Earlier, I have more than once expressed the opinion that one of the most reliable indicators indicating that this or that segment of history has been falsified is its difficulty for teaching in a classroom. If the story is boring, confusing and not absorbed by pupils or students in the intended volume, then this is a sure sign that the events being studied are fictional. A simple example: schoolchildren study the early history of Russia with pleasure and easily assimilate educational material. No, there, too, of course, a lot is turned upside down, but this was done, at least, understandably.
But as soon as it comes to studying the history of the "House of Roman", schoolchildren begin to yawn, their attention is scattered, and the material taught is categorically not digestible. Why? Yes, because the "writers" of history were too clever, trying to explain the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions. The multi-layered heap of countless kings, queens, princes and impostors creates such a "mess" in the minds of students that it is difficult even for an experienced teacher to dot the "i" s.
And to suspect a historical forgery is not so difficult, in fact. It is enough to study the portrait gallery of all representatives of the Romanov dynasty to draw a conclusion that suggests itself. The first of the Romanovs, by their external characteristics, cannot in any way relate to the representatives of the Slavic people. This means that power was seized by strangers. When? Most likely, even their ancestors, who are referred to as Rurik, but who in fact were no longer such.
Since then, as the wife of Ivan III became the Jewish woman Zoya, baptized into orthodox Christianity, who went down in history under the name Sophia Palaeologus, with the genetics of Russian monarchs, something clearly happened. They could not be Russian for any of the signs. The "Mongol" khans had a pronounced Slavic appearance, and the "Russian" tsars, for some reason, have external features characteristic of the peoples of the Caucasus, or the Middle East.
Then it becomes completely incomprehensible. Beginning with Peter I, all "Romanovs" have in their outward appearance obvious features of degeneration, genetic degradation. The last such tsar was Paul I. But his children and future descendants are already known to us as tall, stately handsome men who, in an incomprehensible way, “recovered”. This can testify only to one thing: - Power has again passed to a new dynasty, and the textbooks do not say anything about this page of our history.
Another problem for history teachers is the so-called “conquest of Siberia”. Even the most successful students in this matter often "float" and show miracles of poor assimilation of educational material. Why? The answer is still the same. The truth, most likely, lies not only in the fact that conquest, in the generally accepted sense, was not. In addition, the dates of fictitious or falsified events and their geography are shamelessly distorted. But most importantly, historians have perverted the motives, reasons, and the very essence of the events.
It is noteworthy that in order to rewrite history, it is not at all necessary to rewrite it. To understand how this can be done, it is enough to recall an old anecdote:
Did the man say one word of lies? Obviously not. Did he cheat on his wife? Of course yes. A similar paradox is actively used for historical falsifications. But sprouts of truth can be found in the most unexpected places, therefore, I do not hesitate to rummage through the most unpleasant heaps of information, in which I can unexpectedly find an answer to a question that has been haunted for years, and which could not be obtained from any of the sources. It doesn't matter if it's official or alternative.
Thus, while studying a lecture by Princeton University professor Stephen Kotkin, I was with great satisfaction to discover genuine diamonds among a gigantic array of Russophobic lies about Russia. Among the frenzied slander mixed with the classical Norman theory, diluted with the idle fabrications of a famous scientist, in which he automatically extrapolates the actions of his ancestors when clearing the United States from indigenous people, to the actions of our ancestors, during the "conquest of Siberia."
It turns out that for the professor it is not a mystery that some of the authors who wrote about Tartary define the border between Europe and Asia along the Don River, while others consider the Ural as such a border:
This statement explains a lot, of course, but changes little, in contrast to the following Kotkin's clause:
Why did I call this a "slip"? Because the phrase “your new world” directly indicates that Europe called America the New World, and Russia, by analogy with Europe, it turns out, had its own “New World” as the added territories of Siberia. And this, you see, makes you look at this period of history from a completely different angle. It turns out that we do not have a coincidence in time of two events, independent of each other, but this is a single process of redivision of the world, where North America and Siberia are two theaters of military operations of one global war. War, divided not only geographically, but also artificially spaced in time. The version that the true conquest of America took place simultaneously with the conquest of Siberia unexpectedly finds its confirmation. Unexpectedly, Kotkin's assertion thatthat Omsk was previously called Sparta, because at the same time it refers only to certain memories of some Siberians. The assessment given by the professor of industry of the Russian Empire of the eighteenth century is also curious:
Many researchers suggest that Kolyvan-Voskresensk is Nizhny Tagil. However, a number of facts indicate that Kolyvan is located thousands of kilometers east of the Urals, in Altai. Today it is called Zmeinogorsk, and it was there that the father and son of the Cherepanovs lived, who created the first steam locomotive. But what is completely perplexing is Kotkin's recognition of the version about the belonging of separate North American lands to Great Tartary. I have come across similar statements in the works of our domestic historians - alternativeists, but this effort to pass off the wishful thinking for reality, more precisely, the past, does not cause surprise, except perhaps a slight irony. But it is very difficult to suspect the Russophobe Kotkin of pseudo-Slavophilism. It is unknown where in 1996 the American got such information, but, as the saying goes, "you can't throw out words from a song":
But let's sort it out in order. Let's start with the generally accepted version, which undoubtedly contains some points that help to shed light on the true events that are masked by the "conquest" of Siberia. From what sources do we know about this grand event? Of course, as is often the case, an entire era has only one author. Understanding the rubble of historians' monographs, it is easy to see that each of the authors refers to each other, and together they consider the only and unrepeatable works of S. M. Solovyov, who himself considered the most reliable information left by the master N. M. Karamzin.
It turns out that everything that we know about the "bloody war of Russia with the powerful Siberian horde", we know from one writer, who was born a hundred years after the events he describes. And what was he leaning on? And Dear Ivan Mikhailovich, it turns out, referred to the so-called "Kungur Chronicle". But don't be fooled by the title of the document. This is just the title of a piece of fiction allegedly left behind by one of the participants in the "conquest" of Siberia. And as you may have guessed already, probably its original was lost, and the edition of 1880. just a reconstruction.
Brief Siberian Chronicle (Kungurskaya) with 154 drawings.
In fact, these are kind of comics, where the pictures are explained. Basically, this is a description of the geography, rivers and cities of the peoples inhabiting Siberia, and their customs. And so, from these comics, a version was born, according to which grandiose "historical" films with battle scenes are now being shot, in which thousands of mummers "Tatars" and "Russian knights" take part. One of the hundreds of commercial expeditions, similar to the expeditions of the detachments of atamans Markov, Khabarov and Dezhnev, which had nothing to do with state policy, spilled out one of the most grandiose historical myths designed to explain the inexplicable. Namely: - how Russia appeared on the site of Great Tartary, and how Turan appeared in its composition:
But even this brief explanation, which does not differ from the official one, already raises a number of questions, sound answers to which leave no stone unturned from the picture of "conquest" existing in the heads of our contemporaries. And this prejudice was formed in our minds, including thanks to the "Siberian Bulletin" by G. I. Spassky.
Siberian Bulletin. Ch. I 1818
Ermak here is very different from the image that historians have inspired us, thanks to the efforts of the mass media. And the resemblance to the Spanish conquistadors here is clearly no coincidence. This is one of the indirect confirmations of the version of alternative historians that, in fact, the era of geographical discoveries and colonization was not so spaced across the time scale as we are told. In fact, the "conquest of America" and "the conquest of Siberia" are a series of the same events that took place at the same time on different continents. And the author does not accidentally cite historical parallels:
However, although the entire book is an ode to brave patriots, who, according to the author, thought only about the glory of Russia, and not about the remuneration promised to them by their employers Stroganovs, there are also interesting details in it. For example, the death of Ermak himself is shown in a completely different way. He was killed not in battle, but shot under unclear circumstances, after which his body was found on the banks of the Irtysh 15 miles below the mouth of the Vagai by one of the fishermen. The fisherman reported the find to Kuchum-Khan, and he buried Ermak with honors at the cemetery of the Begichevsk Tatars.
This episode allows us to make an assumption that probably we do not know everything about the relationship both within the Yermak squad and between the Cossacks and Tatars. There are other interesting information. For example, a description of the ruins of an unknown fortress, which Yermak's detachment met on the Kozlovka river, 25 miles from Tobolsk. The main thing for us here is that none of the local Tatars was able to tell Yermak about whose fortress it was, when it was built, and when and by whom it was destroyed. That is, the situation is similar to the one when the conquistadors tortured the Indians of Mesoamerica about the history of the ruins they discovered in the jungle. The Incas, like the Tatars, said that they did not build this, and all this existed even before them.
Further, the Cossacks met even more ancient remains of fortifications 29 versts from Tobolsk, between the rivers Aslana and Belkina. At that time, there were shafts of 3 fathoms in height, and ditches 3 fathoms deep (1 fathom = 1.78 cm). Impressive dimensions, I must say. If only the remains of the rampart were 5 meters high, then what were they originally, taking into account the fortress walls! And they were built by the Tatars, who were "conquered" by 840 vagrants? But how did an understaffed regiment, consisting of, albeit trained and fearless, men, manage to conquer an area of more than 13 million square kilometers? The historians themselves are not funny?
In general, even to the authors of the nineteenth century it was quite obvious that Yermak's campaign in Siberia was no conquest, despite the fact that, obeying the censorship, they wrote about military conquest. But at the same time, ninety percent of the text contains a description of the life and customs of the peoples of Siberia, geography, vegetation, and what is especially noteworthy, a description of many ancient burial mounds, cities and fortresses, the origin of which the Tatars themselves did not remember anything.
Meanwhile, it is striking that the Yermak Cossacks, in fact, were engaged in archaeological research, and not conquests. The Vestnik speaks of a huge number of finds made on the Siberian mounds by the Cossacks. Basically, these were products from … cast iron! Plates with images and letters, figurines depicting people, animals, birds, etc. Let me remind you that in Europe they learned to produce cast iron only in the nineteenth century. But the hubs of the Scythian carts were already cast iron. Historians claim that the Chinese invented cast iron in the eleventh century. However, Yermak's expedition gives grounds for the assertion that they began to melt iron not in China, but in Katai. And Katay, this is Siberia, which Yermak “conquered”.
In addition to cast iron items, the Cossacks discovered many items made of steel. I have not seen any mention of the weapon, it was basically a working tool. There are many sickles for the harvest, which is evidence of developed agriculture, knives, axes and spades. About the origin of these artifacts, local Tatars said that probably those Chuds who lived in these places before them did it. Here the author makes a reasonable assumption that the artifacts found do not belong to one period of antiquity, but have been accumulating for millennia.
So much for the "unhistoric land". I wonder where did all these finds go? After all, nothing like the described items in any of the Siberian museums with the help of available means is extremely difficult.
Turan is Gardarika
How many have thought about why the chess piece, which is depicted in the form of a fortress tower, and for some misunderstanding is called "rook", has a second incomprehensible name - "round"?
Genghis Khan liked to move such figures on the checkered board.
But the question is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. The fact is that in some dialects of the Turkic language group, the word turá means “tower, city”. Now attention! Many Siberians know about the "hill" called Kysym Tura, and that translated into Russian it means "Maiden's Tower" (almost like the main attraction of the city of Baku). But thanks to the Vestnik Sibiri, we find out that Kysym Tura is the ruins of an ancient city called the Maiden City.
But that's not all. It turns out that a lot of Siberian cities, about which no memories have survived, had a single system of names, in which the first was a proper name, and the second was Tura, common to all. Just like Ivangorod, Novgorod, Stargorod, etc. To this day, there is a settlement in the Krasnoyarsk Territory called Tura. Tura means a city. And Turan is a country of cities, or in other words a gardarika. And this name is quite appropriate, judging by the map of the monk Fra Mauro, on which Siberia is depicted as actually one giant metropolis the size of Siberia. An extremely entertaining picture opens on the Tour page in Wiktionary:
- Tura or Turus is a siege tower.
- Tura is the old Russian name for the artillery troops.
- Tura (Tours) is the old Russian name for a basket without a bottom, filled with bulk material to protect against an adversary.
- Tura is another name for the rook chess piece
- Tour is a tower for construction work.
- Cosimo Tura is an Italian painter.
- Tura is the mythical ancestor of the Turanians, mentioned in the Avesta.
- Tura is a god in the Chuvash traditional religion.
- Tura - in Tatar - a city, for example: Kyzym-tura - a girl's city.
Rivers:
- Tura is a river in Western Siberia, a tributary of the Tobol.
- Tura (a tributary of the Ingoda) is a river in the Trans-Baikal Territory.
- Tura (tributary of the Churbiga) is a river in the Tomsk region.
- Tura (river, flows into Kozhozero) is a river in the Arkhangelsk region, flows into Kozhozero.
Settlements:
- Tura is a village in the Evenk region of the Krasnoyarsk Territory.
- Tura is a village in the Krasnogorsk region of Udmurtia.
- Tura is a village in Slovakia, in the Levice region.
- Tours is a city in France, near which the Cher River flows into the Loire.
- Verkhnyaya Tura is a city in the Sverdlovsk region.
- Nizhnyaya Tura is a city in the Sverdlovsk region.
Most likely, the Italian Turin, German Thuringia, and other European toponyms with the root "tour" in the name should also be added to this list.
But there is another strange coincidence. Do not forget that the bull was called the tour in Russia, and the bull-man Veles, who in the European tradition is called Jupiter, or Iapetus, i.e. biblical Japheth, who is considered the father of the entire white race of mankind. Now let's look at the coat of arms of the city of Turin:
It turns out that it is more correct to say Turin, not Turin. Undoubtedly, the ancient name of the Crimea - "Tavrus", is directly related to Tur:
Now this constellation has been renamed "accidentally" in Taurus, but in fact, it is a bull, or a tour. So what was Ermak's geographic expedition looking for in Turan? And here's another hint. "Bulletin of Siberia" about Lake Kolyvan:
Kolyvan Lake (Savvushka). Zmeinogorsk District of Altai Territory.
This is already very serious. In this passage, the author directly asks the question, to which he himself answers: - before us is nothing but the consequences of a global catastrophe.
The author of the Paris edition of 1868 writes about the same. "La Siberie":
Kachkanar is one of the highest peaks of the Urals.
This is how it looked in the nineteenth century, and the eyewitness did not seem to doubt that it was man-made. For example, take a look at how it looks today:
I suppose there is no need to explain how fleeting geological processes really are. Quite recently, it was a ruin, and today no one doubts that before us are rocks, remnants, “freaks of nature”. There are many more surprises in this book. For example, an illustration depicting Ermak's detachment in Samoyed, i.e. on Novaya Zemlya.
Most likely, Ermak has never been there, however, it is quite possible that once again historians "forgot" to tell us something important: For example, that there could have been two or more expeditions of Ermak. What about the appearance of the Tungus?
The error is excluded, because representatives of other northern peoples are depicted in the book in full accordance with their true appearance. In addition, the detailing of the elements of the costume leaves no chance for the assumption that the artist did not know how the Tungus really look. It is impossible to take such details “from the ceiling”, which means that the Tungus, like the Yukaghirs, and other peoples of Siberia were representatives of the Caucasian race.
Looking at Irkutsk, it is also impossible not to suspect the presence of deep gaps in our ideas about "unhistorical" Siberia in the recent past:
If it were not for the caption to the illustration, one might think that it depicts some European city. And here is another material evidence of an unknown civilization that existed before on the territory of Great Tartary:
White steles of gigantic proportions in the gorge of the Kora River in the Alatau Mountains.
Today it is a very popular place among tourists, but not a single evidence of the menhirs indicated on the engraving has survived. It can be seen that in the nineteenth century they were already very old, and had serious damage. Now nothing has survived from them. Well, if only small pebbles that no one pays attention to. In the same place, in Alatau, in the gorge of the Baskan River, there was an even more impressive structure:
You can't even call them ruins, and today no one remembers their existence in the very recent past. Where did it all go? Why is there information about these ruins in France, but we do not? But back to the writings of Spassky. To his "Bulletin of Siberia" was also published "Album of views, drawings of buildings and ancient inscriptions of Siberia" (1818):
Ablaiket (Ablainkit, Mong. Ablayn khiyd) is a Dzungarian fortified Buddhist monastery of the 17th century. Founded in 1654 by Taishi Ablay. In 1671, during the internecine struggle, Galdan was taken and doomed to desolation. The ruins of the monastery are located on the territory of the Ulan district of the East Kazakhstan region. The complex was located in the mountains and in the plan had the shape of a pentagon. Along the perimeter it was surrounded by a wall up to 2 m high. The walls were protected by two religious buildings, in which, in the 18th century, manuscripts in the Mongol language, statues of Buddhas and images of bodhisattvas and dharmapalas with halos were found.
Thank God, although these ruins have survived to this day, and are not considered a natural formation.
Ruins of Semipalatinsk on the Irtysh.
Botagay Mausoleum (Bytygay, Tatagay), kaz. Botagay kesenesi is an architectural monument of the 11th-12th centuries. Located on the left bank of the Nura River, Korgalzhyn district, 2 km east, from the village of Korgalzhyn, Akmola region, on the territory of the settlement of the same name. Medieval portal-domed mausoleum. In the middle of the nineteenth century. the mausoleum was in relatively good condition, now it is ruined. Judging by the drawings and descriptions of travelers, the Botagay mausoleum is one of the outstanding masterpieces of the art of architecture and construction.
"Inventory" of Siberian Tartaria
Now is the time to summarize the interim results. Analyzing all of the above facts, as well as keeping in mind a lot of information presented in the previous chapters, we can state that there is a sufficient array of data to voice the following conclusions:
- There can be no question of any "conquest" of Turan by a relatively small province - Muscovy. There were no political or economic opportunities for this. What was later called the "conquest" of Siberia was an ordinary commercial enterprise. The same as the East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, or the Russian-American Company. Those. even in the recent past, not states, but corporations were in charge of borders and territories. And the corporation, the main shareholders of which were the Stroganovs, sent its own delegation to Siberian Tartary, headed by Ermak.
- The purpose of the enterprise was not conquest, but reconnaissance and inventory of what had survived on the territory later called Siberia.
- The fact that Great Tartary existed on the maps, including the Russians, until 1828. testifies to the fact that the seizure of part of the northeastern lands by the Holy Roman Empire, with the capital in St. Petersburg, did not become the end for all of Tartary. Moscow Tartary was the only legitimate organization legitimately claiming the lands ravaged by the catastrophe stretching east of the Urals.
And Petersburg, although it became a separate province, had to reckon not only with its overlord in Germany, but also with Muscovy. Let me remind you that until the very end of the existence of the amusing Russian Empire, all emperors "received a label" in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Even in spite of the fact that in the history of Great Tartary, it would seem, an end was put, which went down in history under the name of the "Patriotic War of 1812".
What actually happened? What were the generals of St. Petersburg and the Russian fleet doing in America, while the wars "With Napoleon" in Europe and "For independence" in America were going on at the same time? Why were the uniforms of American, Russian and French soldiers the same? Why were traditional crosses removed from the Tower of London in 1801 and Protestant ones were erected? Why did the Fleet of the Russian Empire replace Junon Jack with the banner of St. Andrew the First-Called? Why was Cromwell's British flag replaced with the Union Jack?
Why did the British and Dutch entirely serve in the Russian fleet, the Prussians in the cavalry, artillery and infantry, and the Russian nobility spoke French? Why did the monument to Russian Admiral Nelson become a national hero of Britain, and why was the monument erected to him at the expense of the Russian treasury? Well, the main question: - Why were the lands of Russian America, Hawaii, Malaysia, and the Cyclades archipelago in the Aegean Sea taken away from the Russian Empire? This is what a tangled tangle we have to unwind.
Author: kadykchanskiy