I am often accused of not using scientifically recognized historical artifacts. I want to say that this is not true.
If the material raises my doubts, I either do not consider it, or I mention it with the obligatory explanation that there is a suspicion of falsity.
But if these documents and maps are used by official historians for their works why is it forbidden for me? Let them prove the falsity of these artifacts. But sometimes historians are either lazy or they are inattentive. And I'm not lazy and with attentiveness everything is in order.
Therefore, I often draw your attention to obvious inconsistencies in historical narratives, which sometimes border on fantasy. But their fantasies and speculations for some reason are considered obligatory for acceptance.
But let's get down to the facts.
I wrote two articles dedicated to the great victory of Peter the Great at the mouth of the Neva. You can read my thoughts about this battle in the articles "The amazing battle on the Neva on May 18, 1703 …" and "The battle on the Neva in 1703 …". I have given several arguments that clearly show the absolute fiction of this event.
But there is one more iron proof that this victory was invented for the sake of glorification, the person of whom we know by the name of Peter the Great. The great reformer of Russia, who pulled her out of a state of complete decline and savagery to the level of European values of that time. At least they are strenuously convincing us of this.
So that's it. There is a medal awarded to the participants in this battle.
Promotional video:
It would seem, in the same proof. But let's take a closer look at the inscription on the medal on the side where the bas-relief of Peter the Great is depicted.
Here we clearly see the word "all-Russian imperial and autocrat" that is, the emperor and autocrat of all Russia. But in 1703, Peter was not emperor! He received this title in 1721:
How so? Why do we see this title on the medal of Peter the Great?
The answer is obvious and simple. The stamp for the manufacture of this medal was made much later, and the master who made it either did not know or forgot that in 1703 Peter the Great was not emperor.
It means that this medal is a clear historical fake and is a fake artifact. But if the reward for the battle is not real, then what to think about the veracity of this event?
Therefore, I conclude for myself that the history of this battle was invented and furnished with fake evidence. And it is quite possible this was done back in the 18th century. Although most likely in the 19th. With the sole task of glorifying the rule of the Russian dynasty of the Romanov tsars.
But everyone has the right to disagree with me.