traditionally, biblical history is
dated from 11th century B.C. until 1st century A.D.
But if we will wait a little and will try nevertheless to
place ancient biblical history on the interval from 1st century
A.D. until 13th century A.D. - what we obtain?
It turns out that this procedure does not lead to the
contradiction with ancient evidences of ancient texts. We suggest
to the reader to take the books of Fomenko [1],[24], where you
can find the details. Here we demonstrate only one, but remarkable
example.
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way?
Problem of vowels restoration.
In the attempt to read and date the most of the ancient
manuscripts (ancient Egyptian, ancient Slavonic, biblical et
cetera) certain basic problems are frequently encountered.
As soon as J.Sunderland started investigating the original
language of the Old Testament, he, in his words,
"...faced the fact of enormous and even startling
importance. The thing is that the Jewish written language
originally had neither vowels nor signs replacing them. The books
of the Old Testament were written only with consonants" ([16], p.
155).
This is also typical for other languages. For example, an
ancient Slavonic text was a chain of only consonants, too;
sometimes even without signs replacing the vowels, or without
division into words. Old Egyptian texts were also written in
consonants only.
According to well-known chronologist E.Bickerman,
"...the names of Egyptian kings are given in contemporary
literature schematically, in a quite arbitrary, so-called
scholastic manner adopted in school textbooks. These forms are
often greatly different from each other; it is impossible to
order them somehow, due to their arbitrary reading (! - Authors.)
which became traditional" ([17], p.176).
Probably, the rarity and high cost of writing materials in
ancient times made the scribes save them, and omit the vowels,
thereby essentially shortening the text.
J.Sunderland continues:
"However, if we take the Jewish Bible or a manuscript today,
we shall find in them the skeleton of vowels filled with dots and
other signs denoting the missing vowels. These signs did not
belong to the old Jewish Bible. The books were read by
consonants, and the intervals were filled with vowels according
to one's skill and the apparent requirements of the context and
oral legends" ([16], p. 155).
Imagine how exact the meaning of a word written in
consonants can be if, for example, CLN can mean clean, clan,
colon, and so forth.
According to T.Curtis, even for the priests, the content of
manuscripts remained extremely doubtful and could be understood
only by means of the authority of the legend ([16], p. 155).
It is assumed that this serious short-coming of the Jewish
Bible had been eliminated not earlier that the 7th or 8th century
A.D., when the Massoretes revised the Bible and added signs
replacing the vowels; but they had no manuals, except their own
reason, and a very imperfect legendary tradition ([16], p.
156-157).
Well-known expert S.Driver adds that, since the times of the
Massoretes in the 7th-8th century A.D., the Jews have taken to
keeping their sacred books with extraordinary care, but then it
was too late to repair the damage already done. The result of
such attentiveness was just the immortalization of the
distortions, which were then placed on exactly the same level of
authority with the original text ([16], p.157).
J.Sunderland: "The opinion reigning earlier was that the
vowels had been introduced into the Jewish text by Ezra in the
5th century A.D. But in the 16th and 17th century, E.Levita and
J.Capellus in France refuted this opinion and proved that th
vowels had been introduced only by the Massoretes. The discovery
created a sensation in the whole of Protestant Europe. Many
people believed that the new theory would lead to disproving the
religion completely. If the vowels were not a matter of Divine
Revelation, but only a human invention, besides, a much later
one, then how could we rely on the text of the Scripture? This
discussion was one of the hottest in the history of the new
biblical criticism and proceeded for more than a century,
stopping only when the validity of the new point of view was
acknowledged by everyone" ([16], p. 157-158).
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events.
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical
localizations.
Even if the vowels of common words are not that important
(you can easily reconstruct a well-known word from the context),
the situation changes completely when combination of consonants
meaning a city, country, the name of a king, etc., appears in an
ancient text. Tens and hundreds of different variants of vowels
for one term (word) may be found, stating the "identifications"
of the biblical vowel-free names of cities, countries, and
others, made by traditional historians proceeding from the
chronological (and geographical) version of J.Scaliger and the
localization referring the biblical events to the Near East.
As the archaeologist M.Burrows notes, the archaeological job
generally leads to the undoubtedly strongest creed in the
reliability of biblical information (cit.from [18], p. 16).
F.Kenyon of the British Museum insists as much categorically
on archaeology refuting the "destructive skepticism of the
second half of the 19th century" [18].
But here is unexpected information reported by the
well-known archaeologist G.Wright, who, by the way, is a staunch
partisan of the correctness of orthodox localization and of
traditional dating biblical events. He wrote,
"A great many findings do not prove or disprove anything;
they fill the background and only serve as historical artifacts.
Unfortunately, the desire "to prove" the Bible permeates many
works available to the average reader. Historical evidences may
be used in an incorrect manner, whereas the conclusions dawn are
often erroneous and only half correct" ([18], p. 17).
If we attentively examine the fundamental facts about the
Bible discovered by N.A.Morozov [19], then we shall see that none
of the books of the Old Testament contain any solid
archaeological confirmation of their traditional geographical and
time localization. As I.A.Kryvelev noted, the whole
"Mesopotamian" biblical theory will be questioned.
The traditional localization of the events described in the
New Testament is no better.
I.A.Kryvelev many years studied the biblical geography and
chronology. He wrote,
"The reader interested in biblical archaeology may be
bewildered by the hundreds of pages speaking of excavations,
landscapes, or artifacts, historical and biblical background.
And, in the conclusion, when it comes to the results of the whole
job, there are only a number of indistinct and imprecise
statements about the problem not having been completely solved,
but that there is still hope for the future, and so forth. We may
be absolutely sure that none of the stories of the New Testament
contains any somewhat convincing archaeological confirmation (in
terms of the traditional localizations - Authors). This is
perfectly true, in particular, if applied to the figure and
biography of Jesus Christ. Not a single spot traditionally
regarded as the arena of a particular event occurring in the New
Testament can be indicated with the slightest degree of
confidence" ([18], p. 200-201).
The natural question arises: where the events of Old and New
Testaments were geographically located in reality?
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
In reality, considerable difficulties accompany the attempts
of geographical localization of many of the ancient events and
cities (not only from the Bible).
For example, one of the accepted today traditional
localizations of the famous city of Troy is near the Hellespont
(= the sea of Helen). It is for this particular reason that
Schliemann ascribed the famous name of Troy (described by Homer)
to the rests of a small ancient village he excavated near the
Hellespont. It is well known that today we have not any proofs of
this "identification".
It is assumed today, that according to traditional
chronology, Troy was completely destroyed in the 12-13th century
B.C. and after this was never reconstructed [17]. But, it turns
out, that in the Middle Ages, Italian city Troy, which still
exists today [1],[24], enjoyed widespread fame. This is
celebrated medieval city which played an important role in many
medieval wars; especially, in the well-known war of the 13th
century.
Many Byzantine historians also speak of Homer's Troy as of
an existing medieval city, namely, Choniates Nicetas and Gregoras
Nicephoras ([20], v. 6, p. 126).
T.Livy indicates the spot named Troy and the Trojan region
in Italy (Book.1). Certain medieval historians identified Troy
with Jerusalem (see, for example, [21],p.88,235,162,207), which
embarrasses the modern commentators:
"The book of Homer somewhat suddenly turned (in the medieval
chronicle, while describing Alexander's expedition to Troy -
Authors)... into the book on the destruction of Jerusalem" ([21],
p. 162). Let us recall that the second (well-known) name of Troy
is Ilion, whereas the second name of Jerusalem is Aelia
Capitolina ([19], v. 7). It is absolutely clear that in the names
of these cities there is a similarity:
Aelia = Ilion.
The books [1] and [2] contains the data and arguments which
allow to assume that Homer's Troy is the Constantinople (= New
Rome), and that the Trojan War is the reflection of crusades
which started from 11th c.A.D. The Constantinople was captured
during crusades. Besides this, some part of the legend on Trojan
War is the reflection of a real medieval war from the middle of
13th c.A.D. in Italy. The Italian city Troy was involved in this
war (see [1]).
The identification of the Great Troy with Constantinople
follows also from the texts of crusades epoch. The chronicler
Rober de Clari told that the Great Troy was located near the
entrance into the "branchium Sancti Georgii" ([25],p.210). It is
supposed today that this is the Dardanelles. From the other hand
it is also known that another famous chronicler of the 4th
crusade - Villehardouin - calls as "branchium Sancti Georgii" not
only the Dardanelles but also the Bosporus! M.A.Zaborov (modern
historian) notes: "Villehardouin applies the name "branchium
Sancti Georgii" to the Dardanelles and to the Bosporus"
([25],p.238).
Thus, the Great Troy can located also near the entrance
into the Bosporus. But here we see the Constantinople!
Consequently, it was completely unnecessary to search the
"rests" of the Troy on a desert hills as Schliemann done. Our
conjecture: the Trojan War is the reflection of the one or
several crusades on the Constantinople or on Italian Troy.
The well-known medieval "Novel on the Troy" of Benoit de
Sainte-Maure ("Roman de Troie") was finished allegedly between
1155 and 1160 A.D. "The source of this novel is the "History of
Troy destruction" written by some Dares, who was allegedly the
eyewitness of Trojan War (possibly, he was one of the crusaders -
Auth.). Benoit looks in the antiquity through the prism of his
epoch and his reality... In his basis is the ancient Greek epos,
but its personages and heroes are transformed into noble knights
and beautiful ladies, and the Trojan War itself is transformed
into the sequence of knight's duels... Ancient Medea is
represented in his chronicle as courtier lady, whose clothing is
exactly the same as the clothing of the lady of her social level
in medieval France of the middle of 12th century"([10],p.235).
We suggest to read the old chronicles "in direct way",
without some special complex interpretations; we need to read
"what is written" and not "what should be written". In this case
we are forced to agree that Benoit de Sainte-Maure describes the
Trojan War as the event from medieval epoch.
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
Let us return to the Bible.
Many strange phenomena occur in an unprejudiced analysis of
biblical geography (see detailed Morozov's analysis in [19]).
That many biblical texts describe volcanic activity has been
stressed in history long ago. Let us take the Bible.
The Lord said to Moses, "I am now coming to you in a thick
cloud... But when the ram's horn sounds (when the cloud leaves
Mount Sinai - Authors), they may go up the mountain'... there
were peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, a dense cloud on
the mountain and a loud trumpet blast... Mount Sinai was all
smoking because the Lord had come down upon it in fire; the smoke
went up like the smoke of a kiln... and the sound of the trumpet
grew ever louder" (Ex. 19:9, 13, 16, 18).
And then:
All the people saw how it thundered and the lightning
flashed, when they heard the trumpet sound and saw the mountain
smoking..." (Ex.20:18).
"You stood... at Horeb... THe mountain was ablaze with fire
to the very skies: there was darkness, cloud, and thick mist.
And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire " (Dt.
4:10-12).
The destruction of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah has
long been regarded in history to have been due to a volcanic
eruption. For example:
"And then the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the
skies on Sodom and Gomorrah... He saw thick smoke rising high
from the earth like the smoke of a like-kiln" (Gn.19:24,28).
And so on.
The complete list of all apparent volcanic eruptions
mentioned in the Bible was compiled by V.P.Fomenko and
T.G.Fomenko (see [1],[24]).
To associate (as is done traditionally) all these
descriptions with Mn. Sinai = Mn. Horeb (and Jerusalem in
traditional Palestine) seems doubtful; it is generally known that
it has never been a volcano.
Where did the events occur then?
It suffices to study the geological map of the Mediterranean
area to obtain immediately the unique answer. There are no acting
volcanoes in the Sinai peninsula, Syria, or Palestine; there are
only zones of tertiary and quaternary volcanism, as, for example,
near Paris. In the above-mentioned regions, where the biblical
events are traditionally located, no volcanic activity has been
discovered in historical epoch since the birth of Christ.
Besides, Egypt and North Africa have no volcanoes.
The only powerful, and by the way, acting volcanic zone, is
Italy together with Sicily.
Thus, according to the Bible, we have to find
1) a powerful volcano active in the historical era;
2) a destroyed capital (see the book of the Prophet
Jeremiah) near the volcano;
3) two other cities destroyed by the volcano, namely, Sodom
and Gomorrah.
There exists such a volcano in the Mediterranean, and it is
unique, namely the famous Vesuvius, one of the most powerful
volcanoes in history.
Famed Pompeii (biblical "capital"?) and two destroyed cities
Stabiae (Sodom?) and Herculaneum (Gomorrah?) are located nearby.
We cannot but mention a certain similarity in the names of these
Italian and biblical towns. It is possible that the name of Sinai
for Vesuvius originates from the Latin Sino (sinus), and biblical
Horeb from the Latin horribilis (horrible).
The following analytic study worth mentioning, which permits
to read the vowel-free text of the Bible, was performed by
Morozov in [19]. It took into account placing Mt.Sinai=Horeb=Sion
in Italy.
We illustrate by several examples.
The Bible speaks:
"The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and said, "You have
stayed on this mountain long enough; go now, make for all
KNN (Canaan)..." (Dt.1:6-7).
The theologians supply the Hebrew KNN with vowels Canaan and
place it in the desert on the Dead Sea coast, but another
solution is also possible, namely, KNN = GENUA (Italian Genoa).
The Bible continues:
"All KNN (Canaan) and the LBN (Lebanon)..." (Dt. 1:7).
The theologians restore the Hebrew LBN with vowels as
Lebanon; however lebanon means "white", i.e., the same as Mont
Blanc, or White Mountain. Famous mountain in Europe.
"As far as the great river, the PRT" (Dt. 1:7).
The theologians restore PRT with vowels and decipher is as
Euphrates; but, there is the large tributary of the Danube, the
Prut, located in central Europe, as beyond Mont Blanc.
"Then we set out from Horeb... and marched through that vast
and terrible wilderness" (Dt. 1:19).
In fact, the famous Phlegraei, vast and burnt-out spaces
filled with small volcanoes, fumaroles, and solidified lava
streams are located near Vesuvius=Horeb.
"And so we came to KDS-BRN" (Dt. 1:19).
KDS-BRN is traditionally supplied with vowels as
Kadesh-Barnea, which is, from the other hand, possibly, a town on
the Rhone ([19], v. 2, p. 166). It is also possible that modern
Geneva was meant as "town on the Rhone".
"And we spent many days marching round the hill-country of
Seir" (Dt. 2:1).
Mount Seir was left here without translation; however, if it
is translated, we obtain Devil's Mountain(s). And there is such a
mountain near Lake Geneva, namely Le Diableret ("Devil's
Mountain").
Then, the "Children of Lot" (Dt. 2:9) met on the way can be
evidently identified with the Latins ( = LT).
"And cross the gorge of the Arnon" (Dt. 2:24).
In the canonical translation we see Arnon (RNN). But,this is
the Italian river Arno existing up to now!
"Next we... advances... to Bashan" (Dt. 3:1).
The town Bashan (Bassan) is often mentioned in the Bible. It
is surprising that town Bassano still exists in Lombardy.
"King of Bashan... came out against us at Edrei" (Dt.3:1).
Adria is still here, on the Po delta; the Po, by the way,
has often been mentioned by ancient Latin authors (e.g.,
Procopius) and called the Jordan (in Procopius' Eridanus), which
is very consistent with the biblical spelling of the Jordan,
namely hay-yarden (JRDN) ([19], v. 2, p. 167).
"And we captured all his cities... sixty cities..."(Dt.
3:3-4).
Indeed, in the Middle Ages, there were many big cities in
the region: Verona, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and others.
"From the gorge of the Arnon to Mount Hermon (HRMN)" (Dt.
3:8).
But it is obvious that MNT HRMN can be supplied with vowels
to be translated as the "German mountains".
"Only the Og king of Bashan remained... His sarcophagus of
iron may still be seen in the... city of Rabbah" (Dt. 3:11).
Here is mentioned not only Ravenna (=Rabbah), but also the
famous tomb of Theodoric (493-526 A.D.) of the Ostrogoths (Og =
Goths?). It is clear that biblical OG means possible GOTH.
There follows TBRN (Taberiah in traditional biblical
translation), which is naturally identified with the Tiber in
Italy; ZN is Siena, southeast of Livorno. The slopes of Monte
Viso are called Jebus (Jgs. 19:10-11) in the Bible, and Rome is
called Ramah (Jgs. 19:14).
And so on.
As we see, the shift of some biblical events from "the deep
antiquity" in the medieval epoch does not contradict with the
ancient text of the Bible (without vowels). Thus, now we can
continue our analysis of English history.
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands?
The fact that modern England is located on the island, does
not surprise us. But Russia!? There are no geographical reasons
to think that Russia is the island! But nevertheless, for example
the well-known chronicler Benoit de Sainte-Maure in his
"Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy" [22] speaks, that
There exists an ISLAND called Cansie (or Canzie), and I
think that this is Rosie (in another copy of the manuscript -
Russie - Auth.), which is surrounded by the great salty sea. And
they (the people of Russie - Auth.) fly out as great swarm of
bees, and their number is thousands; and they... can attack the
great kingdoms and take the great procurement and they can
win and conquer.
Here the original text:
"Une isle i a par non Cancie (Canzie in manuscript B - see
[10],p.240), e si crei bien que c'est Rosie (Russie in manuscript
B, see [10],p.240), qui est de la grant mer salee de totes parz
avironnee. Dunc autresi com les euetes de lor diverses
maisonnetes gitent essains granz e pleners, ou moct a nombres e
millers, ou com de ceus qui sunt irie' sunt en estor glaive
sachie', tost e isnel d'ire esbrasez, trestot eissi e plus assez
seuct icil poples fors eissir por les granz rennes envair e por
faire les granz ocises, les granz gaaiz e les conquises."
Russia is called here Rosie or Russie. If we look in the
table of medieval names, titles and their duplicates (see above),
we will see that here the chronicler really speaks about Russia.
V.I.Matuzova (who included this text in her book "English
Medieval Texts") comments this fragment as follows:
"Rosie is Russia. The report that Russia is an ISLAND is
similar to another such reports..."([10],p.244). And then
Matuzova quotes another medieval authors who were confident that
Russia is an ISLAND (in particular, some Arabian and Persian
chroniclers; but, by the way, it is not so clear - where they
lived in reality, may be in Spain?).
It is supposed sometimes today that Cancie is Scandinavia.
But Scandinavia also is not an island! By the way, the "Chronicle
of Monastery of Saint Edmund" (13th c. A.D.) is also convinced
that Russia is located on an island, because reports that Tartars
rushed on Hungary FROM ISLANDS ([30], and also [10],p.100-101).
How we can explain it? The simplest way - to accuse the
authors of 12th century that they were completely ignorant (this
is the standard explanation in modern historical textbooks and
this idea allows to the modern historians simply to "close the
problem").
But another explanation is also possible.
English word island means today the piece of land surrounded
by a sea. But may be in the medieval epoch this word had also
another meaning? Our conjecture: it was Asia-Land, i.e., the Land
located in Asia. Without vowels we have:
asialand = SLND, and island = SLND.
This is the same word!
Then all things immediately fit in their "correct places".
Russia really can be considered (from the Western point of view)
as far Asian Land = island. Large part of Russia belongs to the
Asia. Consequently, medieval chroniclers were quite right when we
talked about Island Russia. They were not so ignorant as it is
supposed today.
Let us repeat once more our conjecture: the word island had
two meanings in the past: piece of land surrounded by a sea, and
Asia-Land.
But in this case the natural question arises (as the flash).
If the ancient English authors speaking about island Russia,
assumed that they speak about Asia-Land Russia, then we do not
see any obstacles to assume that when they told bout island
Anglia, they also speak about Asia-Land Anglia. And only after
this, in a new epoch, the word island Anglia become to be
considered only as island Anglia in a modern sense (piece of land
surrounded by sea).
We saw the remarkable parallel between English history and
Byzantine history. But Byzantine Empire really was Asia-Land for
Western chroniclers. And only in the next epoch (when Byzantine
chronicles were transported in England and were inserted into
English history) the Asia-Land Anglia was transformed into Island
Anglia.
Thus, were was located the land Anglia-Britain in 10-12th
cc. A.D.? This is complicated question. To get the answer we have
unique way - to take the old English chronicles. Our answer will
be as follows:
Anglia-Britain of 10-12th cc.A.D. was Byzantine Empire.
5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
On the face of it, the answer on this absurd question is
completely evident: on the same place where England-Britain is
located today. But let us not to hurry.
Let us recall after "accidental murder of his father",
Brutus was expelled from Italy. He went to the Greece ([9],p.7).
Here Brutus fixed the ancient relationship and he was staying
among Trojans ([9],p.7). The period of wars in Greece started at
this time. These wars are described by Galfridus in many details.
Then Brutus organized the army and fleet and after this started
the campaign-cruise. It is supposed today that his fleet went in
Atlantic ocean and then arrived in modern England. Is it true?
May be the chronicles describe in reality the military operations
inside Mediterranean sea and on the territory of Greece and
Byzantine Empire?
For example, Brutus' army arrived in Sparatin. Modern
commentary: "Location is unknown" ([9],p.230). Of course, you
cannot find Sparatin if you assume that Brutus travel far from
Mediterranean sea. But if these events occurred in Greece, then
you do not need to search Sparatin, because this is well-known
Sparta.
Then Galfridus describes the path of Brutus' fleet which is
considered today as a "proof" that Brutus really went in Atlantic
and then arrived in modern England. But we see suddenly from
modern comments that it turns out that Galfridus "repeat the
mistake containing in his source - namely, in "Historia
Brittonum" of Nennius, who made the mistake because of erroneous
reading of Orosius' chronicle..."([9],p.231). Moreover, then it
turns out that "following to Nennius, Galfridus ERRONEOUSLY
placed Tyrrhenian Sea BEHIND Gibraltar. We recall that Tyrrhenian
Sea is BEFORE Gibraltar because is a part of Mediterranean Sea
near Western coast of Italy" ([9],p.231).
But we are sure that here - no mistake! Galfridus was right
because he describes in reality some complicated military
movements INSIDE Mediterranean Sea, in particular, near Italy,
where you can see Tyrrhenian Sea. Brutus' fleet did not pass in
the Atlantic Ocean! Modern historians try to accuse Galfridus
(and other chroniclers) in some "mistakes" only because
historians try to adjust their modern "traditional" chronological
and geographical concepts with real evidences of real medieval
texts. Of course, a lot of contradictions appear. All these
contradictions are considered today as "the fault of medieval
authors".
Then Galfridus describes the battle between Brutus' army and
Greeks on the Akalon (Acalon) river ([9],p.8). The modern
commentary is as follows: "This name is, possibly, the fantasy of
Galfridus... E.Pharal is his book formulated the idea that this
description of Greek's defeat during the battle with Trojans near
Acalon river, was taken by Galfridus from the story of Etien de
Blua about the defeat of TURKS during the battle with CRUSADERS
near "Moscolo" river at March 1098 A.D." ([9],p.230).
Consequently, here we can penetrate through the thick cover
of traditional plaster into the real contents of the Galfridus
chronicle. He describes in reality (following to some old
documents) the epoch of the First Crusade in the end of 11th
c.A.D. in Byzantine Empire.
Thus, we can assume that Brutus' campaign = Julius Caesar's
campaign is the reflection of well-known crusade in the end of
11th c.A.D. The conquest of Britain is shifted from the 1st
c.B.C. into the 11th c.A.D. (about 1000-year shift !). This fact
confirms the discovered parallel ("identification") between
Roman-Byzantine history of 10-15th cc.A.D. and old English
history starting, allegedly, in 1st c.B.C. See above.
After some time they (Brutus' fleet) arrived to "the island
which was called Albion" ([9],p.17). Modern commentary: Albion =
Al'bania - one of the early (old) names of Britain or the part of
it, which was appeared in ancient sources" ([9],p.232).
When speaking about Britain, Galfridus very often uses its
second equivalent name: Al'bania ([9],p.19).
Thus, Britain = Al'bania.
Let us refuse now to follow the traditional historical
version which identifies persistently the Anglia of 10-12th cc.
A.D. with the modern island. Then we immediately recognize the
modern name Albania (located on the territory of medieval
Byzantine Empire) in this Galfridus' term Al'bania.
Thus, Galfridus places the medieval Britain on the territory
of medieval Byzantine Empire.
The name Albania or Al'bania was slightly transformed into
Albion later (occasionally or, possible, deliberately), when
somebody decided to erase the evident traces of Byzantine origin
of the old English chronicles.
5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
After landing on the coast of Albania (later Albion),
"Brutus named the island Britain using his own name, and named
his fellows Britts" ([9],p.17). By the way, transformation of the
Asia-Land Albania into island Albion (as a piece of land
surrounded by sea) can be supported and partially explained
because of the reason that Brutus arrived into Albania with his
fleet, i.e., after sea expedition. And in some texts the landing
on the coast of Byzantine Empire was transformed into the landing
on the coast of some island.
With whom meets Brutus after landing?
With giants. We think that here chronicle means different
great nations which lived in Byzantine Empire and possibly formed
some individual dependent or independent states.
"Among these giants was one especially disgusting,
abominable, who was called Goemagog" ([9],p.17-18). This "giant"
was (according to Galfridus) extremely powerful and terrible.
Brutus' army meets in battle with 12 giants (among them -
Goemagog). Initially, Britts were defeated. But then they "won
and killed all the giants except of Goemagog" ([9],p.18). The
battle with Goemagog continues and in the end Britts won.
Let us stop for a moment and think a little. What tells us
Galfridus in his poetic chronicle (of course, he was based on
some old real documents).
1) About the victory of Britts. In other words, as we think,
- about the victory of crusaders who conquered Byzantine Empire.
2) About one of the most dangerous their enemies - some
Goemagog.
The modern commentary:
"Galfridus combined in one name two ones: Gog and Magog"
([9],p.232). The modern historian, the commentator of Galfridus
chronicle, noted that the nations Gog and Magog are frequently
mentioned in the Bible (in Revelation, in Ezekiel). For example,
in the biblical book Ezekiel we can see the following text about
these terrible and powerful nations:
"Set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief
prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal...Gog shall come against the
land of Israel..." (Ezekiel, 38:2-3,18). According to the Bible,
death and destruction carry these nations.
Remark. In some English publications of the Bible the word
"Rosh" is omitted! Why?
About the hordes of Gog and Magog with fear speaks the
biblical book of Revelation: "Satan shall be loosed out of his
prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations... Gog and Magog,
to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the
sand of the sea" (Revelation, 20:7-8).
The modern historian tells us: "Late the people fantasy
transformed Gog and Magog into spiteful, malicious giants. In
London starting from the Middle Ages there are two monuments -
the figures of Gog and Magog (near entrance to the City, today
near town hall" ([9],p.232).
These two medieval nations are well-known and are identified
according to some medieval chroniclers with Goths and Mongols. In
13th c.A.D. Hungarians considered Gog and Magog as Tartars
([9],p.174). All these facts forced us to move the events
described by Galfridus into Byzantine Empire (or in neighboring
countries).
From the other hand it is impossible do not mention about
the following important remark.
The Moscow kingdom, according to the old Russian legend,
which can be found in Russian textbooks until 19th century, "was
founded by biblical patriarch Mosoh". This legend explains why
Moscow is called in Greek as Mosha (Moska). When the Moscow
kingdom was founded? The reader gives the answer immediately: the
first note in chronicles about Moscow is dated by 1147 A.D.
Because the Bible speaks about Gog, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal, N.A.Morozov formulated an interesting
question:
"Is it true that the Russian MUZHIK (man, fellow) =
Rosh-Meshech was reflected in this famous biblical fragment, as
the founder of Russia-Muzhikovii ? Then, after the filtration of
the sound ZH through the Greek language, where this sound is
transformed into S, this word was returned again into Russia as
"Russia-Moscow".' ([19],vol.2,p.579).
Morozov wrote: "Any kind of interpretation for these
fragment from the Bible leads you to the historical epoch of
Mongolian period in Russian history, i.e., to the epoch starting
from 1227, when Mongol Batu (Batyi) becomes the ruler (king) of
Moscow. When we agree with this point of view, then all things
become very natural..." ([19],vol.2,p.615).
We realize that for the reader who is not acquainted with
the history of chronological problems and with the books of
Morozov [19], Fomenko [1],[24] and Fomenko, Kalashnikov,
Nosovskij [3], some of our ideas sound sometimes strange.
Nevertheless, from the other hand, as can see the reader, all
these ideas are produces by the formal logical analysis of the
old English chronicles.
Thus, if we return to the Galfridus chronicle, we are forced
to formulate the corollary: during the landing on the coast of
Byzantine Empire in 11th c.A.D. the Brutus' army meets with
several large nations, and among them are Goths, Mongols and
Russians. It is quite natural for 11th c.A.D. because of an
important role which play these nations at this time in medieval
Europe and Asia.
5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering
of Britain = Albania?
Let us remind that the Brutus' epoch is simultaneously the
Julius Caesar's epoch. If so, the military operations of Brutus
should be reflected in the texts speaking about the same
operations but from the Caesar's camp.
Galfridus, when finishing the Brutus' story, and passing
several centuries along time-axis, comes finally to Caesar's
epoch. Then he started to repeat the same "Brutus' story", but,
of course, from different point of view.
Galfridus: "As it was mentioned in Roman history, Julius
Caesar (after victory in Gallia) appeared on the coast of
Rutheni. Looking from there on the island Britain, he asked his
fellows, - what about this country and which nation lives here"
([9],p.37).
It is quite clear to the trained reader that, according to
the opinion of modern historians, Galfridus again demonstrates
here his medieval ignorance. The modern commentary to this
fragment of Galfridus' text is as follows: "Rutheni are the Gall
nation lived in Aquitaine (southern-western Gallia). It is
impossible "to view" Britain from there, and consequently,
Rutheni appeared in Galfridus text erroneously" ([9],p.238).
Who are Rutheni? The reader can take again the dictionary of
medieval names and their duplicates (see Matuzova [10]) and he
will obtain the answer immediately:
Rutheni are Russians.
Really:
ANCIENT RUSSIAN STATE: RISSIANS:
Susie, Russii,
Russie, Dogi (!),
Ruissie, Rugi (!),
Rusia, RUTHENI (!),
Russia, Rusceni.
RUTHENIA,
RUTENEA,
Ruthia,
RUTHENA,
Ruscia,
Russcia,
Russya,
Rosie.
It is well-known that Russian army several times took part
in the military operations on Byzantine territory, in particular,
they attacked the Constantinople. Thus, in the Middle Ages
Russian forces really occupied some Byzantine regions. And it was
quite possible "to view" the Albania = Britain = Byzantine Empire
from there.
Thus, our conjecture is as follows.
Rutheni mentioned in old English chronicles during the
Julius Caesar's conquest of Albania = Britain - are the Russians
of 10-12th cc.A.D.
Later these Rutheni were shifted along the geographical map
in Western direction, when the old English chronicles were taken
from Byzantine Empire into modern island England. As a result of
such artificial displacement (shift) the name Rutheni appeared on
the map of Gallia (in France). Consequently, real Rutheni were
"doubled, duplicated". Then the initial, original location of
real Rutheni was forgotten among the English chroniclers.
Let us note the important idea.
When the Byzantine chronicles were transported from the East
to the West (and were inserted in the history of modern island
Britain), this shift also generated the "geographical shift" of
many names and titles which were initially located in Byzantine
Empire and around it. Rutheni (= Russians) are only one of these
examples. We will demonstrate below some another examples.
Let us return to Julius Caesar in Galfridus' description.
The fleet of Caesar invades into Albania = Britain. Here he
starts the battle with Britts ([9],p.38), then defeats them and
conquest the country. Let us stop for a moment and ask the
question: who are Britts in 10-12th cc.A.D.? Traditional
explanation is as follows: Britts are the descendants of Brutus.
This "explanation" explains nothing. Basing on our experience, we
can suspect that "Britts" of 10-12th cc.A.D. is some real nation
of Middle Ages living in some part of Byzantine Empire. We do not
need to search too long. The answer is on the surface.
An important part of Roman-Byzantine Empire is Romania =
Rumania, and also Bulgaria. Here you can see the well-known river
Danube with large afflux Prut = PRT (without vowels) or = BRT. In
the epoch of crusades the Byzantine Empire was the collection of
several feudal states. One of the important nations, which were
represented here (as crusaders), were Germans and Prussians. Let
us put the question: which name was used by medieval English
chroniclers for Prussians? The immediate answer is given by the
same dictionary by Matuzova [10]:
PRUSSIA:
Prurenia (!),
(P-Rutenia = P-Russia),
PRUSSI (Prussians):
Prateni,
Pruteni,
Pructeni,
Prusceni,
Praceni,
Pruceni.
Thus, the medieval sources call the Prussians as Pruteni =
PRTN. It is possible that here we see the medieval BRT = Britts =
Brits, described by Galfridus. Thus, it is possible that Julius
Caesar was at war with medieval Prussians = Pruteni. In
particular, Britain = BRTN (in 10-12th cc.A.D.) coincides with
RRTN = Pruneti = Prussia ! Thus, one of the large regions in
Byzantine Empire, namely, - occupied by Prussians = Pruteni, -
gave the name for Britain = Prutenia.
But another answer is also possible.
According to the Abglo-Saxon Chronicle, the British language
is the language Welsh ([2],p.3). But Welsh is evidently Vlachi =
Blachi and, according to the Matuzova's dictionary, denotes the
Thurki = Turci = Turks. If so, in some cases the Britts can be
identified with Turks (at least in some medieval chronicles). But
this identification again leads us to the Byzantine Empire as the
location of early English history.
We hope that we gave the reasonable answer of the natural
question:
With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering
of Britain = Albania?
5.10. Where was London located in 10-11th cc. A.D.?
Trained reader waits with answer because suspects (and it is
reasonable) that correct answer can be completely unexpected.
And we continue to read the old English chronicles which
give us the correct answers on the all such questions. But we
need to read "what is written" and not "what should be written".
The second formula is sometimes the point of view of modern
historical Scaliger's tradition which is in the basis of a modern
textbook on ancient history.
Galfridus:
"When finishing with the division of the kingdom, Brutus
decided to built a new town-capital... He founded the town and
called it NEW TROY (! - Auth.). The town preserved this name
during many years and then, because of distortion the initial
title, the name was transformed into TRINOVANT. After this,
Lud... who fighted with Julius Caesar,... ordered to call the
town CAERLUD which means "Town of Lud" (the word Caer = Cair
means simply "town", see details below - Auth.). It was the cause
of a great conflict between Lud and his brother Nennius, because
Nennius was not agree with Lud who wanted to forget the
initial name TROY" ([9],p.18).
And then: "The title was distorted and was transformed into
Caerludein, then into Lundene and finally, into Lundres"
([9],p.37).
The modern commentary: "Trinovant is today the city London"
([9],p.232).
Thus, the old English chronicles states that:
New Troy =
Trinovant =
Lud =
Lundene =
London.
Here we recall that according to the analysis in [1],[24],
the NEW TROY of 10-11th cc.A.D. is New Rome = Constantinople. As
we have mentioned above, the most known historical version states
that "the Troy of Homer" is "somewhere near" the Constantinople =
Istanbul. Schliemann wrongly spent a lot of his time for
senseless "excavations of the Troy" (he discovered not the Troy).
It was sufficient simply to point out on the Constantinople =
future Istanbul.
This idea is in a nice correspondence with all previous
results which give the Byzantine location for initial old events
of English history.
Thus, Galfridus possibly tells us about the 1st crusade of
1099 A.D. As the result of crusade, the new capital was founded -
NEW TROY = future Constantinople.
Let us attract the attention of the reader to the following
remarkable fact. There exists a well-known town TYRNOVO in
Bulgaria. But this name is similar to the name TRINOVANT and
means simply TROY NEW, i.e., TROY NEW = TyrNovo. It becomes clear
that the name Trinovant was initially appeared in Byzantine
Empire, on the Balkan Peninsula, in the Slavonic region and its
initial meaning was NEW TROY. In English the word new means the
same as Slavonic nova or new. Thus, one the initial names of
LONDON was TROY NEW (its trace is Tyrnovo in Bulgaria). It is
interesting that Galfridus states the same, when he tells us
about transformation of the name NEW TROY into TRINOVANT. In
reality, this is not a transformation, but simply the
transposition of two words: Troy and New inside the joint title.
It is clear also, that "town Lud" means simply "town LD" or
"town LT", i.e. = "town of Latins" = "Latin town". The appearance
of the name LT in old English chronicles is quite natural: in the
epoch of crusades in 1204 A.D. the new LATIN EMPIRE was appeared
on the territory of Byzantine Empire. Latin Empire gave its name
to the capital: LATIN TOWN, i.e. Caer-Lud (Cair-Lud). Nennius
tells us that word "Cair" means in old Britts' language "Town"
([8],p.190).
Identification of New Troy = London with Constantinople
follows also from the following fact. As we saw, New Troy was
called later Cair-Lud or Caer-Lud. But Caer or CR (without
vowels) sounds also, for example in Slav languages, as ZR because
of often oscillation between C and Z. Thus, CR or ZR is evidently
ZAR (czar = zar which means "king", "ruler"). Slavonic name for
Constantinople was ZAR-GRAD, which means "king-town". Thus,
CAER-LUD = ZAR-LUD,
i.e. "king-town of Latins" (Latin king town). This is exactly
Constantinople = ZAR-GRAD in Slav language.
Trained reader expects that the whole this story of
Galfridus (about origin of London's name) the modern historical
science claims as wrong and erroneous:
The Galfridus' information about the history and origin of
the name London (from the name of Lud) is wrong. The antique
authors (Tacitus, Ammian Marcellinus) call this town Londinium or
Lundinium. The real history of the name of London is disputable"
([9],p.237).
Thus, after the 1st crusade in 1099 A.D. some chronicles
called the New Rome as NEW TROY. Then, after the foundation in
1204 A.D. the Latin Empire the capital was called also (or was
renamed?) LATIN TOWN, i.e., Caer-Lud and finally, LONDON. This
name was then transported into island England when some of
Byzantine chronicles were moved in this direction (after the fall
of Constantinople in 1204 A.D. or 1453 A.D.).
Nennius listed in his chronicle "the names of all towns
which exist in Britain, and their number is 28" ([8],p.190). The
modern commentary: "Cair means Town in Britts' language"
([8],p.283). We can note here that the capital of Egypt is Cairo.
Consequently, we see again, that in Britts' language the clear
"Eastern trace" was remained. May be, this fact indicates the
Eastern origin of initial old English history.
Galfridus tells us that New Troy ( = London) was founded on
the Thames river ([9],p.18). We think that initially "Thames
river" was one of the name for the Bosporus, where Constantinople
is located. The Bosporus sound (strait) is really very long,
sufficiently thin, and was represented on the old geographical
maps as large river. Schliemann, by the way, decided to place
"his Troy" also in this region, namely - in the end of another
long and thin strait (sound) - the Dardanelles, which is close to
the Bosporus.
Today the name of the "London river" is Thames. But because
all these events are happened in the East, we need to remember
that here some people read the text in opposite direction:
from the right to the left (in Europe: from the left to the
right). The word SOUND (= strait) without vowels is SND and after
opposite reading is DNS. Because D and T were sometimes
equivalent, and the same is valid to M and N, we see that the
following conjecture (equivalence) is possible: DNS = TMS, i.e.
"sound" = "Thames".
From the other hand, Thames is practically identical with
Themis. But Themis is the name of well-known GREEK goddess of
justice.
5.11. Who were scots in 10-12 cc.A.D. and were did they live?
Where was Scotland located in 10-12 cc.A.D.?
Scotland = Scot + Land = the Land of Scots. Scots live in
Scotland - this is well-known fact.
But sufficiently less is known that in old English
chronicles the Scots sometimes are called Scithi, i.e., Scyths !
See, for example the manuscript F of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
([2],p.3, comment 4). Thus, one of possible answers on the
question in the title of present section is as follows:
Scots = Scyths.
In other words, Scotland = the Land of Scyths = Scithi-Land.
Scyths lived in Scythia, which is partially identified with
some regions in modern Russia. Old English chronicles call
Scythia also as Scithia, Sice, Sithia, Barbaria (see [10]). Are
there some "traces" of medieval name Scots (for Scyths) in modern
Russia? Yes! It is known that Scyths are considered partially as
the nation which cultivated the cattle. But before now the
Russian term for "cattle" is SCOT. Our conjecture: the Scots
mentioned in old English chronicles of 10-12th cc.A.D. are
Scyths = Scithi which lived near Byzantine Empire on the
territory (partially) of modern Russia.
It was in 10-12th cc.A.D. Then, after transport of Byzantine
chronicles into modern island Britain, the name of Scyths was
also automatically shifted in modern England. And today we see in
the modern England the Scyth-Land as Scot-Land.
And we see again that the old English chronicle tell us
about the real Byzantine history, because really Scyths of 10-12th
cc.A.D. lived near Byzantine Empire.
Nennius, in the section with title "About Scots when they
captured Hybernia", informs us:
"If somebody wants to know when... Hybernia was uninhabited,
desert, then the most informed among SCOTS told me the following.
When the people of Israel went from Egypt, the Egyptians who
haunted Israelits (according to the Bible), were sank in the Sea.
Among the Egyptians was one noble man from SCYTHIA (! - Auth.)
with many relatives and with many servants. He was expelled
(banished) from his native kingdom and we was in Egypt when
Egyptian army was sank in the Sea... Then the survived Egyptians
decided to expel him from the Egypt because they afraid that he
can captures their country and to establish his power in Egypt"
([8],p.174).
Then, as a result, these Scyths were expelled from Egypt,
and then their fleet conquered the Hybernia. This event is
considered (in Nennius' opinion) as conquest of Hybernia by Scots
([8],p.175). Thus, here we see that Nennius was sure that Scots
were descended from Scyths.
It is possible that here the name Hybernia was in reality
applied to the Hyberia = old name of modern Georgia (or, may be
to the medieval Spain). It is supposed today in historical
science that medieval Hybernia = Ireland.
As we expect (and this is really true), the modern
historical commentary to this fragment from Nennius' chronicle is
very angry:
"Which Scythia is mentioned here? Bede Venerable calls the
Scandinavia as Scythia. The version about "Scyths" origin of
Scots was appeared because of some similarity between words
"Scithia" and "Scottia" "([8],p.272). The commentator here passed
over in silence that sometimes "Scots" were written in old
English chronicles as "Scithi", i.e., "Scyths" and this fact is
well-known to the real experts in the ancient English history.
See [2]. By the way, the replacement of Scythia by Scandinavia
does not help, because (as we have demonstrated above), the old
English chronicles sometimes identified Cansie = Scandinavia and
Russia (Rossie) (see [10]): "Cansie (or Canzie), and I think that
this is Rosie (in another copy of the manuscript - Russie -
Auth.)" (see the discussion above).
If it was really true that in some medieval historical
period the Scithia was called as Scotland (in some historical
chronicles), then the great interest will obtain the following
fact. As we saw, the English chronicles called Russian king
(ruler) Jaroslav the Sage (Wise) as Malescold (Malescoldus)
([10],p.58). Thus, his whole title (if Scythia was Scotland)
should be Scottish (or Scoth) king Malescold (or Malcolm?). But
we know several medieval Scottish kings Malcolms in traditional
Scotland history. May be one of them is Russian king Jaroslav the
Sage who was "transported" into "island Scottish history" as a
result of chronological and geographical shift?
5.12. Five original languages of ancient Britain.
Which nations used these languages and where did they live in
10-12th cc.A.D.?
On the first page of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the following
important information is presented:
"Here in this island (i.e. in Britain - Auth.) are five
languages:
English,
British or Welsh,
Irish,
Pictish, and
Latin...
Picts came from the south from Scythia with warships, not
many, and landed at first in northern Ireland, and there asked
the Scots if they mights dwell there... And the Picts asked the
Scots for wives... A part of Scots went from Ireland into
Britain" ([2],p.3).
Is there any contradiction between these facts and our
identification of old English events with events of crusades
epoch of 10-12th cc. A.D. in Byzantine empire? No
contradiction! Moreover, here we see certain confirmation of our
conjecture.
1) Appearance of the name Anglia (English) in the old
English history is quite natural - this is the evident reflection
of well-known dynasty of Byzantine emperors: Angels = Angelus
(1185-1204).
2) The name Latin is the reflection of Latin Empire in
Constantinople (13th c. A.D.), and a little earlier - the
reflection of a group of Latins who came in Byzantine Empire
during crusades epoch. Then they settled here and founded several
feudal states.
3-a) The name British = BRT (and its duplicate=equivalent
Welsh, see [2]) also is presented in the medieval Byzantine
history. This is the name of Prussians=Pruteni = PRT (see above).
3-b) The English term Welsh is also well-known in medieval
Byzantine empire. It is sufficient to look in the table of
Matuzova [10] to get an immediate answer:
Vlach (or Blachi) = Welsh - this is Turci = Thurki = Turks.
Really:
Turks =
Coralli,
Thurki,
Turci,
Vlachi = Blachi, Ilac, Blac (!).
The name Vlachi=Blachi or Volochi is well-known in the
medieval Europe. Starting from 9th c. A.D., they lived on the
territory of modern Romania = Rumania ([11],p.352) and they
formed the state Valachia. It is remarkable that the another,
second name for Valachia was Zara Rumanska, i.e. the Kingdom of
Romania (or Rumania). The most serious influence (on the fate of
the whole region) Valachia had in 14th c.A.D.
The history of Valachia is closely connected with the
history of Turkey. The medieval Valachia several times was in a
heavy war with Turkey (with Osman Empire). In the end of 14th
century and in the beginning of 15th century the rulers of
Valachia became the vassals of Turkey ([11],p.356). Consequently,
the names of Valachia (Welsh) and Turkey are closely connected in
the whole medieval history of Byzantine Empire.
Moreover, the name Vlachi is well-known in the history of
Constantinople. One of the main residences of Byzantine emperors
was in Vlachern Palace ([25],p.226-229). This "Palace was the
favorite residence of Comnenus" ([15],p.137). Greeks called it
Vlacherni.
"Valachia (in the form Blakie) - is geographical name which
is often used by Robert de Clari (and also by Geoffrey de
Villehardouin) for the territory of Eastern Balkan" ([15],p.135).
This region was called by Byzantine authors as Great Vlachia. In
other words, the Great Vlachia is the part of the modern
Bulgaria.
Thus, the old English name Welsh points out on Balkan's
Valachia of 9-15 cc. A.D., or on the Turkey, or on the whole
Byzantine Empire.
4) The original (preimage) of Pictish (Picts, Pict = PCT) in
Byzantine Empire is quite clear. It is well-known that the
ancient name of Egypt was Copt (= CPT) or Gipt. Thus, we obtain
the immediate answer:
Picts - are Copts or Gipts (i.e., Egyptians).
By the way, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is quite right when
speaking that Picts came (in Britain - Auth.) from the country
which is in the South with respect to Scithia. Really, Egypt is
in the South with respect to the Scythia.
5) And finally, what about the language IRISH ? Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle states that some part of Scotts came from Ireland
([2],p.3). Besides this, at least in some historical epochs we
have:
"Down to the time of Alfred this term Scottas refers either
to the Scots of Ireland or of the Irish kingdom of Argyll"
([2],p.3, comm.5).
But this means that Ireland is the part of Scot-Land.
Because we have possible identification of Scots of 10-12th cc.
with Scyths, then we obtain the following conjecture:
language Irish is Russian (RSH = Russia),
because without vowels we have RSH - RSS, "irish" and "russian"
sound very closely. Consequently, in this historical epoch we
have:
Ireland = Ire + Land is the Russia.
We realize that this possible identification of Ireland (in
some historical epoch) with Russia (and consequently,
identification of Scotland with Scythia), can generate a certain
irritation and even indignation of some scientists. Nevertheless,
we are forced to repeat once more that all these conclusions
follow from the text of old English chronicles, when we read
them without the restrictions generated by traditional Scaliger's
chronology. By the way, may be not all readers know that the
legendary English (British) king Arthur (who is one of the most
famous rulers of ancient England and is placed traditionally
approximately in the 5th c.A.D.) was in direct contact with the
king of Russia ("and the king of Russia, the most severe of the
knights"). This is the report of Layamon (the beginning of 13th
century) - the author of the poem "Brut, or the Chronicle of
Britain" ([23], see also [10],pp.247-248). By the way, in the
time of the king Arthur the princess (or queen) of Russia was
kidnaped (see [23]).
When speaking about nations populated the old England,
Galfridus tells us ([9],p.6):
Normans,
Britts,
Saxs,
Picts,
Scots.
We spoke about Britts, Picts and Scots. Now - about Normans.
6) Normans play an important role in Byzantine Empire of
10-15 cc. They took part in crusades. However, it is possible,
that Normans are simply one more variant for the name Romans. If
so, they are Romans - Romei, the people who lived in Roman
(Byzantine) empire.
7) Now - about Saxs (Saxons). "Saxs (Saxons) - German nation
lived in northern Europe, mostly on the territory near North Sea.
In 5-6 centuries Britain was conquered by German tribes...
Galfridus usually calls he GERMAN INVADERS by generalized name
SAXS (SAXONS), but in some cases speaks about Angls (Angels)"
([9],pp.229-230). Let us compare with Byzantine history. It is
well-known that Germans took part in crusades. Consequently,
Saxons (Saxs) and Angls (Angels) were among the nations which
invaded into Byzantine empire in 10-12 centuries.
Thus, finally we see that the old English chronicles tell
here not about some small nations which, as supposed today, lived
many years ago on the modern island England, but about real great
nations, states and empires. These great medieval nations were
well-known in medieval Byzantine empire and Mediterranean region.
If so, the old English chronicles describe important events in
medieval world (crusades et cetera). (From traditional point of
view they speak about "local events" on isolated island).
And only later, after the artificial transport of some
Byzantine chronicles into modern island England, this remarkable
history of great events was artificially compressed, "decreased
in the size" and was transformed into "small" local history on
sufficiently "small area" - on the one island.
5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms
Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
10-12 centuries.?
The answer is given in the previous section.
All these states (and nations) are real states (and nations)
of medieval Europe in 10-12th cc. They took part in the conquest
of Byzantine empire and then they created several feudal
crusaders states.
1) Britain - is, most likely, Prussia = Prutenia or Turkey
(= Vlachia).
2) Kent is, according to J.Blaire [6], the Saxons region
= Saxonia. Let us recall that in 10-12th cc. on the German
territory there exists Saxons area = Saxonia.
3) Sussex = South Saxons.
4) Wessex = West Saxons.
5) Essex = East Saxons.
6) Mercia. Possible this is again Germany or some of its
part, because in the Middle Ages Germany was called Moesia and,
for example, town Marburg was called Merseburg, i.e. Merse + Burg
([10],p.263). It is also possible that chronicles mean Turkey
when speaking about Mercia (Mersia). See, for example, large town
Mersin in Turkey on the coast of Mediterranean sea.
Anyway, we see that all six old-English kingdoms of
10-12th cc. can be located in Europe around the Byzantine
Empire and all of then took part in its "feudal-state
organization" during crusades. And only later all these states
and nations were "transported" into island England, were
artificially "decreased in size" and were inserted in a modern
textbooks, where they are considered today as the initial English
kingdoms of 5-8th cc.A.D.
5.14. A shift of originally Byzantine map to the land of
modern Great Britain resulted in duplicating of
many geographical terms
Let us again return to an important book of Matuzova [10]
and let us analyze the information from old-English chronicles
collected in [10]. It turns out that on the modern geographical
map (which has its origin in medieval maps of 10-16th cc.) many
geographical names are DUPLICATED, i.e., are appeared TWICE: in
the West and in the East. There is an impression that somebody
took the original geographical map, then shifted it in eastern
direction (or, possible, in opposite - western direction) and
then overlapped the shifted map onto the initial map. As a
result, we see the "duplication" of many names. Now we will
demonstrate the short table which represents this duplication of
medieval geographical names.
Our explanation is very simple. Part of the names were
transported from the West to the East when crusaders invaded into
Byzantine empire. They founded here several new feudal states and
took with them their own prehistory and part of the old native
geographical names.
Another part of the names was shifted in back direction from
the East to the West later when the descendants of crusaders were
defeated by Turks in 15th century and returned from Byzantine
empire in the Europe (the fall of Byzantine empire). Taking with
them the survived documents, these people transported also some
geographical names. We need also to take into account the natural
psychological effect: when changing the place, people often feel
sad and surround themselves by "old names". For example, you can
see today on the modern map of America the names of many old
European town: Moscow et cetera.
Danes = Daci = Dani = Dacia = Denemearc ---- Daneis
(Danube)
Galatia ---- Galicia,
Galli, Gallia (in France) ---- Galich (in Russia),
Danube (in Europe) --- Danai, Thanais, Tanais (in Russia),
Ruhr area and mountains (in Germany) --- Riffeng (Rifei
= Ripheis) mountains = Urals mountains (in Russia),
Bulgarians in Bulgaria ---- Bulgarians on the Volga (in Russia),
Al'bania = Albion = Britain ---- Albania ---- Albania on the
coast of the Caspian Sea, then Albania as a province of Great
Asia, which is bounded by the Caspian Sea and spreads to the
North Ocean, then Albania = Alania (in the Caucasus).
Rome ---- New Rome = Constantinople,
Troy (in Italy) ---- Troy in Asia ---- New Troy (Constantinople),
Scots (= Scithi) in England --- Scyths in Russia and Byzantine
empire,
Hybernia = Ireland ---- Hybernia - Hyberia in Spain ---- Hyberia
= Georgia,
Ruthenia (Rutheni) in Aquitaine ---- P+Ruthenia (Prussia) ----
Rutheni as tribes in Celtic Gallia ---- Russia = Ruthenia ----
Ruteni (Rutheni) or Rutia - the province in Mesia (= Germany),
Gothia = Gotia = Germany ---- Scandinavia = Gothia = Gotia,
Goths and Dani ---- Scandinavians, then Gothia (Gotia) = island
Gotland ---- Gotia as territory in Tavrida=Taurus, Goths lived in
the Crimea,
Rome-Romania ---- Rumania-Romei ---- Armenia ---- Normans,
Hungaria ---- Great Hungaria ---- Minor Hungaria ---- Hunia (in
the East, Hunns) ---- Hungri = Great Bashkir,
Great Greece in southern Italy ---- Great Greece (modern
location),
Britain (= BRTN) ---- P+Ruthenia (Prussia) ---- PRT (Prut),
Germany = Maesia ---- Mesia in Asia Minor = Messina ---- Messina
in Sicily,
Genoa (in Italy) ---- Geneva.
We interrupt the list because the reader can easily continue
it, using geographical maps and modern commentaries to medieval
chronicles.
5.15. William I the Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066 A.D.
The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.
5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine
Empire have the same origin
Because luck of space, we have listed above only a few
"identification of events" between English and Byzantine history.
But it is impossible to finish the paper without mentioning one
more interesting parallel (identification):
the English war of William I the Conqueror (about 1066 A.D.
in traditional chronology) is the reflection of the 4th
Byzantine crusade (about 1204 A.D.).
We describe this parallel very briefly and hope that
statisticians and historians can continue this work.
As we saw above in the Fig.1 (representing the dynastic
parallel between English and Byzantine history), the epoch of 4th
crusade 1204 A.D. is statistically identified exactly with epoch
of William I.
5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story
Briefly speaking, the classical history of William (in
traditional version) is as follows (see, for example, [7],p.343).
His full name is :
duke William I of Normandy, the Bastard, Conqueror,
See ([2],p.197; or [7]).
Edward "The Confessor" died in 1066 A.D. without sons. One
of his dukes Harold II "Godwinson", king of Norway, king of
English; (see [2],p.196,197), was extremely powerful, took the
kingdom and nobody objected (all others were agreed to see
Harold as new king). But after some time appeared William the
Bastard, duke of Normandy and started to claim the throne.
William said that Edward fixed him as his successor (suggested
the throne). William addressed to Roman pope and succeeded in
attraction of the pope on his side. Then William sent ambassadors
in Germany and France asking for a help and support. As a result,
William collected "a great army consisting of adventurers who
came from France, Flandria, Bretan, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Apulia,
Sicily... They collected for the robbery of England" ([7],p.343).
William (Wilhelm) organized the large fleet for invasion into
England. It is interesting that in Baye there exists the large
ancient carpet (70 meters long and 50 centimeters wide) of 11th
century, representing the fleet of William Conqueror. This carpet
contains about 1255 images of different persons and objects.
While William waited the fair wind, the Norwegians landed in
the mouth of Humber river under leadership of Tostig (brother of
Harold). Harold went to the enemies and defeated Tostig near
York. But at the same day on a free coast the huge army of
Normans was landed (near Pevensey). In spite of his wounds,
Harold turned fast his army in back direction. He hurried to
started the battle without waiting the reinforcement. The violent
battle was happened near Hastings. Harold army was defeated and
he was killed. "This victory was one of the most important in the
history. The whole England was conquered by duke of Normandy
(William - Auth.) who was crowned in London" ([7],p.344).
The church anointment transformed William into real and
legitimate king. He begins the terror, many people were declared
as traitors, the landed property was confiscated. The reaction
was immediate - revolts. But William suppressed all riots with
extreme cruelty. His rule is considered today as very important
for English history, this is "turning point", many pages of
chronicles are devoted to William (see, for example, Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle). William starts the Norman dynasty (dynasty from
Normandy) in England. The dynasty lasts until 1154 A.D. and then
is replaced by new Anjou dynasty.
5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's
conquest
Let us recall now the traditional version of this important
event following, for example, to [11]. The 4th crusade 1202-1204
A.D. was started with the call of Roman pope Innocent II. The
campaign was finished by the conquest of Constantinople and
complete change of ruling dynasty in Byzantine empire. The forth
crusade is considered today as one of the most important events
in European history. There are many survived documents and
literary sources about this crusade, which were written,
allegedly, by the direct participants of crusade (see below).
Crusaders asked Venice to give them the fleet. And very soon
the huge fleet with army came to the Constantinople. "The ground
was the appeal of Byzantine prince Alexey to the pope and to the
German emperor with asking the help. Alexey was the son of the
Byzantine emperor Isaac II the Angelus, who was dethroned in 1195
A.D." ([11],p.209). Crusaders were supported by feudals of France
and German empire. Roman pope also helped to crusaders. From the
other hand he "forbid" them (but only verbal) to harm the
Christian regions. "Thus, all powerful political parties of the
medieval Europe pushed the crusaders to the conquest of Byzantine
empire" ([11],p.209).
It was created the special Council consisting of several
noble leaders. The formal leader of crusade was Boniface
Monferratio. But the head of the Council of crusade was
well-known marshal Geoffroy de Villehardouin. He was
"distinguished and well-known politician of crusade, he took part
in all important diplomatic actions" ([15],p.125). When today
somebody speaks about 4th crusade, then the first person which is
immediately mentioned, is Villehardouin. He is supposed today as
the author of well-known chronicle "La Conqueste de
Constantinople" [26] (see details in [25]). The conjecture is
that he dictated these chronicle in the end of his life.
Crusaders besieged the Constantinople in 1204 A.D. and
restored on the throne the emperor Isaac II the Angelus. But
cannot pay them the whole amount of money which he promised for
their support. Enraged crusaders captured the capital in 1204
A.D. and violently plundered the town. The large part of the city
was burned, the famous temple of Saint Sofia was also plundered
and its great treasures were disappeared (according to legend
were transported somewhere).
Crusaders founded in Constantinople the new state - Latin
empire (1204-1261). Thus, the last period of Byzantine history
began in 1204 A.D. This epoch was named above as Byzantine empire
No. 3. The new Greek (Byzantine) dynasty starts from Theodore I
Lascaris (1204-1222). His coming to the power is a direct result
of 4th crusade, of the war and conquest of Constantinople.
5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from
Byzantine and English chronicles
__________________________________________________________________
England (about 1066 A.D.) Byzantine empire (about 1204 A.D.)
__________________________________________________________________
1. Big war in England, which was 1. Well-known war - 4th crusade
the "turning point" in the whole of 1202-1204 A.D. One of the most
English history (1066 A.D.) important events in Byzantine
history
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In 1066 A.D. begins the 2. In 1204 begins the new Latin
Normans invasion into Anglia, empire (in the part of Byzantine
which lasts until 1154 A.D. empire), and also begins the
new Nicaea empire
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Normandian dynasty ends in 3. Latin empire ends in 1261 A.D.,
1154 A.D., i.e., lasts about 88 i.e., lasts about 60 years
years
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear from the Fig.1, that both dynasty (and corresponding
empires) are "very similar" and become "parallel" under rigid
chronological 100 (or 120)-year shift. This shift "identifies"
the Byzantine epoch of 1204-1453 A.D. and Anglia epoch of 1066--
-1327 A.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The center of these events - 4. The center of these events -
the English capital = London Constantinople = the capital of
and its neighborhoods Byzantine empire
------------------------------------------------------------------
The identification of London of 10-12th cc. with Constantinople was
obtained above. Consequently, we see that these two cities again
appear simultaneously inside a new chronological parallel.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Harold II - English king - 5. Isaac II Angelus - Byzantine
rules as legitimate heir. Harold emperor. He rules as legitimate
is considered as Anglo-Saxon king of the empire
king ([11],p.244)
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. He ruled about 9 months (no 6. He ruled about 1 year: 1203-
more that 1 year). This is - -1204 A.D. This is his second rule
"the Second Harold". "The First on emperor throne. The first time
Harold" (Harefoot) ruled before: it was in 1185-1195 A.D. As we
1036-1039. The periods of rule noted above, his first rule was
for Harold II and Isaac II possible reflected in English
(about 1 year) coincide history as the rule of Harold I
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Number II in the title 7. Number II in the title of
of Harold II Isaac II
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. "Anglo-Saxon" = Angelus SX 8. "Angelus Isaac" = Angelus SC
(Sax) or Angelus SC (SK)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Practically the same titles included in the complete name. About
the name Harold we will speak later
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. William I (1066-1087) - 9. Theodore (Tudor ?) I Lascaris
English king, beginning the new (1204-1222) - Byzantine emperor.
dynasty. He ruled 21 years. Both He ruled 18 years and he also
rulers has the same number I in started a new dynasty. Sometimes
their dynastic streams as the 1st year of his rule is
considered 1208 A.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is likely that English name Tudor (royal family that ruled
England 1485-1603) is the variant of Byzantine name Theodore.
William accedes to the English throne as a result of the
war. The story of Theodore Lascaris is similar - he accedes the
Byzantine throne during the violent epoch of 4th crusade. It
turns out that in the beginning of written political biography of
William I were also inserted the facts from the life of
Villehardouin - the well-known person of crusade's epoch, who
acts in the beginning of the political biography of Theodore
Lascaris.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William the Conqueror - as 10. Villehardouin - the head of
enemy of Harold - begins the crusaders Council - the enemy of
campaign against Harold to take Isaac II Angelus. Villehardouin
the power and throne. He invaded is, of course, the Conqueror, who
into England from outside as the invades from outside in Byzantine
"enemy force" with great army empire with a great army (with
others leaders of crusaders)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us comment the possible similarity and identification of
the names of these historical personages. It is quite clear that
impossible to expect and to find here the EXACT identity of the
names. (In the case of exact identity, the traditional historians
certainly can identify the corresponding events). But here, in
our case, we compare two groups of chronicles, which were written
about the same event, but in different languages, inside
different historical schools, and, possible, in different
geographical regions. It is likely, that the authors of both
versions (created in 15-16th cc.) were not the eyewitnesses of
this war. Each of them was based on some old documents surviving
from the 13th century. These documents were written in a brief
manner, without vowels, in primitive old language and it was
extremely complicated to understand their sense and meaning. The
later chroniclers of 15-17th cc. tried to reconstruct the real
picture of ancient events basing on these old texts. During this
restoration the individual fragments of the ancient names
sometimes were mixed, sometimes go from one name to another an so
on.
In our case we have: William the Conqueror and Anglo-Sax
(Saxon) Harold II from one side, and Villehardouin and Angelus
Isaac II, from another side (in Byzantine version). It is clear,
that William is similar to Ville, and Harold - to Hardouin. As`a
result, we obtain the following table:
William --- Villi
Conqueror --- Conqueror
Normandy --- Roman (?)
Harold --- Hardouin
number II --- number II
Anglo-Sax --- Angel Isaac.
It is hard to doubt that here we see the reflection and
duplication of the same real ancient names, but distorted after
filtration through the language of different chroniclers (of
different historical schools). Of course, these "linguistic
parallels" cannot serve as serious arguments. Nevertheless, the
simultaneous appearance of extremely similar names in the left
and in the right columns of the table points out on some
important effect, because (let us recall) we compare two
historical streams using the rigid chronological shift, and the
discovered parallel lasts already several hundreds years!
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The war begins from the 11. Crusaders arrived in Byzantine
invasion of large military fleet empire on the fleet and landed
and from the landing of the army on the coast of empire
on the coast of the country
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Roman pope supported the 12. Roman pope agreed with crusade
invasion (but wordly, "asked to spare" the
Christian relics
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Appeal of William to the 13. Appeal of Villehardouin to
kings of Europe for the help. As the ambassadors of different
a result, his army was collected European countries ([25],p.160).
from the people of different 4th crusade was an "international
nations (see above) and is action": the army was consisted
characterized as "the crowd of of French, Germans, Italians and
adventurers" many others
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary. By the way, the medieval sources of 4th crusade
constantly repeat that it was "march on the Babylon" ([25],p.161)
(!). But, according to conjecture of traditional historians
(belonging to the Scaliger's chronological school), the Babylon
was completely destroyed many hundreds years ago and was not
restored after this fall. Contradiction! The modern commentators
try to find "the solution" (of this unpleasant problem) in the
following way: "Here is meant (by the name of Babylon - Auth.)
the Egyptian town Cairo, which was called in the West as Babylon"
([25],p.161). From the other hand, as we already know, Cairo -
Cair = CR (without vowels) means simply "city", "town" in Britts
language and is the evident variation of the name "King Town" =
"Tzar Town" = "ZR Town" = "CR Town", i.e. CONSTANTINOPLE, which
was called (it is well known !) also as Tzar-Grad = Tzar-Town =
CR-Town. But it is exactly the goal of crusaders - to capture
Constantinople. Thus, we see that medieval chronicles called
Constantinople also as Babylon! The another confirmation of this
identification see in [1].
-----------------------------------------------------------------
14. Death of Harold II in this 14. Death of Isaac II the Angelus
war during the war ([15],p.164)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the end of our analysis, let us note one interesting
identification. Morozov in [19] obtained an astronomical dating
for the horoscope described in the well-known biblical book
Revelation (Apocalypse). See details in [19] or [24]. He obtained
two astronomical solutions: 395 A.D. and 1249 A.D. Several
arguments show that the second solution 1249 A.D. is better (from
astronomical point of view) than the first one. It is supposed
today that this book predicts the Doomsday, Day of Judgment, and
was written by John - the pupil of Jesus Christ - somewhere in
Roman Empire. This book effected the great impression among the
population of empire.
Now let us note that the date 1249 A.D. is sufficiently
close to the beginning of Byzantine empire No.3. Consequently, it
is natural to expect that in old English chronicles, which (as we
see) reflect the events from Byzantine empire, will be mentioned
some "book about Doomsday, Day of Judgment", possible, in the
epoch of William I.
It is remarkable, that this our prediction is confirmed in a
very clear form. In any textbook in English history of this epoch
you can find the separate chapter or section with the title
something like: "The Book of Doomsday". For example, the chapter
with exactly this title exists in the textbook [11]. In the
monograph [7] you also can see the section with the title
"Domesday Book". Of course, today historians try to assure us
that this is not the Apocalypse Book, but quite different,
another book - the general land-book which registered the land
property in the medieval England of this time and was created as
a result of general census in 1086 A.D. But nevertheless, the
same historians indicate the parallel between this "Domesday
Book" and Apocalypse = "Doomsday Book". They tell us the
following: "All people have in Domesday Book an open account, as
in the Great Doomsbook, the Great Book of Day of Judgment"
([7],p.345). Under chronological 100- or 120-year shift the
astronomical date of creating the biblical Doomsday Book =
Apocalypse is transported from 1249 A.D. approximately in 1129
A.D., which is close to 1086 A.D. - to the date of "Domesday
census of people in England".
Thus, we can add one more item in our table of historical
parallels.
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Domesday Book in England 15. Apocalypse = Doomsday Book in
in 1086 A.D. 1249 A.D. (Rome, Byzantine empire)
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end of our analysis we can say, that written history
of island Anglia = England (we mean here documents which survived
to our time) starts in reality not from the brief and dim records
about some small tribes (as it was supposed in traditional
history), but from the fundamental events in the life of great
nations of medieval world on the territory of Byzantine
empire, Europe and Asia. In particular, the old English
chronicles tell us not about some unknown kings , but about great
rulers and emperors of large empires, which sometimes were at
violent wars and enriched each others in a peaceful time.
5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English
chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to
galats and who they were?
The following important corollary follows from these
results. Now we need to look in a different way on the role of
medieval Russia in the history of Europe and Asia. After
chronological transport of events described in the old English
chronicles from the "deep antiquity" into the medieval epoch of
10-14th cc. A.D., we see with some surprise that these chronicle
very often speak about medieval Russia, about Scyths, about wars
with Russian armies and so on. A lot of new information is added
to the history of medieval Russia. Before this moment these data
were artificially referred to another epochs, to another nations,
to another geographical regions.
The reader who is acquainted with the paper of A.T.Fomenko
and G.V.Nosovskij "Chronology and general concept of Russian
history", should realize that our analysis of English history
adds many new arguments to the ideas developed in this our work.
Let us recall briefly, that the basic idea of our "Russian
paper" is as follows. In traditional history the so called
Mongolian-Tatarian invasion is considered as the period when the
Russia was conquered by foreign Mongols-Tatars (who came from the
East and Asia to Russia). In our opinion "Mongolian-Tatarian
epoch" (or "Mongols-Tatars-yoke") was simply specific period in
the history of Russian state without any foreign invasion, when
several different Russian regions were united (sometimes with
wars) under the rule of one Russian dynasty (which was later
called as Mongols-Tatars dynasty and was wrongly declared as
"foreign dynasty of invaders"). In this specific epoch the
country was ruled by Russian-Horde dynasty. In the base of this
rule was military Horde - the professional Cossacks army, which
guarded the state and controlled the order inside the country.
Besides the military Horde, there was also the civil
administration (princes, dukes). They leaned on Horde as on the
military force to protect the order. The name "Mongolia" is in
reality a little distorted Greek word "Megalion" which means
"great" ("Great empire", "Great state"). Among the population of
empire were, of course, Tatars (as it is today).
Then, in the epoch of great disturbance and civil war of
16th century, the old Horde-Mongolian dynasty ("great dynasty")
was defeated by new pretenders on the throne. As a result, the
new Romanovs' dynasty was appeared on Russian throne. Their rule
was based on quite another political principles. Then the
previous Russian history was distorted by historians of Romanovs'
epoch. The goal was clear - to ground and justify the
non-legitimate usurpation of the throne by Romanovs. In
particular, the epoch of Russian-"Megalion"-Horde dynasty was
declared as the "epoch of bad foreign invasion", when, allegedly,
the power was taken by "bad Mongol-Tatars".
The details of this concept see in the work of Fomenko and
Nosovskij.
From this new point of view, we can conclude, that the
reports of many Western chroniclers speaking about Mongols-Tatars
are in reality the reports about medieval Megalion-Russian state
and about its Megalion-Russian army which sometimes was at war
with western neighbors.
As we have noted, Russia often appeared in old English (and
many others) chronicles as Ruthenia, or Rutenia, or Rusia (see
above and [10]). "The interest to Russia in Anglia (England) was
also induced by the event which deeply shocked the medieval
Europe - by the invasion of Mongolian-Tatarian hordes... These
records about the appearance of some unknown, terrible, violent
and godless nation induced to the medieval chroniclers the idea
about God's punishment for the human sins. The name of this
nation interpreted as "the people from Tartar" "([10],p.10).
It is supposed today that "the Mongolian-Tatarian yoke cutted
Russia from another European nations for many years. And only in
16th century the relations between Russia and Anglia was restored
again and these country "discovered each other"
afresh...Practically all records about Russia, which were
collected in English documentary sources before the end of 13th
century, were forgotten... In geographical chronicle of Rodger
Barlou (written about 1540-1541 A.D.), the location of Russia is
described extremely dim and unclear, somewhere near "Sarmatian
mountains" and "Gircania mountains" "([10],p.12).
In our opinion, this "the wall of silence" can be at least
partially explained by the deep difference between European
principles of organization of the states and Russian structure of
Megalion-Horde state at this epoch. This difference determined
also the military confrontation between Russia and the West.
Besides this, there are arguments showing that all these stories
of English chronicles about "bad Mongols-Tatars who invaded in
Russia and threaten to the West", are of very late origin and are
dated, most likely, by 16-17th centuries. At this time the
distorted version of Russian history was already established and
was appeared "the theory" which declared the epoch of Russian
Megalion-Horde dynasty as "foreign yoke".
Let us take the medieval English chronicles and read them.
What they tell us about Russia = Ruthenia? For example,
Bartholomaeus Anglicus writes as follows (our translation):
Ruthia, or Ruthena is the province of Moesia (Mesiae) and is
located on the boundary of Asia Minor, then it is bounded by
Roman area in the East, by Gothia in the North, by Pannonia in the
West, and by Greece in the South. The land is huge, and the
language is the same as for Bohemians and Slavs. One part of this
land is called Galacia (Galatia) and its people were called in
the past as Galats (Galaths). One speaks that Apostle Paul sent
to them his message ([28]; see also [10],p.85).
Here the original Latin text:
"Ruthia, sive Ruthena, quae et Mesiae est provincia, in
Minoris Asiae confinio constituta Romanorum terminos est habens
ab oriente, Gothiam a septentrione, Pannoniam ab occidente,
Graeciam vero a meridie. Terra quidem est maxima concordans cum
Bohemis et Sclavis in ideomate et lingua. Haec autem quadam parte
sui Galacia est vocata et eius incolae quandam Galathae
vocabantur, quibus dicitur Paulus Apostolus direxisse epistolam.
Quaere supra Galacia." ([28]; also [10],p.77).
This well-known medieval texts was commented by many
scientists. It is supposed today that Mesia - Moesia is the
medieval Germany ([10],p.93), and that Ruthia - Ruthena is the
Russia (see above). Besides this, it is known that "under the
name Galacia (Gallacia) Bartholomaeus Anglicus means
Galicko-Volynsko-Russia" ([10],p.91). But, the report of this old
chronicle about the message Apostle Paul to these Russian Galats
living in the Galicko-Volynsko-Russia (Galaths), immediately
induces the explosion of a fair indignation of the modern
historian. And it is quite clear! About one thousand years
(according to traditional Scaliger's chronology) separates the
evangelic Apostle Paul from these medieval events (described by
Bartholomaeus Anglicus). As the strong verdict (without any
hesitations) sounds the following formula-sentence:
"New Testament really contains the "Message to the
Galatians" of Apostle Paul, but of course this message has no
relation with Galicko-Volynsko-Russia" ([10],p.93).
In our short statistical chronology this situation becomes
very natural. The epoch of Jesus Christ is 11th century A.D..
Consequently, the Galatians of the New Testament, i.e., the
addressees of Apostle Paul, certainly can be the inhabitant of
Galicko-Volynsko-Russia.
The next record of 13th century in the Annales Melrosenses
(South Scotland) is considered today as most earlier (in English
sources) report about "Mongols-Tatars-invasion": "Now at first
time the rumor appeared in our Land, that the godless horde of
Tartari many countries ruined..." ([29]; see also [10],p.98-99).
Here is the original Latin text:
"Hic primo auditur in terra nostra, quod nefandus exercitus
Tartareorum multas terras vastavit..." ([29]; also [10],p.98-99).
By the way, we see again, that some English chronicles of
13th century (for example, the Chronica Monasterii Sancti
Edmundi) are sure that Russia is an ISLAND: "The godless tribe,
which is called Tartarins, and which was rushed up from an
ISLANDS, filled the whole surface of the earth, ruined Hungary
with neighboring areas" ([30]; see also [10],p.101).
Here is the original Latin text:
"Gens nafanda dicta Tartarins que nuper de insulis ebulliens
superficiem terre impleuerat Hungariam cum adiacentibus
regionibus deuastat" ([30]; also [10],p.101).
But we discussed above the idea that most likely the
chronicles mean here simply Asia-Land. This name certainly can be
applied to the Russia (from the point of view of western
chroniclers). By the way, the name ASIA is possibly the variant
of the name Jesus = Isa. In this case Asia-Land means simply
Jesus-Land = Isa-Land.
What we can think about the following records in English and
European chronicles, devoted to well-known Mongolian ruler -
Chingiz-Khan: "Under the name Chirkam (in Latin text -
Cliyrcam...) ... was mentioned Chingiz-Khan, called in Russian
chronicles as Chanogiz and Chigizakon, and in another European
sources called also as Gurgatan, Cecarcarus, Zingiton, Ingischam,
Tharsis, DAVID, PRESBYTER IOHANNES and so on ([10],p.185).
This is the commentary to the English chronicle: Annales de
Burton (13th century A.D.).
We hope that our reader will think about this really strange
(in the frame of traditional chronology) fact that old chronicles
named famous Chingiz-Khan as DAVID and PRESBYTER IOANNES !
It is impossible to quote here all fragments from many old
English chronicles speaking about menacing danger which arose over
the Europe from the side of Mongols-Tatars-Horde [10].
Let us restrict ourselves by the following final fragment.
Aethicus = Ethicus Istricus, who lived in 3rd c.A.D. (according
to conjecture of modern historians), "tells us about the godless
nation which was originated by Gog and Magog. And Alexander the
Great Macedonian fight ed with Gog and Magog. "This nation, -
continues Aethicus, - will produce a great destruction in the
epoch of Antichrist and will call him as the god of the gods" "
([10],p.221). Aethicus stated that this nation "was locked behind
the Caspian gates".
Let us now the reader: Thus, when lived Ethicus Istricus?
Is it really 3rd century A.D.? And also, the second question:
When lived Alexander the Great Macedonian if he fights with Gog
and Magog, i.e. - with Mongols, Goths and Tatars?
REFERENCES
1. A.T.Fomenko. Methods for Statistical Analysis of Narrative
Texts and Applications to Chronology. (Recognition and
Dating of Dependent Texts, Statistical Ancient Chronology,
Statistics of Ancient Astronomical Records). - Moscow,
Moscow Univ.Press, 1990.
2. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Translated and edited by G.N.
Garmonsway. 1990, Everyman's library, J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd:
London.
3. A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskij. Geometrical and
Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations.
Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. - CRC Press, 1993.
4. A.T.Fomenko. Investigations in the History of Ancient World
and Middle Ages. Mathematical Methods for Analysis of
Sources. Global Chronology. - Moscow, 1994 (in print).
5. A.T.Fomenko. Criticism of Traditional Chronology of Antiquity
and Middle Ages. In which Century We Live ? - Moscow,
1994 (in print).
6*. J.Blair, Blair's Chronological and Historical Tables from the
Creation to the Present Time etc., G.Bell & Sons, London,
1882.
6. J.Blair. Chronological Tables. Russian translation: Moscow, Moscow
University, vols.1,2. 1808-1809.
7*. C.Bemont and G.Monod, Histoire de l'Europe au Moyen Age. Paris,
1921.
7. C.Bemont and G.Monod, Histoire de l'Europe au Moyen Age.
Petrograd, 1915.
8. Nennius. Historia Brittonum. In the book: Galfridus Monemutensis
- "Historia Britonum". - Russian translation. Moscow,
Nauka, 1984.
9. Galfridus Monemutensis. "Historia Britonum". - Russian
translation. Moscow, Nauka, 1984.
10. V.I.Matuzova. English Medieval Sources. - Moscow. Nauka,
1979.
11. History of the Middle Ages. - Editor: S.D.Skazkin. - Moscow,
Vyschaya Schkola. 1977, vol 1.
12. M.P.Alexeev. About Anglo-Russian relations in the epoch of
Jaroslav the Wise. - Scientific Bulletin. Leningrad
Univ.Press, 1945, No.4, p.31.
13. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedone, ed. W.Stubbs. - RS,
N 51, vol.II. London, 1869, p.236.
English translation: The Annals of Roger de Hoveden,
comprising the history of England and of other countries
of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. Tr.H.T.Riley,
vol.1-2. London, 1853 (Bohn's Antiquarian Library).
14. Ancient Laws and Institutes of England..., ed.B.Thorpe,
vol.1. London, 1840, p.198.
15. Robert de Clari. The Conquest of Constantinople. - Moscow,
Nauka, 1986.
16. J.Sunderland. Holy Books in the Light of Science. - Severno-
-Zapadnoye izdatelstvo, 1925 (in Russian).
17*.E.Bickerman. Chronology of the Ancient World. Thames & Hudson,
London, 1968.
17. E.Bickerman. Chronology of the Ancient World. Russian
translation: Moscow, 1975.
18. I.A.Kryvelev. Excavations in Biblical Countries. -
Sovetskaya Rossiya, Moscow, 1965 (in Russian).
19. N.A.Morozov. Christ. (The History of Human Culture from the
Standpoint of the Natural Sciences). Moscow and
Leningrad. 1926-1932. vols. 1-7. (In Russian).
20*.Gregoras, Nichephorus. Byzantinae historiae. In J.P.Migne
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca, t.148,149.
Paris, 1857-1886.
20. Gregoras, Nichephorus. Roman History. Peterburg, 1862. Russian
translation.
21. Alexandria: Romance of Alexander the Great. Leningrad, 1966.
(In Russian). (According to the Russian chronicle of
15th century).
22. Benoit de Sainte-Maure. Chronique des ducs de Normandie par
Benoit, publee... par C.Fahlin, t.I. - In: Bibliotheca
Ekmaniana universitatis regiae Upsaliensis, 55. Uppsala,
1951, p.8-11.
23. Layamon. Brut, or the Chronicle of Britain. Ed. F.Madden,
vol.II. London, 1847, pp.525-526, vv.22589-22602.
24. A.T.Fomenko. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material
and its Applications to Historical Dating.
Volume 1: The Development of the Statistical Tools.
Volume 2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records. -
Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1994. The Netherlands.
25. M.A.Zaborov. History of Crusades in Documents and Materials. -
Moscow, Vyschaya Schkola. 1977.
26. Geoffroy de Villehardouin. La conquete de Constantinople. -
Historiens et chroniqueurs du moyen age. Ed. A.Pauphilet.
P., 1963.
27. The Concise Columbia Encyclopeadia. - Avon Books. 1983.
Columbia University Press. USA.
28. Bartholomaeus Angicus. - De proprietatibus rerum. Apud
A.Koburger. Nurenbergi, 1492, lib.XV, cap.CXXXI.
29. Ex Annalibus Melrosensibus Ed.F.Liebermann, R:Pauli. -
MGH SS, t.XXVII. Hannoverae, 1885, p.439&
30. The Chronicle of Bury St.Edmunds, 1212-1301. Ed. A.Gransden.
London-Edinburgh, 1964, p.10.
31. Peter Hunter Blair. Roman Britain and Early England, 55 B.C. -
- A.D.871. - The Norton Library History of England.
W.W.Norton & Company. New York. London. 1963.
32. Christopher Brooke. From Alfred to Henry III, 871-1272. -
The Norton Library History of England. W.W.Norton &
Company. New York. London. 1961.
33. A.L.Morton. A People's History of England. Lawrence & Wishart
Ltd. London. 1979.
Last-modified: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 13:33:48 GMT