A lot of information has been preserved about the personality of this person, and, as is usually the case when it comes to those whose deeds have changed the course of history, conjectures and fabrications contained in this information are much more than truth. Take his name, for example. In western Europe he is known as Tamerlane, in Russia he is called Timur. Reference books usually contain both of these names: -
“Tamerlane (Timur; April 9, 1336, Khoja-Ilgar village, modern Shakhrisabz, Uzbekistan - February 18, 1405, Otrar, modern Kazakhstan; Chagatai تیمور (Temür, Tēmōr) -“iron”) is a Central Asian conqueror who played role in the history of Central, South and Western Asia, as well as the Caucasus, the Volga region and Russia. Outstanding military leader, emir (since 1370). Founder of the Timurid empire and dynasty, with the capital in Samarkand. (Wikipedia)
However, from the Arabic-language sources left to us by the descendants of Tamerlane-Timur himself, it turns out that his true lifetime name and title sounded like Tamurbek-Khan Ruler of Turan, Turkestan, Khorassan, and further on the list of lands that were part of Great Tartary. Therefore, he was briefly called the Ruler of Great Tartary. The fact that today people with external features of the Mongoloid type live on these lands misleads not only the layman, but also traditional historians.
Everyone is now convinced that Tamerlane was like the average Uzbek. And the Uzbeks themselves have no doubts that it is Tamerlane who is their distant ancestor and founder of the nation. But this is not the case either.
From the genealogy of the Great Khans, confirmed by chronicle sources, it is clearly seen that the ancestor of the Uzbeks is another descendant of Genghis Khan, Uzbek-Khan. And, of course, he is not the father of all living Uzbeks, who were so named on a territorial basis.
Let's start, after all, from the end. Here is how they say about his death: - “As soon as the Egyptian sultan and John VII (later co-ruler of Manuel II Palaeologus) stopped their resistance. Timur returned to Samarkand and immediately began to prepare for an expedition to China. He performed at the end of December, but in Otrar on the Syr Darya River he fell ill and died on January 19, 1405. (other sources point to a different date of death: - 1405-18-02 - my comment.)
Tamerlane's body was embalmed and sent in an ebony coffin to Samarkand, where he was buried in a magnificent mausoleum called Gur-Emir. Before his death, Timur divided his territories between his two surviving sons and grandsons. After years of war and enmity over the left will, the descendants of Tamerlane were united by the youngest son of the khan, Shahruk."
Promotional video:
The first thing that raises doubts is the different dating of Tamerlane's death. As soon as you try to find more reliable information, you inevitably come across one single "truthful" source of all the myths about the "Uzbek" clone of Alexander the Great - the memoirs of Tamerlane himself, which he personally titled as follows: - "Tamerlane, or Timur, the Great Emir." Sounds challenging, right? This contradicts the basic principles of the worldview of the Eastern civilization, which reveres modesty as one of the highest virtues. Asian etiquette prescribes in every possible way to praise your friends, and even enemies, but not yourself.
The suspicion immediately arises that this "work" was titled by a person who has the most distant concepts of the culture, customs and traditions of the East. And the validity of this suspicion is confirmed immediately, as soon as you ask yourself the question of who became the publisher of Tamerlane's memoirs. This is a certain John Herne Sanders.
I believe that this fact is already enough to not take seriously the “memoirs of the Great Emir”. One gets the impression that everything in this world was created by British and French Freemasons, intelligence agents. This is no longer surprising, not even annoying. Egyptology was invented by Champillon, Sumerology by Layard, Tamerlaneology by Sanders.
And if everything is very clear with the first two, then no one knows who Sanders is. There is fragmentary information that he was in the service of the King of Great Britain and regulated complex diplomatic issues in India and Persia. And so they refer to him as an authoritative specialist - "tamerlanologist".
Now it becomes clear that it is time to stop puzzling over the question of why the Uzbek leader disinterestedly saved the country of unfaithful Christians - the Rus - alien to him from the yoke of the Golden Horde and crushed it (the horde) utterly.
Now is the time to remember the legendary opening of Tamerlane's tomb in June 1941. I will not go into the description of all the "mystical" signs and strange events, they are all probably familiar to you. This is me about the prophecies on the tomb and in the old book, that if you disturb Timur's ashes, then a terrible war will certainly break out. The tomb was opened on June 21, 1941, and on June 22, the next day, everyone in Russia knows what happened.
Much more interesting is another "mysticism": - The reasons that prompted Soviet scientists to open the tomb - that's where you need to start. On the one hand, everything is extremely clear - the study of historical material. On the other hand, what if it was done to refute or, conversely, to confirm myths? I think the main motive was just this: to prove to the whole world the greatness and antiquity of the great Uzbek people, which is part of the great Soviet people.
And this is where mysticism begins. Something went wrong. First, clothes. The emir was dressed like a medieval Russian prince, the second - a light red beard and hair and fair skin. The famous anthropologist Gerasimov, a well-known specialist in the reconstruction of the appearance from skulls, was amazed: Tamerlane did not at all resemble those of his rare images that have come down to us. The point is that they can be called portraits with a very big stretch. They were written after the death of the Iron Lamer by Persian masters who had never seen the conqueror.
So later artists portrayed a typical representative of Central Asian peoples, completely forgetting that Timur was not a Mongol. He was a descendant of a distant relative of Genghis Khan, who was from a clan of great Mughals, or Moghulls, as Genghis Khan himself said. But the Moghulls have nothing to do with the Mongols, just like the Turana Katay province has nothing to do with modern China.
Outwardly, they were no different from the Slavs and Europeans. Everyone who managed to live in the USSR knows that in every union republic, local artists painted portraits of Lenin, endowing him with the outward features of their own people. So in Georgia, on large street posters, Lenin looked exactly like a Georgian, and in Kyrgyzstan, Lenin was portrayed as well too Mongolian. So it's all very clear. The story with the conclusion about the causes of death is not clear.
Reconstruction of Timur's appearance by the method of the anthropologist Gerasimov.
There are testimonies of contemporaries who claimed that Gerasimov had repeatedly stated orally that his first reconstruction of Tamerlane's appearance was not approved by the leadership, and he was "recommended" to bring the portrait to the generally accepted standard: Tamerlane is an Uzbek, a descendant of Genghis Khan. I had to make him a Mongoloid. Against the saber, bare heel is a dubious argument.
Further, it is necessary to mention the not hidden facts of the study of the tomb. So, everyone knows that in spite of the old age of the deceased, he had fine strong teeth, very strong smooth bones. Those. Timur was a fairly tall (172 cm.) Strong, healthy man. Discovered injuries of the hand and kneecap could not play a fatal role. If so, what caused the death? The answer may lie in the fact that for some reason someone separated Timur's head from the body. It is clear that the members of the expedition would not disassemble the body for "spare parts" without good reason.
The first probable reason for this barbarity, desecration of the ashes is the replacement of the head. Perhaps the original white head was replaced by the head of a representative of the Mongoloid race. The second version - he was already in the coffin, headless. Then the question arises about the possible murder of Timur. And now the time has come to recall the long neglected "canard" about the causes of Timur's death.
I don't even remember now the edition that published the "secret" confession of the pathologist who took part in the study of Tamerlane's body. According to rumors, allegedly, Tamerlane was shot with a firearm! I would not like to replicate false sensations, but what if it's true? Then such secrecy of this "archaeological enterprise" becomes clear.
Tamerlanes tartarorum imperator potentiss ira dei et terror orbis appei latus obiit anno 1402.
Tamerlane Mongol? In my opinion, a very European-looking man, with a rod symbolizing Rarog, who is also the Slavic god Khors. One of the incarnations of Ra is a solar half-man, half-falcon. Maybe the European artist did not know what "wild tartars" looked like?
But, we translate the inscription from Latin into Russian:
"Tamerlane, the ruler of Tartaria, the sovereign of the wrath of God and the forces of the Universe and the blessed country, was killed in 1402". It follows from the inscription that the author has the utmost respect for Tamerlane, and for sure, when creating the engraving, he relied on the well-known lifetime images of Tamerlane, and not on his own fantasies. However, the number of famous portraits painted in the Middle Ages leaves no doubt that this is exactly what "The Lord of the Wrath of God …"
This is the reason for all the myths. Discarding later fantasies about Timur, glancing at this evidence with an unclouded glance, we come to the following conclusions:
- Tamerlane is the Ruler of Great Tartary, part of which Russia was, therefore, the symbolism of the "Mongol" is quite understandable to a Russian person.
- Power is given to him by higher powers.
- In the year 402 from Jesus (I. 402) he was killed. Possibly shot.
- Tamerlane, judging by the symbolism (Magendavid with a crescent), belonged to the same diaspora as Sultan Bayazid, who was the Horde of Anatolia, and ruled Constantinople. But let's not forget that the overwhelming number of the Russian aristocracy, including the own mother of Peter I, had the same symbols on the family crests.
But that's not all. Noteworthy is the sign on Tamerlane's cap. If he is the Ruler, then the version that this is an ordinary ornament does not stand up to criticism. On the headdresses of the monarchs there is always a symbol of the state religion.
Distinctive signs on headdresses are not the most ancient tradition, but firmly entrenched even before Tamerlane's accession to the throne. And it became law after the introduction of the uniform, which first appeared in the world in medieval Russia.
And the guardsmen wore a black uniform:
Almost the following sign was embroidered on their sleeves:
Read: LAW and ORDER.
Why did the boyars cry so much when the oprichnina was introduced? I believe that everything that we are told about Ivan the Terrible's National Guard is an analogue of the modern indignation of human rights defenders and dishonest officials. Hence the myths about the cruelty of the monarch.
Previously, soldiers, tax collectors and other sovereign people dressed in whatever they had to do. Fashion, as such, appeared only after the emergence of manufactory production, therefore, the attempts of research by modern scientists who are trying to identify the differences in the national costumes of the Middle Ages look rather funny. There were no "national" costumes. Our ancestors treated clothes completely differently than we did, and therefore they dressed, almost the same, in Persipol, and in Tobolsk and in Moscow.
Any piece of clothing was strictly individual, sewn on a specific person, and putting on someone else's was just suicide. This meant taking on all the ailments and ailments of the real owner of the clothes. In addition, people understood that they could harm the owner of a dress that they would decide to try on. The clothes of each person were considered part of the spirit of its owner, that is why it was considered an honor to receive a fur coat from the royal shoulder. Thus, the person being gifted, as it were, was connected to the higher, the royal, and therefore to the divine. And vice versa. Those caught in the fact that he tried on the royal clothes, was considered as encroaching on the health and life of the monarch, and, accordingly, was executed on the place of execution.
And to imitate the clothes of others was considered the height of stupidity. Each nobleman tried to stand out with his clothes both from the commoners and from his classmates, therefore, as many people existed, there were so many costumes. Of course, there were general tendencies, it is natural as well as the fact that all cars have round wheels.
That is why I think the surprised remarks of medieval travelers about the similarity of European and Russian costumes are absurd. We live in approximately the same climatic conditions, we have approximately the same level of technology, it is absolutely normal that all people of the white race dressed in the same way. Except for the details, of course. Even on the everyday clothes of the peasants there were individual signs in the form of embroidery. It is interesting that the main thing in the clothes was the belt! It had an individual ornament, and only the owner could touch it.
So maybe Tamerlane's headdress is just an ornament? He meant his own unique personality, which means he was unique, and there is no point in looking for similar images? May be. Or maybe not. Here is an engraving from the book of Adam Olearius, with views of Russia:
I don't know if you can even call it crosses? This does not in any way fit with the objects that we see on the modern domes of modern religious buildings. Although in Western Ukraine there are still churches with such crosses. But the analogy with Tamerlane's "cockade" is too obvious to be a mere coincidence.
It remains only to figure out what all this can mean.
By and large, there is absolutely nothing to be surprised at. The tradition of decorating royal headdresses with crosses is not new.
However, it may well be that the very meaning of this is not completely clear to us. Yes, we found out that Tamerlane was depicted with a symbol of royal power - a cross, and the shape of the cross on his hat corresponds to the era in which the crosses on the temples were of this exact shape, but questions remain. Were these Christian crosses? Did they have any connection with religion at all? And why did such hats replace those that were previously used?
Continuation: Part Two.
Author: kadykchanskiy