On many foreign maps of the 17th-18th centuries, the northern part of Asia is designated as the Great Tartarie (Grande Tartarie, Great Tartarie, Tartaria Magna). Have you ever heard of such a country? This fact is very curious, and it is clearly dark, or rather the darkest place in our history.
It is widely believed among new chronologists that Great Tartary was an independent state with its capital in Tobolsk. However, this idea is most likely mistaken. Nevertheless, the very fact of the existence of this territory and its name on the maps, which cannot be found in any history textbook, makes one wonder: is the past of our country presented to us correctly?
The maps depicting Great Tartary (Tartary) are mainly maps of Asia, and the western border of this Tartary is simply the border between Europe and Asia. Many maps of the 18th century are also called maps of the Russian Empire, which show Russia (Russia, Muscovy), on the one hand, and Great Tataria (Moscow Tataria as part of Great Tataria), on the other. The border between them, again, is the border between Europe and Asia.
Map of Tartary (fragment). Guillaume Delisle, 1706 The map shows three Tatars: Moscow, Free and Chinese (show in full, 1900x1500, 1.5 MB).
Speaking about Great Tartary, they often refer to the first edition of the British Encyclopedia, published in 1771. However, no state with such a name is mentioned there. In the geographical table, indeed, there is Tataria, consisting of three other Tartars, including the Moscovite one. And the point is not that the word “Great” is missing in this case, but that the table lists not states, but territories and their constituents (division and subdivision).
The original division in the table was built by parts of the world, and many states extended their borders beyond one part of the world. Therefore, in the "Europe" section, Russia is indicated, and in the "Asia" section - Moscovite Tataria. Accordingly, Tobolsk is simply the main city of the Asian part of Russia. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not provide any reason to believe that we are talking here about different states. Moreover, it presents a map of Asia, on which its entire northern half, from edge to edge, is designated as the Russian Empire.
From the latter, the conclusion suggests itself that Great Tataria was simply called a part of Asia, and Muscovite, or Moscow, Tataria, in turn, was the Asian part of the Russian Empire. Despite this, the use in the past of the names "Great Tataria" and "Moscow Tataria" in relation to the vast spaces in which most of our country is located today is a historical fact. But we do not know anything about this, Russian history can tell us nothing about how Moscow Tataria lived, why it was called that way, how it was colonized, what kind of relations it had with the mother country, etc.
Promotional video:
Instead of the history of Moscow Tataria, we are slipped the history of the conquest of Siberia, or rather, the Siberian Khanate, which was located in the area of the Tobol. This Siberia, in terms of its area, was so small that it barely made up at least a fifteenth part of modern Siberia. And what happened in the rest of the territory?
The geographic dimensions of the Siberian Khanate, conquered by Yermak (in fact, as it is described in history, conquered later by his legendary campaign), are roughly comparable to France. In the same Britannica, in the same geographical table, the size of the territories is indicated: France - 139,000 square meters. miles, Moskovitskaya Tataria - 3,050,000 sq. miles. The difference is more than twenty times. It seems strange that the history of a huge land is reduced to history (not even to history, but only to the history of the conquest) of its one-twentieth part. And this, obviously, is a big problem in historical science.
How did it happen, because the annexation of the Asian lands should have taken place relatively not so long ago, not in the foggy time of Ivan the Terrible or the Troubles, but already in the 18th century. Even in the middle of this century, the central power in the Middle and Lower Volga regions was rather weak, and it would hardly be correct to speak of complete subordination and control of this region. What, then, can be said about the territory immediately beyond the Ural ridge and, even more so, even more distant - Central and Eastern Siberia?
A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky point to the war with Pugachev as the war between Russia and the independent Great Tartary. In their opinion, it was the outcome of this war that led to the subordination of the latter and the incorporation of its territory into the new, Romanov, empire. After that, the winners rewrote history, deleting Great Tartary from it as such.
Let's leave aside the questions of the nationality of the warring parties - this point was discussed above - and turn our attention to the very history of the Pugachev revolt. There is really a lot of dark here: the events of that time are not at all like the peasant uprising, as it is stated in history, and are more reminiscent of the dual power and the civil war.
A lot has already been written about the fact that Pugachev had a government that performed its functions, and an army organized according to all the rules of military affairs. I will add just a few details of that story.
Pugachev was tried not just anywhere, but in the Throne Room of the Kremlin Palace. Before the start of the trial, the judges gave a "nondisclosure agreement": they were forced to swear that they would keep all its details in the strictest confidence. Moreover, Catherine herself decided to make this secret eternal! The decree to rename all Yaitskoe to Ural was issued on the fifth day after Pugachev's execution. It was strictly forbidden to mention the old names, as well as to mention Pugachev himself.
Isn't it too cool when it comes to a simple peasant uprising? It's just amazing … However, everything will become clearer if you remember that Pugachev never called himself such, but introduced himself and was known to everyone as Emperor Peter Fedorovich, that is, Peter III, who escaped after the coup staged by Catherine.
A. S. Pushkin, interested in Pugachev (there was no history of Pugachev yet, and his name was shrouded in mystery), decided to carry out, as they will now say, an independent journalistic investigation. But, collecting material, he was forced to hide the true subject of the search, as he was afraid that everything would be classified even more. Officially, Pushkin said that he was collecting information to write the history of Suvorov. When the search did not give the expected result, he went to the Urals and the Volga region, keeping the real purpose of the trip a secret. There he said that he decided to get acquainted with the places in which the action of the fiction novel he was writing allegedly unfolds.
When Pushkin finished the manuscript, he gave it to the emperor himself, because the censorship would not have let it through anyway. You can be sure that the book was written as loyally as possible and “combed” as it should, since the author hoped that Nikolai would allow him for further research on the topic to closed archives. He made edits, including renaming "The History of Pugachev" into "The History of the Pugachev Revolt", allowed the book to be published, but did not give access to secret archival documents. This was the end of the search for the poet and historian.
Most likely, Pushkin, in the main, was already working with a new history, written under Catherine. He studied many documents, but most of them were open, and they did not contain anything secret. His critics wrote that he did not set out anything new in his book about Pugachev. Pushkin believed that he had collected a lot of new data, including directly on the course of hostilities. But what is the value of this information if the story of Pugachev, presented by Pushkin, essentially repeated the legend, could not dispel the fog enveloping it and explain the obvious inconsistencies in the description of those events?
In the preface to his History, Pushkin writes that the Pugachev case is in the archives, among other secret documents, "hitherto unopened." Did he know or at least guess that the real story of Pugachev is not at all what it was then presented? Unknown. It is only clear that since the researcher who took up this case half a century after the execution of Pugachev could not get to the bottom of the truth, then in the works of subsequent historians, after one and a half to two centuries, the retelling of the prevailing version of those events will not bring us closer to the truth. On the contrary, over time, information is naturally only distorted, and in the mind, moreover, a certain model of the past takes root, which becomes almost impossible to question.
One can only speculate about the true picture of the Peasant War under the leadership of Pugachev. Perhaps the key to understanding that time and confirmation of the version that it was a large-scale civil war will be provided by some data concerning the emperor Peter III, whose name Pugachev was allegedly hiding behind. Many facts indicate that Russian history was composed during the time of Catherine, and that this story is based on 90 and 99-year chrono shifts. And Peter-Pugachev fits well into this system.
A parallel is found between the biographies of Peter III and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. The most important points in establishing possible parallels are the dates of the life and reign of monarchs. In this case, the dates of birth of Alexei and Peter are 99 years apart. The dates when they were declared heirs to the throne are also 99 years old. However, the dates of their accession and death are not connected, that is, they do not reveal the described pattern. Let's turn to the history of Pugachev.
Suppose that the one who was called Pugachev was indeed the real Peter. That Peter III did not die in 1762, but was alive and fought with Catherine. And later he was issued in Catherine's story for a simple Cossack Emelyan Pugachev. Let us recall Pushkin's notes, where he says how, to his questions about Pugachev in the Urals, one old man indignantly replied that, they say, it was for Pushkin that he was Pugachev, and for them, the Cossacks, he was the real Tsar Pyotr Fedorovich. So, False Peter Pugachev was executed in 1775, that is, exactly 99 years after the death of Tsar Alexei.
It is difficult to explain why Catherine's historians "tied" the date of Alexei's death to the date of execution of an ordinary Cossack, and even a troublemaker, without identifying Peter and Pugachev. Most likely, the so-called Peasant War was really a war between Catherine and Peter, behind whom was Moscow Tataria, that is, Russian lands, far from the capital and from any palace coups there. It was specifically announced about Peter that he had allegedly already died, with the aim of presenting him as an impostor, False Peter. Later, under this backdoor, this fiction, a "true" story was written, burying under itself the whole truth about that time, including the history of Tataria, but the numerological predilections of Catherine's chronologists left a trace of the present past.
By the way, it is still not known how sincere and honest Pushkin was when writing The History of Pugachev. A seed of doubt about his honesty can be sown by the fact that he was paid an interest-free loan from the state treasury in the amount of 20,000 rubles. This money was allocated to Pushkin for the needs of publishing a book. Why was Nikolai suddenly, on whose direct orders this was done, so interested in her exit?
And one moment. Speaking of False Peter, one must remember that there was another False Peter in Russian history - there were two of them in total. This second, and chronologically - the first, is Ileyka Muromets, the hero of the Time of Troubles. He, too, was a Cossack, the leader of the rebels and also called himself Tsar Peter Fedorovich. Some Russian cities swore allegiance to him, considering him a real tsar. And it happened in 1606, that is, exactly 90 years before the beginning of the sole rule of Peter the Great. This story is as muddy as Pugachev's, but it turned out to be more difficult to "erase" Ilya Muromets than Pyotr Fedorovich.
