I'm not kidding. With a high degree of probability, he really existed, but who he really was, go now, figure it out. A simple example: - What do we know about V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin). How did he perform on the armored car? How did you receive the walkers in your office? How did the orphans wear candy for the New Year in orphanages? But these are all fairy tales! This is a deliberate deification, mythologization of a person who was completely different in life.
So, the abundance of information about Napoleon's personality leaves no doubt that literally everything that we know about him is a reader of myths. Well, what if … He never existed at all? An absurd assumption? But after all, a child, when he learns that Santa Claus is a fairy-tale character, falls into a stupor: - “How does it not exist? I've seen him myself five times already! I read poems to him!
In a similar way, we also depend on the paradoxical nature of the statement, which completely destroys all the ideas that come with them from birth. Here's another good example: everyone is so close to the idea of the existence of fierce Vikings in the past that they simply refuse to believe their eyes when I show them this inscription: "VI King". People continue to read it as "Viking" out of habit, not realizing that there is an inscription in front of them that literally means "King VI". More precisely, Karl the Sixth, because Karl is not even a name, but a title.
So, Charles VI, he is also Mad, he is Wise, he is also the owner of the Normans, gave birth to a monstrous myth in its essence about the existence of some kind of "Vikings". But that's not all … Ask any student who Charles the Sixth is, and he will tell you without hesitation that it was the King of France! France? Which France? Formally, yes, allegedly in the fifth century, the Normans imposed a tribute to the Gauls, and most of the modern lands of France began to be called Francia (Francia - lat.). There could not even be talk of any state "France", just as there could be no talk of the state "Cheremission" or "Muscovy".
In order for many mysteries of history to disappear by themselves, it is enough to learn one simple thing: until the second half of the nineteenth century, states did not exist at all. In the modern sense, of course. Considering medieval maps, one must clearly realize that these are not political maps, and not even ethnographic ones. The names on them are very conditional, the borders are not marked, and the names of the territories should be understood as the largest number of tribes living in these lands. So, the most numerous tribe of the Central Russian Plain and Northern Uvaly - the Rus - gave the name to the vast lands, which began to be called Rusia (Russia). And the most numerous tribe of the Normans - the Franks - gave a common name for the lands on which no tribes lived. But if in Rusia there were more Russians than all, then in Francia there were significantly fewer Franks than Gauls. That is why, until the nineteenth century in Russia, all Franks were called Gauls out of habit.
In this regard, I remembered the statement of my grandmother Elena Andreevna, born in 1917. I remember that at school age she first heard the word "nation" and that she herself belongs to the Russian nation. She says that, in fact, she is from the Krivichi. And the Russians lived somewhere far north, she doesn't know where! That is, already under Soviet rule, people remembered which of them was from which clan-tribe. Therefore, the "nations" were invented by the same people who organized the 1917 revolution for us. Do you believe that before the birth of Alexandre Dumas, anyone called themselves French?
No! Dumas, in fact, created the myth of the centuries-old history of a single French kingdom. To assert such a thing is tantamount to a statement that the USSR existed under Ivan the Terrible. Now again about the francs. The Franks Revolution in 1789 is precisely the Franks Revolution, not the "Great French Revolution". Do you feel how the meaning of the term itself is changing now, huh? "French" is one thing, and "francs" is quite another thing. Although, if you write it down in French, it will read like "revoluion fronsayze".
I hope this prompted you to understand what a “fronda” really is. Historians, probably, generally hold us for small children. They didn’t even bother to turn to any reference language (Greek or Latin) to explain the meaning of the word “fronda”. They say it's from the French sling. Well, what a "sling", excuse me, if everything is on the surface: the fronda are the Franks who seized power from the Merovingians.
Promotional video:
Quote from Wikipedia: "FRONDA Feminine 1. The noble-bourgeois movement against absolutism in France in the 17th century. 2. figurative meaning Opposition to something. for personal reasons, dissatisfaction with the existing, limited to the desire to contradict, annoy the books. outdated.) ". The main thing here is "the movement against absolutism in France in the 17th century." Only now … Historians forgot to finish drawing one more stick in Roman numerals. The Fronda was not in the seventeenth, but in the eighteenth century. And this fact allows you to penetrate into the essence of what happened. The revolution in Paris was a mutiny of the Franks. And not at all by the "French revolution".
Well, now … France (or rather, Francia) received its modern name only … September 22, 1792! Remember this date, and do not let yourself be fooled by anyone. Everyone can check the veracity of this statement. Any reference book or encyclopedia will confirm this. Therefore, all the "leaders" of this land until the end of the eighteenth century were the rulers of the Franks, Goths, Gauls, Normans, and other tribes living in this territory, but not France.
Exactly like the Tsars of All Russia were the rulers of principalities, khanates and other territories (Tartaria), but not the state of Russia. Although the prototype of the state in Russia existed. Moreover, much earlier than in the territory fragmented into specific principalities of Europe.
Already in the twelfth century, on the territory that the Europeans designated as "Great Tartary", there already existed a single service of measures and weights (standards), a postal and logistic government service, a single social insurance, road service, pensions, regular army and navy. These are already signs of a single centralized state, in contrast to "patchwork" Europe. And to be convinced of this, it is not necessary to extract secret tomes from the Vatican basements. It is enough to look at the modern political map of Eurasia. Nothing changes. Europe, as it was fragmented into small principalities, still exists in this state to this day. But the textbooks only write about "medieval fragmentation in Russia."
But okay. Let everyone see what he is looking for. As they say, you cannot forbid it. Let's go back to Boinaparty first. Try an experiment. You ask others one question: "What title did Bonaparte Napoleon first?" Have you asked? What reply? Emperor of France? Now show those who answered so, at least "Wikipedia":
What do you say? Oh, you didn't know … Well, now you know that the Legendary Napoleon actually ran Italy from the very beginning. Those. for the Franks, he was the same ruler as the President of Turkey or Iran would be for us today, approximately. Is it getting clear? Yeah … New surprise: Just so you know … Italy actually appeared only on March 17, 1861. When the underground was already opened in London …
No, of course, the title "Italic" existed, but again you need to understand that this is just the name of the territory in which hundreds of tribes and peoples live, and Italy, as a state, did not exist within its current borders until the beginning of the twentieth century, when, by the already existing country was annexed by Venetia.
By the way, Bonaparte's son, Napoleon II, was already called the king of Rome, not Italy. And this may just indicate that it was the story of the first Napoleon, and not the second, that was falsified. Let's add to this "vinaigrette" of hard-to-explain facts the story of the Alpine campaign of Count Suvorov, sorry, also of Italians!
Napoleon Francois Joseph Charles Bonaparte, King of Rome.
That is why Suvorov led his troops to Italy to fight Napoleon, because Bonaparte was the King of Italy, not France. And do not be misled by the term “Suvorov's Swiss campaign” coined by historians. He was Italian, and therefore Suvorov was given the title of Prince of Italy. But Italy was only one of the provinces, and not a Kingdom, as they say now … And in general, it is not clear whether Suvorov fought with Napoleon, and if so, with which one? Indeed, the very term "Bonaparte Napoleon" is more like a title, or a nickname, than a proper name "according to the passport."
So, about Napoleon:
It's good that I didn't come up with all this, so let the hot heads cool off. I just want to share what I found from what the French themselves wrote more than a hundred years ago. Before you is the translation of the French researcher, librarian from the city of Azhan J. P. Perez.
Read the entire brochure …
New and new surprises are presented by the unknown, mysterious 19th century. I have been struggling for so long to solve a temporary "black hole", with a repetition of the history of the 19th century at a turn of 50 years! As if a gramophone record was stuck, the story of Alexander I and Napoleon I, as if a carbon copy, repeated itself for Alexander III and Napoleon III. Only the geography of events is different, but the insignificant details differ. It seems extremely strange to me that reading the story of the first two opponents and the second, we come across characters who have left their mark on the destinies of Europe and Russia, whose life path is simply phenomenally similar! Here are just a few "coincidences":
- Gazi Muhammad and Haji Mahomet, both imams of Chechnya and Dagestan, with a difference of 50 years;
- Clemens von Mitternich and Otto von Bismarck, the difference is 50 years and having learned the biography, description of the character and habits of one, you can safely talk about the other. You can't go wrong!
Further:
- William Mackenzie - Louis Rel, - Kossuth - Kosciuszko, - sailors Lisyansky and Lesovsky (difference 60 years), - Grand Duke Constantine was with both Alexandrov, and one of them sold California to America, the second Alaska, - Captains Mac and McMahon, - Clausewitz and Meltke (both Carls), - Giffard and Zeppelin … Believe me, the list of doubles is simply endless.
And there are still similar events, yes! Also a lot of coincidences. For example, the uprising of the Silesian weavers in 1844. and a riot at the Morozov textile factory in 1885.
Now I propose to admire the monogram of Emperor Alexander III:
Monogram of Emperor Alexander III.
Nothing out of the ordinary, right? Now look at the monogram of Alexander I.
Monogram of Emperor Alexander I.
Here then, the jokers-forgers laughed at us. They left us greetings in the most prominent place. Well, tell me, who would ever think to call our Patriarch Kirill the First? Yes, no one in their right mind! And no one called Peter the First until the Second was born. And who could have thought of calling him the First when Alexander was alive? Did they know that there would be other Alexandras later?
So, understanding these twists and turns, I came across a book about which I want to tell. To those who are too lazy to read it, I will just retell it briefly. Those who are familiar with the theory of the origin of pagan ideas, the mythology of different peoples and the history of religions will appreciate the conclusions reached by the librarian from Ajan. I was very impressed! Even in spite of the fact that contemporaries called this book a satire, kitsch, and a pamphlet. It's worth paying attention to, believe me …
Perez claims that "Napole - ON", born on March 20, on the day of the spring solstice (like Yarilo), is nothing more than a reflection of all previous incarnations of the sun. Just the result of astronomical observations that formed the basis of all known religions. Birth, death, resurrection, apostles, etc.
And Apollo served as tracing paper for the image of Napoleon, almost an anagram, the letters "e" and "n" were added, otherwise the same set of sounds. Is this another sign? This is a brilliant puzzle.
Vendome Column in Paris.
Neapolion - so it is written on the Vendome Column in Paris. NOT APOLLO, and at the same time a hint of Naples. Boanapart Novgorodtsev or what? And what is Bon-Apart? Bon is good, kind. Apart is a replica directed to oneself. Otherwise, is it a good self-clue? Those. it turns out that we are being signaled that the key is "In his name"? Nakosyachili with the mythology about the emperor, but for reasons of conscience left crumbs in the forest, through which you can get to the bottom?
Okay, let's move on.
Both were born on an island in the Mediterranean Sea in the east (where the sun is supposed to rise), and died in the sea in the west (where the sun goes down daily).
For both, their mother was called by almost the same name, Apollo's mother was Leta (joy among the Slavs, Lada), for NEappolon, Letizia (joyful).
Both have 4 brothers (seasons), three became kings.
Two wives and a child from the second - an obvious borrowing from Egyptian mythology (which, however, coincides with Slavic). The Sun has two wives: the Earth and the Moon. The moon - the first wife is barren, the second - the Earth brought Horse! Among the Slavs, Khors, the winter incarnation of the sun, precedes the spring incarnation - Yaril.
12 marshalls, months, apostles. And 12 more armies (according to the Bible, the heavenly army) -signs of the zodiac, ruled by the Sun by Neapolion.
Victories in the south and defeat in the north.
Twelve years (hours, months) of the kingdom after coming from the east and then going to sea to the west (to the island of St. Helena).
Apollo defeated the snake Hydra. Neppolon put an end to the revolution. Do you know how "revolution" is translated from Latin? You are wrong if you decide that this is the opposite of "evolution". Revolutus is a snake coiled around itself!
The trip to Russia also resembles the annual path of the sun across the sky. It moves to the North, and under the sign of Cancer begins to move back to the South. A breakthrough to Moscow and a humiliating flight, cancer back.
The postscript in the monograph is noteworthy: “We could still support our assertion with a mass of royal ones indicating the exact dates of which are in clear contradiction with the reign of the imaginary Napoleon, but we have our own reasons not to resort to this” - A very mysterious afterword, in my opinion! Here, of course, he shouldn't have “let the dust go,” said “A,” say “B,” and so innuendo raises doubts about the authenticity of the statement.
In any case, the work is curious, and although it does not shed light on the true events of the 19th century. It should be taken as a witty satire. But it provides abundant food for thought.
I have two versions:
- Place Napoleon on the same shelf with Spiderman and Ninja Turtles;
- There was a prototype, but it was very mythologized, like Lenin in his time. His entire life path is the work of French (or non-French) fiction writers.
Author: kadykchanskiy