We must take history from the hands of academics and return it to its original state. Farley Mowat, Canadian writer
You can't rely on written history. In many cases, it turns out that this was not the case at all. Addictions, prejudices or just stupid judgments, forever mummified on the pages of books and documents! Clifford Simak. Goblin sanctuary
“The very fact that doubts about the truth of OUR HISTORY and objections to it have never ceased in our midst indicates its insufficient persuasiveness, the presence of strains and contradictions in it, and its artificial construction. Indeed, the deeper you delve into this issue, the more and more the strains and contradictions of TRADITIONAL HISTORY come out. If she has retained a dominant position up to now, it is mainly due to her outward harmony, her positive tone and the relative unity of her defenders; while opponents struck her in all directions, some isolated evidence was startled; but little touched its most essential basis."
This was written by the famous Russian historian Ilovaisky, but instead of the words highlighted here he had something else: "Scandinavian theory" and "Norman system". I had to slightly correct the famous scientist with only one purpose: what he wrote in his time about the Norman theory, now we can talk about our entire traditional history as a whole.
In the nineties of the twentieth century, historical science suffered a number of significant and painful blows. Nosovsky and Fomenko, Valyansky and Kalyuzhny, Bushkov, Zhabinsky, Guts - this is not a complete list of those who opposed the traditional schemes of our history, proving its weakness, dogmatism and showing the real and mediocre face of the historians who guard it.
Thanks to the bold and decisive actions of researchers, their non-standard thinking, our history began to burst at the seams, and academicians and professors showed a complete inability to protect it.
The flow of more and more new information about the mistakes and errors of traditional history does not diminish, despite the seemingly "worked out" amount of evidence of the erroneousness of descriptions and constructions of well-known historical schemes and events. This, in turn, only proves how much potential the critics of the traditional version of history have and that it itself does not stand up to criticism.
Several centuries ago, a group of the first historians built a chronological chain of certain historical events. This chronology was taken as a basis, and since then all historical documents have been rigidly tied to it. Those documents and evidence that came into conflict with it were declared false and were not further considered. Their fate, as a rule, is sad: they were either destroyed or are still unclaimed in any storage facilities. Many historical documents were rewritten to suit the compiled chronology, while the originals were destroyed.
Promotional video:
And how many different works of ancient authors are walking around the world! But many of these books are actually written at best in the Middle Ages: either as works of art of that period, or just for the sake of a joke, and something under the name of these ancient authors was completely faked for the purpose of enrichment. Meanwhile, these books are continuously reprinted, commented on, studied in detail, and the information gleaned from them is firmly at the heart of ancient history.
A number of domestic researchers noted that when comparing various chronicles and other historical documents, both among themselves and with foreign sources, many of them reveal edits, erasures and other late changes in the text. This is largely due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of these documents are only late copies.
At the same time, attention should be especially focused on the fact that many parchment manuscripts constantly sin with traces of erasures and the introduction of new text.
This is doubly strange, because the labels were documents confirming the right to a particular ownership. That is, there were good reasons to keep such labels. All our chronicles and other documents are written in Cyrillic, but in ancient times it was not the only way of writing. Isn't all this an indirect sign that the ancient documents are not that old?
* * *
Tatishchev was incredibly surprised that Metropolitan of Kiev Peter Mogila, who lived in the 16th century, a well-known connoisseur and collector of antiquities, "was not familiar with the Nestorian Chronicle." But this is just not surprising: it was somewhere in the 16th century that a corrected history was formed.
And on the basis of a very small and rather controversial number of primary sources (if they are primary sources at all), our entire national historical science is being built. In this regard, it would not be superfluous to quote the words of Gumilyov: "To judge by the survivor, not taking into account the missing, is to fall into a deliberate error of the inductive method: when the particular is taken for the general."
* * *
Of course, a reasonable question may arise: if our Russian history is forged, then European sources cannot be forged, corrected? Yes of course. But is there a lot of information about ancient Russian history in these European documents?
Judge for yourself: the famous Polish historian Strikowski admitted that Polish history was written on the basis of Russian chronicles.
And in 1486 it was a revelation for the German traveler Nikolai Poppel to find out that beyond Lithuania, where, as he believed, Tataria is located, there is another state - Muscovite Russia, whose sovereign is "stronger than the Polish king."
In recent years, issues related to a radical revision of ancient history have begun to be raised more and more often.
The first to seriously declare the need for a radical revision of the dating of world history was Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, who wrote the seven-volume work "Christ", written from 1924-1932.