CRITICISM OF THE GLOBAL EMPIRE HYPOTHESIS
To the 2nd floor. In the 20th century, a large number of systemic contradictions have accumulated in the traditional version of history. Traditional historians have always tried to hush up and ignore such contradictions, but in modern conditions, when the free flow of information has become a reality, this has already become impossible. For those wishing to familiarize themselves with a detailed list of these contradictions, we refer to the work of V. A. Ivanova "Analysis of systemic contradictions in the traditional version of the chronology of world history", published in the 1st issue of the almanac of civilizational studies "Walking in Oycumene".
Well-known scientists of the past (Isaac Newton, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov, etc.) tried to resolve these systemic contradictions, but at that scientific and technical level it was impossible. Already in our time, scientists Fomenko and Nosovsky found new critical contradictions, primarily in the dating of astronomical events (the work "Dating the star catalog" Almagest ").
Fomenko and Nosovsky found a method for resolving these contradictions - a statistical analysis of sources and the discovery of the so-called. parallelisms, allowing to remove the phantom periods of TI, multiplied on paper in time and space. The authors of the report are staunch supporters of the natural scientific methods of NH and the use of parallelisms as an effective tool for reconstructing real chronology. An excellent example of finding parallelisms is I. Tabov's work "The Sunset of Old Bulgaria".
The result of applying the methods of statistical analysis was a shortened chronology, which begins according to the Fomenko - Nosovsky c. X century. AD and their attempt to reconstruct the history of the development of world civilization. In the reconstruction of Fomenko-Nosovsky, 2 main periods can be distinguished:
1) Roman Empire - XI - XIII centuries. The capital is Alexandria, then Constantinople. Vassal relations with most of the peoples of Europe, part of Asia.
2) Empire Russia-Horde - XIV - XVI centuries. The capital is Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Global empire.
The authors of the report agree with the reconstruction of Fomenko-Nosovsky during the "Roman Empire" period and strongly disagree on the "Rus-Horde" period. We believe that Russia-Horde is a speculative concept that is not supported by any historical sources. Fomenko and Nosovsky put forward it as a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is not the backbone of the NX idea. However, some followers of NH, so to speak, “did not see the forest for the trees,” and do not perceive the ideas of NH without the hypothesis of Russia-Horde.
Promotional video:
The theoretical impossibility of the existence of the Global Empire in the past.
Necessary attributes of the Global Empire and their lack in the past
We will not talk about such controversial issues as a single currency or a single army, which, by the way, are absent in the General Empire. In history, we know many examples when in one state several nobles had the right to print their coins, and another vassal had a stronger army than his suzerain. Let's talk about such attributes of the empire, without which it simply cannot exist in principle.
Unified power structure and hierarchical relations in the controlled area
Throughout the Empire, there must be a certain power hierarchy that permeates the entire society from top to bottom. This is a kind of system, without which the very concept of the state loses its meaning. Within the framework of this Empire, it must be recognized and respected by everyone. Of course, this does not mean that there cannot be any rebellions associated with an attempt to change the status in this hierarchy, but if we assume that the United Empire existed, then we do not see any single generally recognized power structure on its territory. On the contrary, on the territory of Eurasia we see a variety of titles, which not only do not belong to a single hierarchy, but often simply cannot exist side by side in the same system. For example, emperor and padishah, these are two titles that are absolutely equal to each other. How they can exist within the same structure is not clear.
Obligations levied from regions in favor of the center
The main meaning of any system of subordination is that all subordinate subjects bear various kinds of duties before the center. If this does not happen, then such a subordination system loses its meaning and becomes ineffective. In the case of the United Empire, this is exactly the case. If the central power of the United Empire was on the Volga, then what duties did such persons as the emperor of Byzantium, the shah of Persia, or the Baghdad caliph bear before it?
Central region - the center of hegemony
The central region is the center of hegemony, the main productive base of the state. It is directly subordinate to the emperor and is the center of the Empire's political, economic or military expansion. For example, in Byzantium it is Constantinople, for the Holy Roman Empire it is at different times Swabia, Saxony, Czech Republic and Austria, and for France it is Ile-de-France. They explain to us that the center was somewhere on the Volga, but how can we then explain the simultaneous existence of all the other above-listed centers, leading a completely independent policy.
Single chronology
Within the framework of the existence of the United Empire, it is quite logical that all subjects of the empire use the same chronology. We find that at the moment there are more than a dozen different chronology systems.
Physically manageable size of the territory
It seems absolutely impossible to rule an Empire with such a vast territory. Back in the early 19th century, the journey from the Far East to Central Russia took more than a year. And this is already in the presence of some roads and an established Yamskaya service. And even so, movement was available only for 6-7 months and practically stopped during the winter period.
As part of this issue, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the arguments against the Mongol-Tatar conquest from Mongolia and the founding of the great Empire of the Mongols within the TI are for some reason completely ignored applicable to the United Empire, which is several times larger than the Mongol Empire in size. A real state can be formed on the territory that can be really controlled, to the limits of which can be reached in the process of one, maximum - two military campaigns. By the way, that is why the united Roman Empire was divided into two parts, because it was impossible for a long time to really control the entire Mediterranean region from one center.
Impossibility of total falsification of sources
In historical sources, not a single mention of the existence of the United Empire has survived. No documents, chronicles, or even references to its existence have survived from this Empire. All that the supporters of the Empire now have are separate passages from historical sources that do not mention the existence of the Empire, but allow them to draw certain conclusions. And on the basis of conjectures, a kind of virtual picture of the world was created - the Empire.
In order to justify the existence of this Empire, its supporters declare all historical sources to be falsified. So, a very funny picture is obtained: the bulk of historical sources denying the existence of the Empire are fake, however, certain excerpts from the same sources, in the appropriate interpretation, are declared reliable evidence of the Empire. Needless to say, this approach to the reconstruction of history is biased and unscientific, it only discredits NH. This approach to the study of history and the theory of the Empire itself is already prompting people to create a reconstruction of human history without involving historical sources at all, and the evidence base is some "logical" inferences.
So the question arises whether it is possible to falsify the mass of historical documents on a global scale, so that there are no fundamental contradictions. Well, perhaps you can, if you do it centrally, under the guidance of one editor. And in a centralized way, this can be done just in the event that the United Empire exists, but in that case, why does it need it? Should it be understood in such a way that the Empire published a new world history, destroyed documents about its existence and dissolved itself?
Of course, when studying the sources, not everything can be trusted, much is in doubt. When writing any historical work, one could get confused with the dates, tk. history is usually written later than the events described. Can be confused with names or geographic names. It is absolutely normal that any source is written in a biased manner, because any author lives in a certain country, professes some kind of religion, feeds from some kind of table and writes history according to his attitude. There is also no doubt that some documents were partially or completely invented, let's say more, for sure any source contains a certain element of the author's fantasy. However, the general outline of events can be traced quite clearly. And the argument that ALL sources are invented is simply ridiculous. Because in general it is quite difficult to come up with something new. And here you just need to equate some Josephus or Thucydides with Pikul or Tolstoy. The authors could describe in different ways what they saw or heard, but always what happened once in reality. There was no single World Empire, therefore it is not found anywhere in the sources. But the Roman Empire was therefore described by various authors. However, the Roman Empire is not the World Empire, because all authors describe the numerous wars of the Roman Empire with its neighbors. And if an empire has independent neighbors, then it is no longer worldwide.what happened once in reality. There was no single World Empire, therefore it is not found anywhere in the sources. But the Roman Empire was therefore described by various authors. However, the Roman Empire is not the World Empire, because all authors describe the numerous wars of the Roman Empire with its neighbors. And if an empire has independent neighbors, then it is no longer worldwide.what happened once in reality. There was no single World Empire, therefore it is not found anywhere in the sources. But the Roman Empire was therefore described by various authors. However, the Roman Empire is not the World Empire, because all authors describe the numerous wars of the Roman Empire with its neighbors. And if an empire has independent neighbors, then it is no longer worldwide.
When studying sources, independent researchers would not hurt to apply the methods of forensic science and criminal law. Suppose we are investigating a falsification of history. We must not forget about the concept of the presumption of innocence. Herodotus and Thucydides are witnesses, not the accused, and we must first prove that their testimony contains lies or malicious intent. Naturally, we should not take their testimony on faith, but should impartially compare the testimony of different witnesses, and look for possible contradictions in them.
Impossibility of the existence of a Global Empire centered in Russia
What prerequisites should there be for the creation of any empire? First of all, it is superiority over neighbors in economic and human resources. It is gradually transforming into cultural and military superiority, which is the source of the empire.
Do we see such superiority in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus? No, we don't see him. This territory is located in the zone of a short vegetative period, a long harsh winter, which in no way contributes to the accumulation of a surplus product and an increase in population. Almost all neighbors have much better "imperial" preconditions (except for those in the east). As a result, in a real, not a fictional history, the Russian Empire appears only in the 18th century. after the Russian people for centuries created economic and cultural potential. And the direction of expansion of the Russian Empire naturally went east, where there were no stronger competitors.
The invasion of Russia-Horde in NH - an analogue of the Great Migration of Nations in TI
There is a unique period in TI - the Great Migration of Peoples, when for centuries from somewhere from the depths of Central Asia, like a devil from a snuffbox, steppe peoples jump out one after another, and go and go to the West. These are aggressive, well-armed troops, the onslaught of which the settled civilizations of Antiquity can hardly withstand. Of course, this is an absolutely groundless theory, since there has never been any economic and human potential for the rapid flow of these peoples in Central Asia. An excellent analysis of the problem can be found in the article by A. V. Podoinitsyn "On nomadic feudalism, nomadic cities and nomads" in the book by Fomenko and Nosovsky "Reconstruction of the general history. Studies 1999 - 2000 ". In our opinion, the creation of the Rus-Horde Empire is an incredible event of the same order.
Preliminary reconstruction attempt without a phantom Global Empire
So, how do the authors imagine the reconstruction of real history without a phantom Global Empire?
By the time of the emergence of civilization, the following tribes lived on the territory of Europe and Asia - the Romans (Greeks), Franks (Germans), Slavs, Turks, Persians, etc. The history of the genesis of these tribes is beyond the scope of this report. One can only note the initial kinship of the Slavic and Germanic tribes, which is proved by the common roots of the words of their languages. For more details see the work of Ya. A. Kesler's "ABC and Russian-European Dictionary".
Civilization originated in the Mediterranean region around the 10th - 11th centuries. n. BC, which was facilitated by favorable economic conditions, and above all the concentration of the surplus product due to the trade exchange that took place in this area. Rome (aka Constantinople, modern Istanbul) rises as the world's largest trade center. The gradual expansion of Rome begins. The Roman (aka Byzantine) Empire appears. The "barbarians" fall under the influence of the Empire; Franks (Western Europe), Slavs (Eastern Europe), Turks (Asia). Influence is primarily cultural and economic, and only then military.
Breathing empire concept
The development of the Roman Empire proceeds simultaneously in 2 directions: a) new territories join, b) since unified centralized government in that era was impossible, then new territories are segregated as vassals (provinces). Representatives of the imperial dynasty become local rulers + there are a small number of Roman warriors. This leads, on the one hand, to a gradual strengthening of the local ethnic element (dissolution of the Romans among the local) and centrifugal tendencies, on the other hand, local rulers retain dynastic claims to the imperial throne. Both that, and another gradually leads to wars of the provinces against the center. We call such an expanding and contracting empire a "breathing" empire.
So The Roman Empire has never been a global empire. Its development proceeds in parallel with the gradual rise of the state formations of the "barbarians". This leads to endless wars between the Empire and its vassals.
Subsequent development of the Roman Empire
By the beginning of the 14th century. formed at least two approximately equal forces: the Roman Empire and its neighbor - the Persian state. The fact that Persia was an equally strong state is evidenced by the fact that the Roman Empire fought the most stubborn and longest wars with the Persians. The Persian king or padishah was recognized as the equal of the Roman emperor. In addition to these two empires, a number of semi-independent states were formed, which were ruled by dynasties that were, to one degree or another, related to the ruling houses of the empires. These states, depending on the political situation, periodically included or left the sphere of influence of the empires.
The development of maritime affairs allowed the Roman Empire located on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea to expand its territory and sphere of influence somewhat more successfully. However, the expansion of the limits led to the fact that the effective management of such a state with a territory from one center became ineffective. Starting from the 2nd quarter of the 14th century. between the western and eastern parts of the Empire, a split emerged, which ended by the end of the 14th century. the division of empires into the western empire, which we know under the name of the Holy Roman Empire, and the eastern part, which was later called Byzantium. It was the eastern empire, thanks to a more developed economy and a centralized political system, that for several centuries was the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. We used to call it the Ottoman Empire after the Ottoman dynasty who established themselves in power in 1453.after the capture of Constantinople, and in fact 30 years earlier with the beginning of the reign of Sultan Murad II.
The territory of the south of Russia and the Moscow kingdom was part of the sphere of influence of the Ottoman Empire, and not vice versa. Moreover, the Muscovy was a vassal of the second order, because it was a tributary of the Crimean Khan.
Conclusion
The Roman Empire is a unique civilizational phenomenon. The Western Roman Empire lasted until 1806 and the Eastern Roman Empire until 1918.
Listeners may be surprised at this formulation of the question, since we all know that the Roman Empire ceased to exist in 476, when the emperor Romulus Augustulus was overthrown by the Germanic mercenary Odoacer. However, in fact, there is nothing strange, just for the readers of school textbooks, these empires existed before the specified time under different names: the Western Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire as the Byzantine, and then the Ottoman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist in August 1806, when Franz II, at the request of Napoleon, renounced the title of Roman Emperor and relieved all members of the empire from the duties imposed on them by the imperial constitution. In return, Napoleon formed the Rhine Union in Germany under his leadership.
The Byzantine Empire in textbooks ceases to exist in 1453, when Sultan Mehmed II took Constantinople. However, for some reason, Mehmed II himself considered himself a Roman emperor, under him "Greek" philosophy and art flourished. Thus, the so-called Ottoman, but in fact the Roman Empire continued to exist perfectly, and collapsed only as a result of the First World War, when the Turkish national state was formed, and the former possessions of the Empire gained independence or became a protectorate of Britain and France. The last Sultan Mehmed V was stripped of power in 1922.
Here is what the Oxford Dictionary (OED) and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary have to say about the dates the discussed empire names appeared in English:
Holy Roman Empire - 1728
Byzantine (Byzantine) - 1794
Ottoman (Ottoman or Ottoman) - 1603
Thus, it becomes clear that these names have a later origin, and the contemporaries themselves called their empire simply Roman. Some historians do not even hide this, for example, D. E. Kharitonovich in his commentary on the Russian edition of the British textbook by Helmut Koenigsberger "Medieval Europe 400 - 1500." writes that “the term“Latin Empire”was invented by historians at the end of the 18th century in order to distinguish this state from the Greek Orthodox Byzantine Empire (by the way, the name is also the end of the 18th century). In fact, the empire has always been called Roman - Romeian in Greek pronunciation, Romania - in Latin."
So, by introducing these artificial terms, historians took away some of the glory from the truly great, albeit not global, Roman Empire. In our opinion, from attempts to glue the fragments of this glory, a hypothesis about the Global Empire of Russia-Horde emerged. Let's use the advice of the philosopher Ockham: "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." We believe that the Global Empire is such a multiplied entity. It contradicts the very principle of NH, designed to fight against numerous phantoms in history.
Report of the VII International Conference on the Problems of Civilization. Yu. V. Atanov, E. A. Stakhanov