|
| 5.1. |
Roman consul
Brutus - the first who conquered Britain (and
the first king of britts) |
| 5.2. |
Consul Brutus
of English chronicles - was he a contemporary of
Julius Caesar? |
| 5.3. |
Biblical
events in English chronicles |
| 5.4. |
Do we
interpret ancient texts in a proper way? Problem
of vowels restoration |
| 5.5. |
Geography and
chronology of biblical events |
|
| 5.5.1. |
Problems with
traditional geographical localizations |
| 5.5.2 |
Where ancient
Troy was located? |
| 5.5.3. |
Where Moses
traveled in
reality? | |
| 5.6. |
Why English
chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands? |
| 5.7. |
Where was the
land Britain which was conquered by Brutus
located? In what direction his fleet
cruised? |
| 5.8. |
With whom
Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania? |
| 5.9. |
With whom
Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain
= Albania? |
| 5.10. |
Where was
London located in 10-11th cc.A.D.? |
| 5.11. |
Who were
scots in 10-12th cc.A.D. and were did they live?
Where was Scotland located in 10-12th
cc.A.D.? |
| 5.12. |
Five original
languages of ancient Britain. Which nations used
these languages and where did they live in
10-12th cc.A.D.? |
| 5.13. |
Where were
located six original English kingdoms Britain,
Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
10-12th cc.A.D.? |
| 5.14. |
A shift of
originally Byzantine map to the land of modern
Great Britain resulted in duplicating of many
geographical terms |
| 5.15. |
William I the
Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066 A.D. The
fourth crusade in 1204 A.D. |
|
| 5.15.1. |
Two
well-known wars in England and Byzantine empire
have the same origin |
| 5.15.2 |
English
version of William the Conqueror story |
| 5.15.3. |
Byzantine
version of the Constantinople's
conqueror |
| 5.15.4. |
A list of
correspondences between events from Byzantine
and English
chronicles | |
| 5.16. |
Medieval
Russia from the point of view of English
chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his
message to galats and who they were? |
|
|
REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
This
work belongs to the scope of investigations
carried out by authors in order to give a critical
analysis of ancient and medieval chronology, and
also - to try a reconstruction of real ancient
chronology. The whole history of the problem one
can find in A.T.Fomenko's books [1],[24]. In these
books some new statistical methods of obtaining
true dates for ancient events recorded in old
chronicles were suggested. As a result, a new
chronology of Europe, Asia, Egypt and Northern
Africa based on a statistical investigation of
ancient texts, was suggested in [1],[24]. One also
can find there a list of all publications by
A.T.Fomenko and his colleagues devoted to
chronological problems.
This new
concept of global history and chronology confirms
some ideas which were expressed by different
scientists in 16-20th cc. The most important were
ideas of famous Russian scientist N.A.Morozov
) who had an extremely wide range of
scientific interests in many different branches of
natural science and history. Very interesting
works devoted to the problems of traditional
chronology were written by Isaac Newton,
J.Gardouin, R.Baldauf, E.Johnson and others.
As a result
of application of statistical methods to
historical science, A.T.Fomenko discovered a
"fiber structure" of our modern "textbook in
ancient and medieval history". In such a way we
will call a modern chronological tradition in
history which is expressed in all our textbooks.
It was proved that this "textbook" consist of four
more short "textbooks" which speak about the same
events, the same historical epochs. These short
"textbooks" were then shifted one with respect to
other on the time axis and then glued together
preserving these shifts. The result is our modern
"textbook" which shows the history much longer
than it was in reality. To be more precise, we
speak here only about a "written" history, i.e.,
such history which left it's traces in written
documents which finally, after their certain
evolution, we possess today. Of course before it,
there was a long "pre-written" history, but
information about it is lost.
Resume is as
follows. History which we in principle could learn
about today, starts only in 9-10th cc. "A.D."
(i.e., 1100-1200 years ago). And the very name
"A.D." attached to the era which we use now, is
not correct. New results concerning the problem of
reconstruction of real ancient chronology one can
find in two last Fomenko's books [4,5] devoted to
history and chronology.
An important
step to the reconstruction of real ancient
chronology was made by publication of a book [3]
written by A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and
G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the true date of
compilation of a famous ancient scientific
manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was
(approximately) determined as a result of
statistical analysis of numerical astronomical
data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is
assumed that the "Almagest" was compiled not later
than in 2nd c. A.D. In [3] it is proved that the
real date of it's compilation belongs to the time
interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
Later, in
1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In
Russian history there also were discovered
chronological shifts and duplicates. It proves to
be very much different from well-known version of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of
Romanov dynasty reign in Russia. The book
"Chronology and General Concept of Russian
History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is
being printed (in Russian).
In 1992-1993
authors recognized that the history of development
of English chronology and English history itself
is a very interesting and important point in the
whole scope of global chronology reconstruction.
In our analysis of Russian old documents it was
necessary to use also some English documents. And
immediately we came upon several such amazing
facts that, it become quite clear to us that
English history (which is rather "spoiled" in
modern "textbook") gives new and important
information to the reconstruction of real
chronology of Europe and Asia.
We tried our
best to make this work independent from our
previous works. Nevertheless, such dependence
exists. That is why we recommend to anyone who
really wants to understand the whole problem of
reconstruction the English history as it as in
reality, to look through mentioned above books and
scientific publications by authors. We believe
that this work is good for the beginning and it
could serve as a starting point to the reader. We
tried to avoid citation from other our works here
(as far as it was possible).
It is
pleasure for us to thank Mrs. Laura Alexander
(USA) for her excellent assistance in arranging
materials concerning English history. Her energy
very much inspired our work on English
history.
We thank
T.N.Fomenko for several good ideas which improved
some of our results concerning parallels between
English and Byzantine history and also for
valuable remarks which made this text better.
2. BRIEF REVIEW OF
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF ENGLISH
HISTORY
2.1. The most old English
chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle.
To
understand a material we are going to present
here, it would be better if a reader knows main
things from English, Roman and Byzantine history.
As to Roman and Byzantine history, we assume that
it is more or less the case. But old English
history is not so generally well-known. That is
why we are going to present here a brief review of
"English history textbook".
Surely, we
could simply suggest that a reader looks through
one of modern books concerned with English history
before he reads this paper. But all such books are
necessarily the secondary texts which, in fact,
copy an information from more old texts and
documents devoted to English history. The problem
is that this coping proves to be not so good (part
of information is lost). That is why we prefer to
analyse medieval historical texts themselves
rather then modern textbooks, which are based on
them. An important advantage of these medieval
texts is that they were written more close to the
time of creation of now traditional global
chronological version (it was I.Scaliger's one).
Our experience says that an information about old
history was been lost while publishing new and new
textbooks from that time up to now. Medieval texts
are more valuable for reconstruction of real
history.
Our analysis
was based mostly on three famous medieval English
chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius'
"Historia Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus
Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" [9]. In fact,
these texts form a basis for modern concept of old
and medieval English history.
Also we used
well-known "Chronological Tables" which were
compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of
19th c. These fundamental tables cover all
historical epochs which seemed important to
experts in the end of 19th century.
Now it is
assumed that so-called "legendary" English history
started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in
12-13th cc. B.C. Nevertheless a 1000-year period
from Trojan war to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st
c. B.C.) is considered usually as a "dark
time".
From the
time of creation and establishment of modern
chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and
D.Petavius in 16-17th cc.) it was assumed that
"written" English history starts from 60 B.C. when
Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But
it is known today that documents speak about
English history only from approximately 1 A.D.,
i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It was
the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its
records ([2], p.4).
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
consists of several separate manuscripts:
Manuscript
A: The Parker Chronicle (60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),
Manuscript B: The Abigdon
Chronicle I (A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),
Manuscript C: The Abigdon
Chronicle II (60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),
Manuscript D: The Worcester
Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079), (with
twelfth-century addition A.D.),
Manuscript E: The Laud
(Petersburg) Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),
Manuscript F: The Bilingual
Canterbury Epitome (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).
It is
well-known that all these manuscripts duplicate
each other in the sense that they all speak about
the same events, but in more or less details. That
is why all they are placed in the publication [2]
parallel to each other in a very convenient
manner, which makes it easy to compare different
records concerning the same year. Maybe, all these
manuscripts have the same written original and in
fact represent different scripts of one old
chronicle.
Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle covers an epoch from 1 A.D. to 11th
century (except manuscript E which stops in
1153).
It is
traditionally assumed that all these manuscripts
were written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in
the form which we have today. But it is only a
hypothesis which is strongly based on the
Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very
natural. For example, manuscript A exists now only
in two "copies" and both of them were made only in
16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The original version
(from which these two copies were made) was
practically burned out in a fire. As to other
manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, their
history is not clear from [2]. For example, it is
not pointed out what were the methods of
determining of dates when existing copies were
made. One could have an idea that the dating was
as follows: if last records of these manuscripts
refer to 11-12th cc., then the copies we now
posses are necessarily written just in that form
in 11-12th cc. Leaving aside other objections, we
must say that this speculation in fully based on
Scaliger's chronology. If real dates of last
mentioned events change, then such dating of a
manuscript would also change.
Difficulties
with reconstruction of a true story for origin of
these manuscripts are well-known among experts.
For example David Knowles had to claim that: "The
question of provenance and interdependence of the
various versions [of the Chronicle] are so
complicated that any discussion soon assumes the
appearance of an essay in higher mathematics"
([2],p.xxxi).
Moreover,
G.N.Garmonsway says that any modern analysis of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles
Plummer's revision ) of it's original
edition published by John Earle in 1865. It should
be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again
"associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with
certain persons from 16th century - Archbishop
Parker ) and Archbishop Laud
). Here is his text: "Any account of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary based on
Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John
Earle (1865) which was published in two volumes by
the Oxford University Press in 1892-9... Plummer's
edition... gives prominence on opposite pages to
manuscripts A and E, associated respectively with
the names of Archbishop Parker (1504-75) and
Archbishop Laud );...The other
manuscripts were once in the possession of Sir
Robert Cotton ), and are to be found in
the Cottonian collection of manuscripts in the
British Museum"([2],p.xxxi).
It seems
that all the manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
which are available today were actually written
(or revised) not earlier than in 15-16th
centuries. However, they are considered to be
written in this form in 11-12th cc. Probably the
only reason for such point of view is that
traditional dates of the last events from
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle belong to this epoch:
11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It is
possible that events from 11-12th cc. were
described by somebody in 15-16th cc. and we
actually possess his secondary text which could be
very far from an original version. And also, the
dates of events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
strongly depend on a used chronological concept.
If it changes then the dating of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle would change automatically.
There is a
strong argument which suggests that manuscripts of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a rather
late origin. The problem is that all these
manuscripts use modern "A.D." era which came into
regular practical use only in 15th century. It is
a known fact in traditional history. Later we will
also present some facts which suggest that the
authors of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were already
familiar with J.Scaliger's chronological concept
(16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological
concept of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means
that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written much later
then it is usually accepted.
The reason
for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be paid such great
attention in our reconstruction of English history
is very simple. It turns out that "Thanks to the
example of Bede, the Chronicle is the first
history written in English to use his mastery
innovation of reckoning years as from the
Incarnation of Our Lord - "Years of Grace" as they
were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).
Concerning
the way of presenting dates in Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we should make a remark. It is accepted
that in medieval England they used for "A.D." era
the following formula: "Years from the Incarnation
of Our Lord". It is accepted today that this
formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of
Grace". But this equivalence in not so evident and
requires a special investigation. (We will return
to this subject later and discuss it in more
details). Note that there is a strange similarity
between two well-known names-terms Grace -
Greece.
Maybe the
original (and forgotten today) meaning of a
formula "Years of Grace" differs from one which is
accepted today. Maybe it was "years in Greece",
"Greek years" or something like this. It is
possible also that there is a relation between
terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of
Christ associated in some sense with a name of
country "Greece"? For example Christ religion =
"Greece religion"? It might be because in medieval
epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine empire, and
another it's name was Romea, Rome. So Christian,
"Roman" religion could be called also as "Greek
religion"; but if so then there might be a
confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old
"Greek", Byzantine era which was used sometimes,
as well as "A.D.", with it's thousands omitted. It
could be not obvious which era was actually used
in an old documents which indicate "Years of
Grace". Of course, such kind of similarity between
different terms could not be considered as very
strong arguments supporting any point of view. It
play a role of preliminary speculations and should
be considered as a serious argument only in the
case when it appears (repeats) constantly in a
long historical parallelism, when similar names
arise simultaneously for hundreds of years in two
different epochs after one of them is shifted in
time as a whole and then compared with another
one.
Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle was written in a very laconic manner, it
was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them
devoted to a certain year. Many years are not
described at all (there are some lacunas in the
text). It is considered today that Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle speaks about events from the beginning
of A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1. The text
of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle seem to be really very
old. Absence of long and "beautifully designed"
periods in the text (typical for historical
literature of 15-16th cc.) suggests that
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is an important historical
document which was based on some really ancient
records. Surely, it was edited in 16-17th cc. and
a main question is: what credit should we give to
chronologists of 15-17 centuries who actually
dated events in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as we have
it now?
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia
Brittonum".
Nennius'
"Historia Brittonum" is a rather short text, only
about 24 pages in [8].
There exist
more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius' book which
are known today (see [8]).
"The
earliest manuscripts are dated today by 9th or
10th centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even
14th centuries. In some of the manuscripts are
indications that the author was Gildas. Nennius is
called as the author sufficiently rare. Thus, this
manuscript is possibly - compilation... The
original text was lost, we do not have it today.
But there exists its Irish translation of 11th
century" ([8],p.269).
Translation
was made from the publication: "Nennius et
l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934.
Some
manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals
Cambriae", which is considered to be compiled
approximately in 954 A.D.
Nennius'
"Historia Brittonum" does not have nor
chronological subdivision neither any
chronological notes except the following two ones:
1) A table
titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at
the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time
distances in years between some biblical events -
and already according to Scaliger's calculations,
which were carried out only in 16th c.
2) Chapter
XVI of the "Historia" has a section titled "The
ground of the dating" , which speaks about the
relative distances (in years) between a few events
from English history. In both cases chronological
notes are very brief.
Resume is
that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote
the "Historia". It's original text does not exist
today, a translation which is considered to be
carried out in 11th c. The text does not have it's
own chronological scale. Surely, all questions
which arise with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, refer to
"Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is
written in a free artistic manner with many
stylistic accessories. It suggests that this
manuscript is of rather late origin. Such text
could be written only in an atmosphere of a deep
and well developed literary tradition when many
people use writing and reading books and paper is
not a treasure.
It is
accepted today that Nennius describes certain
events in a time interval from the epoch of Trojan
war to 10-11th cc. A.D. In fact it is a result of
only a traditional chronological concept (which
suggests that short Nennius' text covers an
extremely large 2000-year historical period) that
one could find today giant lacunas in chronology
of "Historia". Fig. 1 shows by a dotted line the
epoch which is considered to be covered by
"Historia". According to traditional chronological
concept Nennius easily omits whole centuries in
his story, makes giant chronological jumps without
any explanations. He seems not to notice it at all
and continues his story after such jumps as if
nothing was missed.
2.1.3. Galfridus
Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum". "Histories of
the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of
Monmouth".
It is generally accepted
today that this chronicle was written in 30th or
40th of 12th century ([8], p.196) by Galfridus
Monemutensis who based it on Nennius' text,
sometimes even copying Nennius "errors" ([8],
p.231, comments to chap. 17; see also [8], p.244).
Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather big one -
about 130 pages in [8]. In opposition to
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle his text has no
chronological subdivision (no indication about
years). His writing style was rather complicated,
with many accessories, moralities, philosophical
excursions et cetera. Galfridus is even considered
to be not a historian only but also a poet.
Surely, the traditional point of view that
Galfridus wrote his book after Nennius, is
correct. It is known also that Galfridus made an
extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History of the
English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9],
p.244). It is assumed that Bede's "History" covers
597-731 A.D.
It is
remarkable that modern commentators point out "the
extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation
of the antique tradition" ([9], p.207). For
example, Galfridus not only used ancient plots,
but also copied a stylistic manner of ancient
authors ([9], p.207). It seems that Galfridus
writes his book being fully influenced by the
atmosphere of antiquity. It was pointed out that
Galfridus copies some of his topics directly from
ancient authors (for example, from Stacius), but
does not give any references ([9], p.236).
Galfridus
Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" was extremely
popular in medieval times. "Today we have about
two hundreds (! - Auth.) copies of his
"History",... which were written in different
places starting from 12th century and until 15th
century, i.e., up to appearance of the first
printed edition" ([9],p.228). At first time
"Historia" was printed in Paris in 1508.
Fig. 1 shows
a historical epoch which is assumed to be covered
by Galfridus' text (according to traditional
chronology). Notice that it is approximately the
same time interval as for Nennius' case: namely,
from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D. Of course,
Galfridus' book is much bigger then Nennius' one,
but being referred again to the giant 2000-year
time interval, it could not cover it all without
huge lacunas. And really, traditional chronology
states that Galfridus "omit" large historical
epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself
does not mind it at all. He calmly continues his
story without notifying a reader that he sometimes
actually misses whole historical epochs in his
chronology.
2.1.4. Some other old English
chronicles
In our work
we use also some other English chronicles of
9-13th centuries, particularly those represented
in a book by V.I.Matuzova "English medieval
documents" [10]. Here we would like to present a
very interesting list which was compiled by
V.I.Matuzova as a result of her investigation of
these chronicles rather then to characterize them
in details. We will discuss this subject in the
next section.
2.2. What were the medieval
names for modern cities, nations and countries
according to ancient English
chronicles?
Many people
use to think that medieval chronicles refer to
such well-known areas (regions) as England,
London, Russia, Kiev etc. with just the same names
as today, and so in general there is no problem to
recognize what place old documents are speaking
about. Sometimes, in more new documents, it is
actually the case. But in more old, original
documents such situation seems to be rather an
exception then a rule. Old chronicles very often
use absolutely different geographical names and it
is a nontrivial task to understand what regions
(areas, towns et cetera) they are really speaking
about.
It is also a
problem that old documents in general use many
different names for each country, land, nation
etc. Very often these names have nothing to do
with those we use today. The names of ancient
nations, countries and cities which are known
today, were fixed only in 18-20th centuries. But
before that time there were various opinions
concerning what names to use. These opinions were
often quite different from each other. It is a
very interesting question to analyse the names
which were used in medieval English documents for
cities, nations and countries which are so
well-known today with their modern names. It turns
out after such analysis, that medieval authors
seem to have quite different views on old and
ancient history. That is why modern specialists in
history usually claim that almost all medieval
people were "extremely wrong" in history, that
they had "fantastic concepts" about it, "confused
and mixed historical epochs", "did not distinguish
antiquity and medieval epoch" and so on.
In a
following list some medieval "synonyms" of modern
accepted names and terms are presented. Each entry
of the list shows a modern term and is followed by
it's medieval synonyms.
| AZOV SEA |
= |
Meotedisc lakes, Meotedisc
fen, Maeotidi lacus, Maeotidi paludes, palus
Maeotis, paludes Maeotis, paludes Maeotidae,
Paluz Meotidienes. |
| ALANIA |
= |
Valana, Alania, Valana,
Valvy, Polovtzy ?! - see below. |
| ALBANIANS |
= |
Liubene, Albani. |
| AMAZONS
LAND |
= |
Maegda land, Maegda londe,
Amazonia. |
| ALBANIANS |
= |
Maegda land, Maegda londe,
Amazonia. |
| BULGARIANS |
= |
Wlgari, Bulgari,
Bougreis. |
| BUG
RIVER |
= |
Armilla. |
| VANDALS |
= |
Wandali, Sea-cost
Slavs. |
| HUNGARY |
= |
Hungaria, Hunia, Ungaria,
Minor Ungaria. |
| BYZANTINE
EMPIRE |
= |
Graecia,
Constantinopolis, |
| VALACHIANS |
= |
Coralli, Blachi, Ilac,
Blac, Turks ! (see below). |
| VALACHIA |
= |
Balchia. |
| VOLGA RIVER |
= |
Ethilia. |
| GALITZK-VOLYNSK
RUSSIA |
= |
Galacia,
Gallacia. |
| GERMANY |
= |
Gothia, Mesia, Theutonia,
Germania, Allemania, Jermaine. |
| HIBERNIC
OCEAN |
= |
The English Channel,
Hibernicum occeanum. |
| HIBERNIA |
= |
Ireland (!) |
| GOTHIA |
= |
Germany, Island Gotland,
Scandinavia, Tavrida (=old name of
Crimea). |
| GUNNS |
= |
Hunni, Huni, Hun. |
| DACKS |
= |
Dani, Daneis. |
| DENMARK |
= |
Denemearc, Dacia, Dania,
Desemone. |
| DUTCH |
= |
Daci, Dani, Norddene,
Denen. |
| DARDANELLES (the
strait) |
= |
St. Georg strait =
branchium Sancti Georgii. |
| DERBENT
(passage) |
= |
Alexander gates =
Alexandres herga, Porta ferrea Alexandri,
claustra Alexandri. |
| DNEPR RIVER |
= |
Aper. |
| DOGI |
= |
Russians (see
below). |
| DON
RIVER |
= |
Danai, Thanais,
Tanais. |
| MEDIEVAL
RUSSIA |
= |
Susie,Russie,Russie,Rusia,Russia,Ruthenia,Rutenia,Ruthia,Ruthena,Ruscia,Russcia,
Russya,Rosie. |
| DANUBE
RIVER |
= |
Danubius,Hister,Danuvius,Damaius,Deinphirus,Danube. |
| IRON GATES |
= |
see "Derbent". |
| IRELAND |
= |
Hybernia. |
| ICELAND |
= |
Ysolandia. |
| CAUCASUS |
= |
beorg
Taurus,Caucasus. |
| CASPIAN
SEA |
= |
Caspia garsecge,mare
Caspium. |
| CASSARIA |
= |
Chasaria (! (see
below) |
| KIEV |
= |
Chyo (!), Cleva (!), Riona
(!), |
| CHINESE |
= |
Cathaii. |
| CORALLS |
= |
Wlaches (see above), Turks
(see above), |
| RED
SEA |
= |
mare Rubrum. |
| ENGLISH
CHANNEL |
= |
Hibernic ocean , Hibernicum
occeanum. |
| MARBURG |
= |
Merseburg. |
| MESIA |
= |
Moesia, Germany (see
above), |
| MONGOLIANS |
= |
Moal, Tatars (see
above), |
| NARVA |
= |
Armilla. |
| GERMANS |
= |
Germanici,Germani,
Teutonici,Theutonici,Allemanni. |
| NETHERLANDS |
= |
Frisia, Arise. |
| NORMANS |
= |
Nordmenn. |
| OCEAN |
= |
Garsecg, Oceano, Oceanus,
Occeanus,Ocean. |
| PECHENEGS (medieval
neighbours of Russians) |
= |
Getae. |
| POLOVTZY (medieval
neighbours of Russians) |
= |
Planeti, Captac, Cumani,
Comanii,Alani, Values, Valani.(See Comment
1.) |
| PRUSSIA |
= |
Prutenia (!).(P-Rutenia =
P-Russia). |
| PRUSSES |
= |
Prateni, Pruteni, Pructeni,
Prusceni, Praceni, Pruceni. |
| RIONA |
= |
Kiev (see above |
| RUGS |
= |
Russians, , Sea-cost, Slavs
(see below) |
| RUSSIANS |
= |
Russii, Dogi (!), Rugi (!),
Rutheni (!), Rusceni. |
| RUTHENS |
= |
Russians (see
above) |
| THE
ARCTIC OCEAN |
= |
Sciffia garsecg, Occeanus
Septentrionalis, mare Scythicum. |
| SITHIA |
= |
Scithia (see
above) |
| SCANDINAVIANS |
= |
Gothi. |
| SCYTHS |
= |
Scithes, Scythae, Cit
(!). |
| SCITHIA |
= |
Sithia, Barbaria, Scithia,
Scythia, Sice (!). |
| SEA-SIDE
SCLAVI |
= |
Winedas, Wandali,
Roge. |
| TAVR |
= |
Caucasus (see
above) |
| TAVRIDA
(CRIMEA) |
= |
Gothia
(!!!) |
| TANAIS |
= |
Don (see above) |
| TYRRHENIAN
SEA |
= |
mare Tyrene. |
| TATARS
(MONGOLS) |
= |
Tartareori, gens Tartarins,
Tartari, Tartariti, Tartarii, Tattari, Tatari,
Tartarii, Thartarei. |
| TURKS |
= |
Coralli,Thurki,Turci,Blachi,
Ilac, Blac (!!!). |
| URAL
MOUNTAINS |
= |
Riffeng beorgum, Hyberborei
montes, montes Riph(a)eis, Hyperborei
montes. |
| FRANCE |
= |
Gallia, Francia. |
| FRISIA |
= |
The Netherlands (see
above.) |
| CHASARIA |
= |
Cassaria, Cessaria
(!!!). |
| CHASARS |
= |
Chazari. |
| CHIO |
= |
Kiev (see above) |
| SCOTLAND |
= |
Scotia, Gutlonde. |
| BLACK SEA |
= |
Euxinus, Pontius, mare
Ponticum, mare Majus. |
| CHINGIS-CHAN |
= |
Cingis, Churchitan,
Zingiton, Chircam, Cliyrcam, Gurgatan, Gurgatan,
Cecarcarus, Ingischam, Tharsis (!), DAVID (!),
PRESBYTER IOHANNES (!!). |
| JAROSLAV THE WISE (Kiev
Princeps Magnus) |
= |
Malesclodus, Malescoldus.
Juriscloth (= Jurius- Georgius), Juliusclodius
(= Julius-Clodius). Julius
Claudius. |
One remark
about Jaroslav the Wise. He was known in medieval
England as "Malescoldus". According to M.N.Alexeev
[12] there were also some other names which were
applied to Jaroslav the Wise in Western historical
tradition: Juriscloht (from
Jurius-Georgius),Juliusclodius (!), (the last form
of Jaroslav's name was used by Norman historian of
12th century - Gijom), Julius Claudius, (this form
used by Orderic Vitali).
Let us
present a typical example of old English
historical text: "He escaped to the kingdom of
Dogs, which we prefer to call RUSSIA. When the
king of [this] land - MALESCLODUS - learned about
him, he was given a great honor" ([13],[14]).
Here is a
Latin original text: "Aufugit ad regnum Dogorum,
quod nos melius vocamus Russiam. Quem rex terrae
Malescoldus nomine, ut cognovit quis esset,
honeste retinuit" [13].
Imagine
please reading this old text without looking at
the modern comments which suggest that Dogs
Kingdom means the same as Russia. The text would
look like this: "He escaped to the Kingdom of
Dogs. When the king of that land learned about
him, he was given a great honor."
Most
probably such text would be understood as a story
treating some medieval events in England or
Scotland. The word "Dogs" seems to designate a
population in some part of England or Scotland and
the name "Malescoldus" very much looks like a name
of medieval English or Scottish king. Such an
interpretation looks rather natural. One knows
from Scottish history, for example, that there
were several kings with a name "Malcolm", close to
"Malescoldus": Malcolm I (943-958), Malcolm II
), Malcolm III ) etc.
But such
interpretation of this text would definitely
transform some of ancient Russian events into
English ones, i.e., into ones which are thought to
happen on the land of modern England. This example
suggests that even a direct understanding, not to
say about an interpretation, of an old historical
text could be rather ambiguous.
Differences
between medieval English writer's opinion and
modern way of understanding and interpretation of
medieval terms occur for texts written in 9-15th
centuries (not so old texts, from the point of
view of modern tradition). It means that there
exist several possibilities to interpret medieval
documents. The way of such interpretation which is
in general use now, proves to be not unique. It is
only one of possible ways, maybe not the best one.
We are going to show here that this standard way
is really not enough supported by original
documents. The above vocabulary of synonyms
(medieval terms-duplicates) is very useful for our
analysis of English history.
2.3. An overview of
traditional concept of English history
2.3.1. Scotland
and England: two parallel "dynastic
streams"
Fig. 1 shows a rough scheme
of the English history as it is considered today.
The beginning of English history is placed in the
1st century B.C. (Julius Caesar's conquest of
England). Starting at this moment and going up to
400 A.D., English chronicles talk in fact about
Roman history. Sometimes they only mention that
certain Roman emperor visit England. According to
English chronicles there were no independent kings
in England before 400 A.D.
We will take
J.Blair's "Chronological tables" as a source of
information about general structure of English
chronology. These tables were compiled in the end
of 18th c., but the new information which became
available after that time, have not changed the
whole picture of English history and so this
information is not very important for us now.In
5th century A.D. the Roman power in England came
to the end and in that time the first English
kings appeared. It was a moment when English
history divided into:
a)
history of England and
b)
history of Scotland.
In other
words, two dynastic streams began in 5th c.:
a) English
stream and
b) Scottish
stream.
These two
dynastic streams develop in parallel up to 1603
when they transformed into a single dynastic
stream of the Great Britain.
In 404 A.D.
the long dynasty of Scottish kings began with the
king Fergus I. It ends in 1603 when a united
kingdom of Great Britain appeared with it's first
king Jacob I ). Scottish dynasty looks
"very good organized": it practically does not
have simultaneous reigns of different kings, it
does not have breaks and epochs of anarchy also.
Being represented graphically on a time axis, this
dynasty covers a 1200-year time interval from 404
to 1603 A.D. in a very nice, extremely "regular"
manner: reigns of Scottish kings cover one by one
without intersections all this time interval. It
is a fine example of "carefully written history".
See dotted line in the Fig.1. The absence of
simultaneous reigns suggests that Scotland was a
"geographically homogeneous" kingdom: it never was
divided into several independent parts.
English
history shows a strong contrast to Scottish one in
it's structure.
2.3.2. English history. Epoch
from 1st to 445 A.D. England as the Roman
colony.
Time period from 60 B.C. to
the beginning of the era A.D. is considered
today as an epoch of conquest of England by Roman
army under the command of Julius Caesar.
Period from
1st century A.D. to 445 A.D. is considered to be
an epoch of Roman occupation of England. England
was a Roman colony at that epoch, and there were
no English kings, because England was ruled
formally by Roman emperors themselves. The
description of this period in Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle is in fact a compilation from Roman
history of 1st - 5th (middle) centuries A.D. as it
appears in Scaliger's version of chronology.
It was 409
A.D. when, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
Romans were defeated by Goths, leave England and
their power was never restored after that date:
"In this year the city of Romans was taken by
assault by the Goths, eleven hundred and ten years
after it was built. Afterwards, beyond that, the
kings of the Romans ruled no longer in Britain; in
all they had reigned there four hundred and
seventy years since Julius Caesar first came to
the country" ([2],p.11).
2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830.
Six kingdoms and their union.
From 445
A.D. we see six kingdoms on the English land. Each
of these kingdoms has it's own dynastic stream of
rulers. Namely they are
Brittany =
Britain,
Saxons = Kent,
Sussex = South Saxons,
Wessex = West Saxons,
Essex = East Saxons,
Mercia.
These six
kingdoms exist up to 828 A.D. when they all are
destroyed in a war and instead of them one kingdom
is established - the kingdom of England. It is the
time of Egbert, who becomes the first king of
united England. The time of about 830 A.D. could
be called, following [6],[7], as the end of Six
Kingdoms. "It was 829 A.D., the time of Wessex
king Egbert, when all Anglo-Saxon kingdoms united
into one feudal kingdom" [11, p. 172]. See
Commentary 2 which speaks about the term
"Saxon".
2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to
1040. This epoch is finished by Danish conquest
and then by disintegration of Dutch kingdom in
England. Beginning from 830 A.D. English
chronicles speak about only one dynastic stream of
kings (in united kingdom of
England).
In the
period 1016-1040 A.D. there was a crucial point in
English history. In 1016 Danish king Cnut Danish
the Great occupied England. He become the king of
England, Denmark and Norway simultaneously. But
his state proved to be not stable and after his
death in 1035 it was divided. A representative of
old English dynasty Edward "The Confessor"
) became a king in England after that
division. The year 1040 is represented in the
Fig.1 as one of the most important break points in
English history.
2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to
1066. Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon dynasty and
it's fall
The reign of
Edward "The Confessor" finished in 1066 A.D.,
which is a well-known date in English history. In
that year Edward died and after that England was
occupied by Normans with their leader William I
Conqueror the Bastard. In 1066 William the
Conqueror defeated English-Saxon king Harold in
Hastings battle and as a result became an English
king himself. Period of his reign was 1066-1087.
This well-known date (1066 A.D.) is also
represented in the Fig.1.
2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to
1327. Norman dynasty and after it - Anjou dynasty.
Two Edwards.
This epoch
starts with the beginning of Norman dynasty which
ruled England up to 1153 or 1154 ([7], p. 327).
Just after it the next, Anjou dynasty started in
England. It existed from 1154 to 1272 ([7], p.
327).
In 1263-1267
a civil war broke out in England ([11], p.260).
After that, in the end of 13th c.- beginning of
14th c., the new monarchy was established in
England. First kings in this new dynasty were
Edward I ) and Edward II ). In
the end of the considered time period there was a
war between England from one side and Wells,
Scotland and Ireland from another side. England
tried to occupy these regions but it's attempt was
not successful. In 1314 Scots won.
2.3.6. Epoch from 1327 to
1602.
This period
is started with the reign of Edward III
) and is finished with the establishment
of Great Britain as a union of England and
Scotland.
The last
period from 1600 to the present time is a
well-known history, which we do not doubt and do
not analyse here.
Resume.
We see that
English history could be divided into several
periods which are separated by well-known "break
point" dates. We argue that these division is not
occasional one. It reflects the existence of
duplicates and chronological shifts in English
history.
3. PARALLELS BETWEEN ENGLISH
AND BYZANTINE-ROMAN HISTORY. GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE
AS THE DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF MEDIEVAL
BYZANTINE-ROMAN EMPIRE.
3.1. Rough comparison of
dynastic streams of England and Byzantine-Roman
Empire.
We saw that
old English chronicles claim that England was a
Roman colony for the first 400 years of it's
history. Moreover, when they speak about England
at that times, they speak more about Rome and
Byzantine empire then about England itself. That
is why an idea of comparison of English and
Roman-Byzantine dynastic streams seems quite
natural. For this purpose we used the Global
Chronological Map, which was already made by
A.T.Fomenko including dynastic streams of Rome,
Byzantine empire and England.
Even first
glance on this map shows a surprising statistical
similarity of general structure for density of
reigns in Roman-Byzantine empire and in English
dynastic streams. Such specific "density picture"
exists only for these two dynastic streams -
Roman-Byzantine and English ones. Now we are going
to describe this picture.
Consider a
partition of time interval from 1st to 1700 A.D.
by decades. Let us calculate the number of kings
in England whose reigns intersect with a certain
decade. For example if some decade is covered by a
reign of only one king then let us assign number 1
to this decade. If it is covered by two reigns
then we assign number 2 to it, and so on. As a
result of this procedure we obtain a graph which
shows us how many kings ruled inside each decade.
We call this graph as "density graph" for a given
dynastic stream.
Because of
absence of kings in England before 400 A.D. the
values of density graph in that time interval are
zero. Approximately in 440 A.D. there were
established 6 dynasties in England (six kingdoms,
see above) which existed up to (approximately) 830
A.D. when English kingdoms were united. After that
union there was only one English dynasty up to
present time [2].
Similar
procedure was applied to the dynastic stream of
Roman-Byzantine empire from 1st to 1500 A.D.
Information about all Roman and Byzantine emperors
of 1st-15th centuries was used. >From 1st c. to
4th c. all Roman emperors are supposed to stay in
Italian Rome (and in it's colonies), and after 330
A.D. another Roman dynasty in New Rome =
Constantinople appeared. So, up to 6th c. there
were two parallel Roman dynastic streams
(sometimes they had intensive intersections). In
6th c. after a known Gothic war western Rome lost
it's status as emperor's residence. From that time
only one Roman dynasty stream in Constantinople =
New Rome was existing constantly up to 1453. In
1453 after siege of Constantinople by Turks this
stream was finished.
The result
of our calculations is shown in the Fig.2. There
are two curves in the Fig.2. At the bottom one can
see a density graph for Roman-Byzantine empire,
and on the top - for England. Note that English
chronology is shifted down as the whole block by
approximately 275-year shift.
Both graphs
look very similar. Both of them start with a
period of low density and then, at the same moment
the density increases very sharply. Periods of
such high density have approximately the same
length and the same amplitude in both cases. Then
the sharp fall of density occurs simultaneously in
these graphs. After that both of them are
approximately constant. Their value changes mostly
in a range of 1-2 reigns per decade for remaining
several hundreds years.
High density
zone in English chronology is located
approximately in 445-830 A.D., and for
Roman-Byzantine empire this zone constitutes
170-550 A.D. The length is approximately 380 years
in both cases. The duration of the historical
periods in England and in Roman-Byzantine empire
being compared constitutes about one and a half
thousand years.
We should
say once more that such specific density graphs
could not be find in other dynastic streams. It is
a feature of English and Roman-Byzantine history
only.
Fig.3
compares density graphs for England and
Roman-Byzantine empire in a very rough way: only
high density zones are represented from the
graphs. Fig.3 clearly shows that the chronological
shift between English and Roman-Byzantine history
is equal to approximately 275 years.
Of course,
above method of comparison for two different
histories is very rough and could not be
considered as a basis for any statements. But such
similarity for density graphs is probably a
reflection of the same origin of these two
dynastic streams (on a long time period). It is
also possible that one of them is a reflection of
another one. Moreover, some well-known facts from
old English history could support this
possibility.
For example,
it is well-known that the old name of England and
English people was not "England" but "Anglia",
"Angles" (from "Angel"), maybe "Angeln" ([2],
p.12-13,289). Term "Angels" as a name of
population appears in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at a
date 443 A.D. After that this term is used
constantly. The first king which was called as
"king of Anglia (England)" was Athelstan (925-940)
([7],p.340).
Note that
"Angels" was also a famous noble feudal family in
Byzantine which includes Byzantine emperor dynasty
of Angels ) ([15], p.166).
The natural
question arises: may be the name "England" -
"Angels" - "Anglia" is the reflection of the name
of Byzantine dynasty Angels of 11-12th cc.?
It was only
some preliminary remarks. They could only to
suggest that some connection between English and
Byzantine ancient history seem to exist. More
careful analysis says that these histories on a
long time period are the same.
Remark. When
we speak about a "dynasty stream" we mean simply a
sequence of kings in a certain kingdom which is
ordered in time. We do not care about family
relations between these kings (which is usually
included in term "dynasty").
3.2. Dynasty parallelism
between ancient and medieval England from one side
and medieval Byzantine Empire from another side.
General concept of correspondence between English
and Byzantine histories.
We have
discovered that there exists a strong parallelism
between durations of reigns for English history of
640-1327 A.D. from one side and Byzantine history
of 378-830 A.D. continued by Byzantine history of
1143-1453 A.D. from another side. This parallelism
is represented in a visual form at the bottom of
Fig.1.
More
precisely, we discovered that:
1) Dynastic
stream of English kings from 640 to 1040 A.D.
(400-year period) is a duplicate (reflection) of
Byzantine dynastic stream from 378 to 830 A.D.
(452-year period). These two dynastic streams
coincide after 210-year chronological shift.
It means
that there exists a subsequence ("dynastic
stream") of English kings whose reigns cover time
interval 640-1040 and a subsequence of Byzantine
emperors whose reigns cover time interval 378-830,
such that they duplicate each other. Note that not
all kings or emperors from these epochs are
included in those dynastic streams. It is possible
because often there were several corulers (i.e.,
kings or emperors which ruled simultaneously).
2) The next
period of English kingdom history: from 1040 to
1327 (287-year period) duplicates Byzantine
dynasty history from 1143 to 1453 A.D. (310-year
period). These two dynastic streams coincide after
120-year chronological shift.
3) Dynastic
stream of Byzantine emperors from 830 to 1143 also
duplicates the same English dynastic history of
1040-1327. It is quite natural because Byzantine
history has it's own duplicates inside it. In
particular, Byzantine history of 830-1143
duplicates Byzantine history of 1143-1453. For
details see [1],[24].
4) The ends
of time intervals from English history duplicating
Byzantine history coincide with the break points
in English history which we pointed out
earlier.
5) The ends
of time intervals from Byzantine history
duplicating English history also prove to be
certain natural break points in Byzantine history.
They generate a partition of the whole Byzantine
history into 4 parts which we will denote by
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1, Byzantine
empire-2 and Byzantine empire-3.
3.3. Some details of dynastic
parallelism ("parallelism table")
3.3.1. English history of
640-830 A.D. and Byzantine history of 378-553 A.D.
275-year shift.
We used
J.Blair's Tables [2] as the first main source of
chronological information and Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle as the second one. Below we use an
abbreviation ASC for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Note
that sometimes different chronological tables
contain a slightly different data, but these
differences do not influence the parallelism which
we are going to present here.
| English history |
|
Byzantine
history |
|
English
history of 640-830. Wessex kings - one of the
six kingdoms in England of 400-830. This
dynastic stream is a part of the dense sequence
of kings whose reigns cover the time axis
with high multiplicity. See Figs.2,3. |
|
Byzantine
history of 378-553. Byzantine emperors dynasty
starting from the foundation of New Rome =
Constantinople. This dynastic stream is a part
of the dense sequence of kings whose reigns
cover the time axis with high multiplicity. This
period of Byzantine history is denoted as
Byzantine-0 on Fig.1. See
Figs.2,3. |
|
Commentary. Durations of
reigns are shown in brackets (rounded off to
whole years). In the left column the whole
list of English kings is presented. In the
right column almost all Byzantine emperors
appear. Only absent are names of some emperors
with very short reign and co-emperors of those
ones who are presented here. Note that all
English kings (with only few exceptions of very
short reigns) are included in this
parallelism. |
|
1.
Cenwalch 643-672 king of Wessex and 643-647 as
the king of Sussex. He ruled 29 or 25 years, if
we consider only his rule in Wessex (after 647
A.D.) |
|
1.
Theodosius I The Great 378 or 379 - 395
(16) |
|
Queen
Seaxburh ), wife of K.Cenwel.
Short rule |
|
? |
|
2. Cens
) according to Blair. In Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we see here two kings: Escwine +
Centwine (9 years in total) |
|
2.
Arcadius )
|
|
Caedwalla
). Short rule |
|
? |
|
3. Ine
) according to Blair and (37)
according to Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (=
ASC) |
|
3.
Theodosius II ) |
|
4.
Aethelheard ), and (14)
according to ASC |
|
4. Leo I
) |
|
5.
Cuthread ) accor- ding to Blair and
(17) in ASC |
|
Sigeberht
754 (1). Short rule |
|
5. Zeno
) (he ruled two times) |
|
? |
|
6.
Cynewulf ) accor- ding to Blair and
(31) in ASC] |
|
6.
Anastasius )
|
|
7.
Beorhtric ) |
|
7. Justin
I ) |
|
8. Egbert
). In 828 A.D.(i.e., at the 28th year
of his rule) he consolidated all six kingdoms
into one - Anglia. The last 10 years he ruled
as the king of Anglia. He is consi-
dered as distinguished king in English
history |
|
8.
Justinian I The Great. In 553 A.D.(i.e. at the
26th year of his rule) he defeated the Goths
(this is well-known Gothic war) and became
unique emperor in Roman-Byzantine empire. He
ruled during his last 12 years without any
corulers. Well-known emperor in Byzantine
history |
3.3.2. English history of
830-1040 and yzantine history of 553-830. Rigid
275-year shift.
|
English
epoch of 830-1040. Anglia after consolidation
into one kingdom (see Blair [6]). |
|
Byzantine
epoch of 553-830. Is denoted as "Byzantine
empire-1" in the Fig.1. |
|
9.
Aethelberht ) |
|
9. Justin
II ) |
|
10.
Aethelbald ) |
|
10.
Tiberius Constantinus ) |
|
11.
Aethelwulf ) |
|
11.
Maurice ) |
|
12.
Aethelred ) |
|
12. Phocas
) |
|
Here the
old English chroniclers transposed two kings,
namely - the kings Aethelwulf (see No.11) and
Aethelberht (see No.9) were placed in another
order (their Byzantine originals are Justin II
and Maurice). This confusion has a simple
explanation: all four English kings of this
period have very similar names beginning from
"Aethel". |
|
13. Alfred
The Great ) according to Blair and
) according to Bemont and Monod
([7],p.340) |
|
13.
Heraclius ) |
|
14. Edward
the Elder ) |
|
14.
Constans II Pogonatus ) |
|
15.
Athelstan ). It is supposed today
that he was the first who took the name king of
Anglia ([7],p.340) |
|
15.
Constantine IV ) |
|
16.
Confusion: the war with Northumbria. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions about three main
kings of this period: Edmund I ),
Eadred ), Eadwig ). All
these kings ruled relatively short
period |
|
16.
Well-known confusion in Byzantine history in the
end of 7th century - beginning of 8th century.
Here there are several emperors with a short
rules: Leontius II 695-698 or 694-697, Tiberius
III 697-704 or 698-705, Justinian II 705-711,
Philippicus Bardanes 711-713, Anastasius II
713-715 or 716, Theodosius III 715 or
716-717 |
|
Thus, both
confusion epochs (English and Byzantine) are
matched under the rigid chronological shift. We
did not discuss here the details because of mess
structure of the chronicles of this time
period |
|
17. Edgar
)+ Edward "The Martyr" ),
and totally (after summation) they give 19
years. Their names are similar and consequently
their union is natural |
|
17. Leo
III Isaurian or the Syrian 717-741
(24) |
|
18.
Aethelred II "The Unready" 978-1013
(35) |
|
18.
Constantine V Copronimus 741-775
(34) |
|
19. Cnut
The Great Danish ). His death
indicates the disintegration of Danish empire.
Thus, this epoch is finished by the well- known
event in the history of Anglia. Let us note that
this fragment of English history is matched with
Byzantine epoch under 210 (or 275)-year shift
(approximately) |
|
19.
Constantine VI Porphyrogenitus ). Let
us note that now we are in the end of historical
epoch which was marked out in [1] and [24] as
Byzantine empire-). Thus, in this
column of our table we came to some important
turning-point in Byzantine history |
|
The old
English chronicles placed in the end of this
epoch (in history of Anglia) two "short" kings:
Harold I Danish , ruled 3 years) and
Harthacnut , ruled 2 years). We did
not find the Byzantine duplicate-original for
Harthacnut, but the original-duplicate for
Harold I will be demonstrated
below |
|
We
continue the motion along English history in the
left column of the table. The parallel with
Byzantine history will continue (in the right
column). But this parallel becomes more clear
and evident if we take the next epoch "Byzantine
empire-3" ) instead of the epoch
"Byzantine empire-2" (Fig.1). As we explained
before, these two epochs of Byzantine history
are parallel, i.e. they are duplicates (of
course, not identical). Consequently, we will
list in the right column of the table the
emperors from "Byzantine empire-3" and also will
indicate here their duplicates from "Byzantine
empire-2". And we will see that the parallelism
between English and Byzantine history will
continue until the fall of Constantinople in
1453. |
3.3.3. English history of
1040-1327 and Byzantine history of 1143-1453.
Rigid 120-year shift.
|
English
epoch of 1040-1327 |
|
Byzantine
epoch of 1143-1453. Is marked as "Byzantine
empire-3" in the Fig.1. It is the original for
"Byzantine empire-2" |
|
20. Edward
"The Confessor" ) |
|
20. Manuel
I Comnenus ) |
|
The death
of Edward "The Confes-sor" indicates the
beginning of Norman invasion. It is
possible, that English chronicles mean here in
reality "Roman invasion" because there is the
parallel between some periods of Roman history
and Norman history (see [1],[24]) |
|
After the
death of Manuel I the hard time for Byzantine
empire began and the turning-point is the
well-known crusade and the conquest of
Constantinople in 1204. It is supposed today
that Italian Rome organized the invasion in
Byzantine empire |
|
The
commentary to the dynastic stream of English
history. After the death of Edward "The
Confessor" a new king Harold II "Godwinson" took
the throne. He ruled only 1 year and was killed
in 1066 in the battle near Hastings. From the
other hand it is known ([7],p.343) that in
reality he got a great political power in 1054
when Edward was alive. But the English
chronicles placed just before the rule of Edward
"The Confessor" one more "short" (i.e. with a
short rule) Harold, namely Harold I "Harefoot"
) who ruled only 3 years. It is
possible that this Harold I is simply the
reflection of Harold II |
|
21.
"Doubled Harold", i.e. Harold I Danish
) and then Harold II (1066 year).
Harold II ruled only 9 months. It is clear that
this "doubled Harold" is the reflection of
Byzantine"doubled Isaac Angelus", who ruled two
times. His second rule was short: less than 1
year |
|
21. Isaac
II Angelus 1185-1195, then he lost the power and
appeared on Byzantine throne again in 1203
(second time). He ruled no more than 1 year and
finally lost the power in 1204, after the
conquest of Constanti- nople by crusaders. Thus,
his second rule was no more than 1
year |
|
Norman
conquest of Anglia. The famous battle near
Hastings in 1066 |
|
The
conquest of Byzantine empire by crusaders.
Famous fourth crusade 1199-1204 |
|
We will
speak later and more detailed about the parallel
between
these
events |
|
22.
William I of Normandy (Bastard) The Conqueror
). His rule starts the new Norman
dynasty in Anglia |
|
22.
Theodore I Lascaris ). In 1204 a
new Nicaean empire starts on the territory of
Byzantine empire. The reflection of Theodore in
Byzantine empire-2 is Basil I the Macedonian
) |
|
23.
William II "Rufus" ). Thus, here we
have 14 years and in the right column we have 11
or 12 years. We see here some confusion in the
chronicles because in the right column Isaac II
Angelus ruled twice |
|
23.
Possibly, there is some mess in the chronicles
when they describe the Norman dynasty and
Nicaean empire. The first conjecture: the
original preimage for William II is lost. Second
conjecture: this is again Isaac II Angelus. But
in this case the chronicle took the whole his
rule: 1185-1195 and then , i.e.
totally 11 or 12 years. |
|
24. Henry
I or 35 years) |
|
24. John
III Vatatzes 1222-1254 or 1256 (32). His
reflection in Byzantine empire-2 is Leo VI "The
Philosopher" ) |
|
25.
Stephen of Blois ). King Stephen
finishes the Norman dynasty in Anglia ([7],p.
357). The next king Henry II starts a new Anjou
dynasty in Anglia |
|
25.
Michael VIII 1259 or 1260 until 1282 or 1283
(23). His reflection in Byzantine empire-2 is
Romanus I ). Michael VIII starts a
new Palaeologus dynasty which lasts from 1261
until 1453 |
|
Thus the
rigid chronological shift matches English Norman
dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Angelus and
then matches the next Anjou dynasty with
Byzantine dynasty of Palaeologus |
|
26. Henry
II Plantagenet ). Note that both
terms Plantagenet and Porphyrogenetus have the
same meaning: "one who was born in a shirt".
This term has well- known meaning - see
commentary below |
|
26.
Andronicus II Palaeologus 1282 or
(46). If calculated from 1283 to 1320 - the
moment when his co-ruler Andronicus III began to
reign then duration of Andronicus II reign is 37
years. He was reflected as Constantine VII 910
or ),(49) in Byzantine
empire-2. |
|
Commentary. Term (name)
"Porphyrogenetus" = "Porphyro" + "Genitus" could
be interpreted as "one, who was born in
porphyr". It says about birth in a "royal
attributes", maybe "royal clothes", "royal
shirt". It suggests a rare case from medical
practice when a baby is born "in a shirt", i.e.
still in placenta (placenta sounds similar to
"planta" - part of "Plantagenet"). In old times
such cases were considered as a sign of
outstanding future for the baby (good or bad
one). We see in English version (left column) a
name Plantagenet, i.e. Planta + Genet. It means
exactly "birth in a planta, in a cover" - the
same as "birth in a shirt" |
|
27. Henry
II established a known dynasty of Plantagenets
(House of Plantagenet) in English history. This
dynasty was finished in 1329 with Richard II.
So, this dynasty covers time interval 1154-1399
([27], p.346). |
|
27.
Michael VIII. He was just before Andronicus II.
He established a known dynasty of Palaeologus in
the history of Byzantine. This dynasty covers
time interval 1261-1453 (up to the siege of
Constantinople) ([27], p.636). |
|
So, the
chronological shift which we discovered puts
together two dynasties: Palaeologus' and
Plantagenets. Dynasty of Palaeologus' is
finished in 1453 and reflecting them
Plantagenets continue up to 1399.
|
|
28.
Richard I Coeur de Lion ). Duration
of his reign is 10 years which is close to 13
years - duration of reign of his analog
(original) in Byzantine empire |
|
28.
Andronicus III Palaeologus .
Formally his reign lasts 21 years ),
but his reign as unique emperor (without
corulers) was only for 13 years ). In
1328 finished the reign of his coruler - emperor
Andronicus II. |
|
29.John
Santer ) |
|
29. John
VI Cantacuzenus 1341 or
(15) |
|
30. Henry
III ). Henry III was the last king
in Anjou dynasty in England. Dynasty of
Palaeologus in Byzantine empire (right column)
is not finished at this point but it is near to
the end |
|
30. John V
Palaeologus ). His has a reflection
in Byzantine empire-2: Basil II Bulgaroktonos
(975 or ). Basil II Bulgaroktonos'
reign was for 49 or 50 years. |
|
31. Edward
I ) |
|
31. Manuel
II Palaeologus or
34). |
|
32. Edward
II Caervarven ) |
|
32. John
VIII Palaeologus or
24). |
|
End of
parallelism. |
|
In 1453
Constantinople was seized by Turks and Byzantine
Empire changed to
Turkey. |
Fig.4
illustrates this parallelism. It is important that
durations of reign fit each other so well in the
case when the same chronological shift was applied
to all reigns. All dynasty was shifted as a whole,
it's internal time was unchanged.
Fig.5 shows
the same parallelism in a different form which is
designed for visual comparison of durations of
reign in both dynasties. For quantitative
comparison we used numerical characteristic of a
distance between two arbitrary dynasties, which
was introduced in [1],[24]. It appears that this
"distance" drops into a range of values which are
normal only for strongly dependent dynasties
(details about this numerical characteristic one
can find in [1],[24]). Recall that two dynasties
are called as dependent ones if they both reflect
the same real dynasty.
Dependence
of these two dynasties (we mean statistical
dependence of reign durations) is the main result
of this paper. It is in fact a formal result and
we might finish on it. But many not formal
questions follow after this result is claimed.
Main of them is: what real events lay under both
of these two dynasties? What was the real
history?
4. CORRECT
ENGLISH HISTORY IS MORE SHORT IN TIME BUT MUCH
MORE DENSE IN EVENTS THAN IT IS SUGGESTED BY
TEXTBOOKS
4.1. Our new
concept of English history
The answer
follows definitely from the above parallelism and
from the Fig.1. Naturally, the more new dynasty
(one which was later in time) is to be supposed as
original one. This is a Byzantine dynasty
1143-1453 A.D. It was denoted above as Byzantine
empire-3. In [1],[24] it was discovered that
Byzantine empire-3 is a source of information for
it's reflections Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine
empire-1 and Byzantine empire-2. Roughly speaking
the whole Byzantine history is constructed from
several blocks - duplicates of the same epoch:
1143-1453 A.D. As we discovered, English history
being stringed to the English kings dynasty is a
duplicate of Byzantine history up to 1327 A.D. (in
English chronology) = 1450 A.D. (in Byzantine
chronology). Middle of 15th century was a time
from which we have enough information, so
Byzantine dynasty of that time was surely a real
one. It suggests that Byzantine is an original in
above parallelism, and England before 1327 A.D. -
a reflection. It could be seen from the Fig.1 how
English history before 1327 A.D. was constructed
from several reflections of Byzantine Empire of
1143-1453 A.D.
As a resume
we present the follows hypothesis.
1) According
to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that
period speaks more about events in Rome itself
then in England. It was proved in [1],[24] that
Roman history of that time reflects real events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That
chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe
Rome and Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these
chronicles reflect some real events of 9-15th cc.
which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That
chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to
describe Byzantine empire-1. These chronicles also
reflect real history of 9-15th cc. in Byzantine
empire.
4) That
chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to
describe Byzantine empire-3 and therefore they
reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in Byzantine
empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the
name of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels
A.D.)
5) Thus, in
this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now
available and which are thought by historians to
speak about some events from the epoch before the
beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to
certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc.
Roughly speaking, ancient English chronicles are
in fact Byzantine chronicles which were taken from
Byzantine to England and then modified in a such
way that they seem to speak about events in
England.
6) The time
when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most probably
the epoch of 9-10th centuries. Now we have only
very few information about that early period of
English history on the island. So the description
of English history of 9-13 cc. is in fact rather
fragmentary. But this information about real
island events was then "covered" by chronicles
brought from Byzantine empire. The resulting sum
of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine
fiber" we can see now as the English history of
9-13th cc.
7) Starting
from 14th century English history speaks about
real events in England only. Roughly speaking,
traditional version of English history becomes
correct from 14th c.
8) One might
ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that in ancient English chronicles there are
chronological details about, for example, how many
years there were between the Flood and a certain
event of English history? These chronological
details often agree with Scaliger's (modern)
chronological concept." The answer is follows.
At first,
note that chronological and astronomical data from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly
contradict with modern historical version. See
[1],[24].
In the
second, even if we see that a direct chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with
modern tradition, it says really nothing, because
all ancient chronicles which we have today, were
finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was
exactly the time when modern chronological concept
was worked out (in general). Such direct
chronological statements are simply the traces of
chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that
time historians "calculated" the dates of ancient
events and then placed (for reader's convenience)
the results of their (medieval!) calculations
inside ancient historical texts. The fact that
chronological statements in different ancient
texts often agree means that today we have mostly
the results of work of only one medieval
chronological school. It was the chronological
school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by
Roman-Catholic church.
Often,
astronomical calculations were used for
chronological purposes. In this case there could
be certain astrological motivations in medieval
astronomical calculations for chronology. Medieval
scientists, and historians among them, often
trusted astrology and could use it in their
considerations. Maybe medieval astrologers tried
to solve problems like these: what was the
planetary configuration at the moment of
coronation of Justinian I (or when ancient lunar
eclipses occurred etc.)? Results of such
astronomical calculations of 15-16th cc. could be
placed in ancient texts to make their chronology
more clear. It was large work and it might be very
useful if the calculations were correct.
Unfortunately, medieval astronomers and historians
made a lot of mistakes. These mistakes are
discussed in [1],[24]. As a result of such
mistakes, ancient chronicles got an incorrect
chronological skeleton. This incorrect chronology
was then supported by church authorities and by
medieval scientific schools. It was the chronology
which we have now in our textbooks. And today, our
contemporaries - the historians and chronologists
- take the ancient chronicles (from archives) and
with pleasure discover in them the "astronomical
and chronological information". Then, basing on
the modern theory, they date the described
eclipses, horoscopes (i.e., the configuration of
the planets along the zodiacal constellations).
After this, historians discover (with great
pleasure) that sometimes these records from
"ancient chronicles" satisfy to the Scaliger's
chronology (and, consequently, are correct). Of
course, sometimes there are some contradictions.
And sometimes - very serious. The real explanation
is as follows: the medieval methods for
calculations were more rough that modern ones.
Then in each such case the modern chronologists
"correct" these "records of ancient chronicler".
As a result, they form the illusion of the
correctness of traditional Scaliger's version of
ancient chronology. But what the modern historians
really do when the results of modern astronomical
calculations sharply disagree with Scaliger's
chronology? As we know today (see, for example,
[1],[24]) the list of such contradictions is very
long. This fact shows that Scaliger's
chronological version is wrong. But in all such
cases the modern historians start to speak (with a
great irritation and displeasure) about "ignorance
of ancient observers and chroniclers", about
"impossibility to apply the modern scientific
methods to the analysis an ancient texts" etc.
The visual
picture of our chronological conjecture you can
see in the Fig.6.
4.2. In
which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
into medieval English history (of the island
Anglia)?
The answer
will be extremely simple if we will erase from our
minds the picture which is imposed by traditional
Scaliger's chronology.
Starting
from 11th century, several crusades storm the
Byzantine empire. Several feudal crusaders' states
were founded on the territory of Byzantine empire
in 11-14th cc. In these states many nations were
mixed: local population, the crusaders from
England, France, Germany, Italy etc. In these
crusaders' regions and in Byzantine empire the new
culture was created, in particular, were written a
historical chronicles. Among Byzantine inhabitants
were a lot of people from Europe, in particular,
from some island, which later will be called
England.
In 1453 A.D.
Turks conquered Constantinople. Byzantine empire
was ruined and the crowds of its inhabitants
leaved the country. Many of them returned in the
Europe, in their old homeland. In particular, - in
the island Anglia. These descendants of crusaders
took with them their Byzantine historical
chronicle, because these texts describe their own
real history in Byzantine empire (during many
years - one or two hundreds years). Several
decades passed. On the island Anglia starts the
writing its history (i.e., the history of the
people living on the island). In 16-17th centuries
some qualified historians appear and start to
create the general history of the whole land
Anglia ("from the beginning"). They search for
ancient documents. Suddenly they find several old
trunks with "very old" documents. The documents
are dusty, the paper is very fragile, and the old
books fall to pieces. These chronicles were
transported from Byzantine empire. But now (in
16-17th cc.) nobody knew this. Unfortunately, the
prehistory of these trunks is forgotten. And,
unfortunately, is forgotten that these chronicles
describe the history of ANOTHER LAND. The English
historians of 16-17th centuries carefully analyse
these texts as the history "of island England" and
put them into the basis of "old British-island
history, which started many centuries ago". In
some strong sense they were right because really
the authors of the chronicles were closely
connected with island Anglia (but, let us repeat,
described ANOTHER LAND - Byzantine empire).
This process
is quite natural and does not suggest any special
falsification of the history. Such natural errors
were inevitable at the first steps of creating of
the general history.
As a result,
appeared such chronicles as Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
the Nennius' chronicle etc. After some time this
wrong version of an old English history stand
stockstill, becomes a "monument". Further
historians simply modify (only a little) the
initial scheme of the history, add some new
documents. And only today, using some statistical
and other methods we start to discover some
strange regularities inside the "history textbook"
and start to realize that the real history was
possibly sufficiently shorter and that today we
need to remove from the "old English history" its
"Byzantine part" and return this piece to its
right place (in time and in the geographical
sense)
This
procedure is very painful. We realize this because
we discovered the same problem in the old Russian
history, when we also found several chronological
duplicates.
General
remark. It is possible, that this process of
"insertion of an old Byzantine chronicles" in the
beginning of a "local history" is presented for
several different regions which were closely
connected with Byzantine empire. In particular, it
is true for Russia, for England, for Rome, for
Greece.
5. OLD
ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH
SPEAK ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman
consul Brutus - the first who conquered Britain
(and the first king of Britts)
We have
analyzed above the durations of rules and
suggested the conjecture that old English history
is "a chronological reflection" if one period of
real Byzantine history. The following question
immediately arises: what about old English
chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or
there are some contradictions? Let us take these
chronicles and let us read them once more by
"fresh sight", without a priori "school"
hypothesis about "great antiquity" of these
sources.
Now we
recall to the reader well-known facts from
traditional history of England (Anglia in old
texts). Let us take, for example "Historia
Brittonum" of Nennius, "Historia Britonum" of
Galfridus Monemutensis and Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle.
Galfridus
calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In
brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as
follows. After the end of the Trojan War and after
the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero Aeneas arrived
on the ship in Italy. After two or three
generation his great-grandson Brutus was born
([9],p.6-7). By the way, Nennius thinks that "time
distance" between Aeneas and Brutus is
sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that "the
distance" between Trojan war and Brutus is about
several hundreds years. However, this difference
is not so important for us.
Then Brutus
leaved Italy and arrived it Greece, where becomes
the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus
collects the large fleet and then his army (on the
fleet) leaves Greece. After some time they landed
on some "island", began the battle with local
people, won the war and founded the new
kingdom.
This is
Britain.
Brutus is
the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain.
Today they are considered as legendary heroes,
because, according to traditional chronology,
these events were "in a deep past" (before Jesus
Christ).
Nennius
tells the analogous story of Brutus (but more
short). Nennius definitely states that Brutus
"arrived on the island, which was called by HIS
NAME, i.e., on the island Britain, then populated
the island by his posterity and lived there. From
this day and before now the Britain is populated"
([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the
name of Brutus.
Then Nennius
informs us about opinion of some other authors,
that "island Britain was called by the name of
Britt, son of Isicion, who was the son of Alan"
([8],p.172). But according to the most widespread
and authoritative version (which is quoted by
Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of
Brutus, who was ROMAN CONSUL (! - Auth.)"
([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of
Britain was Roman consul.
This
statement is extremely strange and impossible from
the point of view traditional Scaliger's
chronology, because Rome was founded only about
753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this
Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no
Rome! Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that: "The
first inhabitants of this land were the Britons,
who came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..."
([2],p.3).
It is quite
clear that here the name Armenia points out on the
Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which
was called Romai-Romania. Thus, as we see, the
English chronicle again connects Britain and
Roman-Byzantine empire.
Of course,
today this statement of old chronicle is declared
by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary
is as follows: "instead of erroneous name Armenia
one should read Armorica = Brittany" ([2],p.3).
However, the replacement of Armenia by Armorica
does not help to traditional history: the name
Armorica also can be connected with the name of
Roman-Byzantine empire. Our conclusion does not
change.
Thus, old
English chronicles state that Britain was at first
conquered by Roman consul Brutus, who arrived
there with a military fleet and founded the
British kingdom. He became the first king of an
island Britain.
5.2. Consul
Brutus of English chronicles - was he a
contemporary of Julius Caesar?
It seems
that the answer is quite clear. We need only to
understand - when lived this remarkable Roman
consul (according to traditional chronology)? It
is very simple. The qualified reader already
prompts to us the right answer: it was 1st century
B.C. In this century we see (in modern textbook in
ancient history) the well-known Roman consul
Brutus - the friend and brother-in-arms of Julius
Caesar. Brutus took part in many campaigns of
Julius Caesar. Then Brutus betrayed Caesar - his
patron and protector. We remember from our
"scholar childhood" the bitter words of Caesar:
"And you, Brutus", which Caesar said when Brutus
struck him by the sword.
As we also
known, the traitorous murder of Caesar - one of
the most important episode in "biography" of
ancient Roman consul Brutus. It is remarkable, but
the old English chronicles also speak about this
episode but in a slightly different words. They
state that Brutus (the first Britts' king) killed
his farther. This murder is considered by
chronicles as accidental, unintentional.
Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow and accidentally
killed "his farther" ([8],p.173). In our opinion,
this is slightly distorted Roman story about
murder of Julius Caesar by Brutus. Here "farther"
is Caesar - former friend and protector of
Brutus.
Because of
this terrible murder, the people expel Brutus from
his native land. It was done in both stories: in
Roman and in English. Brutus started on a
journey.
Our simple
and natural conjecture is as follows: in the old
English story about conquest of Britain acts
Brutus - the contemporary of Julius Caesar. As we
saw, this conjecture is supported by ancient
documents, although they do not call directly
Brutus as friend or enemy of Caesar. Indeed, all
chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was
conquered by Julius Caesar. Some interesting
details are reported. Namely, Caesar arrived in
Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted
of about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of
the land became a complicated problem and soon
Caesar returned in Britain with the fleet
consisting of 600 (!) ships. After the battle the
local army of natives were defeated and Romans
founded the new kingdom. Moreover, Nennius claims
that Julius Caesar WAS THE FIRST ROMAN who arrived
on the island Britain and conquered the kingdom
and Britts ([8],p.176).
Thus, if
Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, and
if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived
in Britain, then BRUTUS and JULIUS CAESAR are
simply CONTEMPORARIES and brothers-in-arms. This
conclusion evidently follows from old English
chronicles.
Let us
resume these corollaries in the form of some
table.
| Brutus - the first king of
Britts |
|
Julius Caesar |
|
1. The
first Roman arrived on the island, conquered the
land and founded the kingdom |
|
1. The
first Roman arrived on the island, conquered the
country and also founded the
kingdom |
|
2. Arrived
in Britain with great military fleet |
|
2. Was the
head of great military fleet which invaded into
the land |
|
3.
"Accidentally" killed his farther by
arrow |
|
3. His
contemporary - Roman Brutus, Caesar's friend,
traitorously killed Caesar (= "his farther-
-protector") |
|
4. The
murder of Brutus' father by his son was
predicted in advance by prophet (see Nennius,
[8],p.173) |
|
4.
Well-known story: the murder of Julius Caesar
was predicted by Roman prophet (see, for
example, Plutarch |
|
5.
Afterwards Brutus was expelled from his native
land (as the men who committed the
murder) |
|
5. Romans
expelled Brutus as great traitor, because he
killed Julius Caesar |
|
6. Roman
consul Brutus starts the history of
Britain |
|
6. Julius
Caesar lived (according traditional chronology)
in 1st c.
B.C. |
Thus, from
the position of common sense we immediately date
the epoch of the first Brutus' conquest of Britain
(with his contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st
century A.D. Let us note, that this our statement
is not new in reality. All experts know that
Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D.
All experts know that Brutus was the first who
conquered Britain. We simply combine these two
facts and formulate the evident conclusion:
"Ancient"
Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts,
the first king of Britain, the "starting person"
of the whole English history - is a contemporary
on Julius Caesar, i.e., well-known in classical
Roman history consul Brutus.
The reader
qualified in ancient history can, of course recall
here also the second known Brutus in Roman
history, who acted allegedly about 6th c.B.C. in
Rome. He expel ed the Roman kings from the capital
and founded the Roman republic. But this
historical epoch is in reality another
chronological duplicate (copy), reflection of the
epoch of Julius Caesar. It was discovered in
[1],[24]. Consequently, the attempt to identify
the Brutus = the first king of Britts - with
"another Brutus" - fails. We again come to the
epoch of Julius Caesar (1st century A.D. according
to traditional chronology). Let us recall here,
that according to chronological results, obtained
in [1],[24], the epoch of Julius Caesar is in
reality the duplicate (reflection) of the epoch of
10-11th cc.A.D.
The reader
can ask us: why we discuss in such details such
evident question (the identification of Brutus -
the first king of Britts - with Brutus of Caesar's
epoch)?
Our answer
is as follows. This our statement is mortally
dangerous to the traditional chronology of England
(and not only England). This is the explanation
why the traditional historians try to avoid any
serious discussion about the assertion of English
chronicles, that Brutus was Roman consul and that
Britts are the descendants of Romans. In
particular, the modern commentators of Nennius and
Galfridus (A.S.Bobovich and M.A.Bobovich)
irritatedly write: "The (medieval - Auth.) idea to
deduce the origin of Britts from Romans and
Trojans is not so original: already in 6th century
A.D. the Frank's rulers deduced their origin from
Trojans (and, in our opinion, they were right, see
the discussion about this subject in [1],[24] -
Auth.)" ([9],p.270). And then commentators add
carefully: "There are several Brutus in Roman
history". They do not continue and do not discuss
this remark, and now we realize - why. If you
start to analyse the "Brutus' problem", you (as we
demonstrated above) will make the inevitable (and
catastrophic for traditional chronology)
conclusion that "English Brutus" was the
contemporary of Julius Caesar.
BUT WHY THIS
CONCLUSION US SO DANGEROUS?
At first,
because in this case the so called "ancient
legendary British history" is immediately moved
upwards by approximately 1000-year shift in the
epoch of 1-13th A.D. and moreover, in 10-15th
cc.A.D.
Such
corollary, of course, is completely unacceptable
(and totally fantastic) to any modern traditional
historian. But there are some another,
sufficiently more dangerous corollaries. About
this - our next section
5.3. Biblical events in
English chronicles
The
"Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis is
strung on the pivot of biblical history. This
means that sometimes, when speaking about the
events of British history, Galfridus inserts the
phrases similar to this: In Judea the prophet
Samuel ruled at this time ([9],p.20). These rare
phrases are scattered along the chronicle and form
the rough (and very brief) skeleton of biblical
history of prophets and biblical kings, which is
closely interwoven with the stream of British
history. But, by the way, Galfridus does not give
any absolute dates. His chronology is completely
relative, i.e., he tells only - in the time of
which biblical kings (or prophets) were occurred
some of British events. Thus, when analyzing the
English chronology in a unprejudiced way, we meet
the necessity to start the analysis of biblical
chronology also. Let us do it and we will see what
we will obtain.
The evident
identification of "English Brutus" with well-known
Brutus from the epoch of Julius Caesar, is
impossible for traditional historian because in
this case the whole biblical chronology is
automatically moved from its traditional place (in
time) upwards by about at least 1000-year shift !
In reality this shift will be sufficiently more:
about 1800 years! See [1],[24].
Indeed, if
"English Brutus" (the forefather of Britts) is
placed in 1st century B.C., then, according to the
"Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis, ALL
BASIC EVENTS OF BIBLICAL HISTORY should be
distributed on time axis from 1st century A.D.
until 13th century A.D. Here we mean: the history
of all biblical prophets, the history of the
kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel et
cetera. On the face of it, such conclusion is
completely impossible! Traditionally, biblical
history is dated from 11th century B.C. until 1st
century A.D.
But if we
will wait a little and will try nevertheless to
place ancient biblical history on the interval
from 1st century A.D. until 13th century A.D. -
what we obtain?
It turns out
that this procedure does not lead to the
contradiction with ancient evidences of ancient
texts. We suggest to the reader to take the books
of Fomenko [1],[24], where you can find the
details. Here we demonstrate only one, but
remarkable example.
5.4. Do we interpret ancient
texts in a proper way? Problem of vowels
restoration.
In the
attempt to read and date the most of the ancient
manuscripts (ancient Egyptian, ancient Slavonic,
biblical et cetera) certain basic problems are
frequently encountered.]
As soon as
J.Sunderland started investigating the original
language of the Old Testament, he, in his words,
"...faced the fact of enormous and even startling
importance. The thing is that the Jewish written
language originally had neither vowels nor signs
replacing them. The books of the Old Testament
were written only with consonants" ([16], p.
155).
This is also
typical for other languages. For example, an
ancient Slavonic text was a chain of only
consonants, too; sometimes even without signs
replacing the vowels, or without division into
words. Old Egyptian texts were also written in
consonants only.
According to
well-known chronologist E.Bickerman, "...the names
of Egyptian kings are given in contemporary
literature schematically, in a quite arbitrary,
so-called scholastic manner adopted in school
textbooks. These forms are often greatly different
from each other; it is impossible to order them
somehow, due to their arbitrary reading (! -
Authors.) which became traditional" ([17],
p.176).
Probably,
the rarity and high cost of writing materials in
ancient times made the scribes save them, and omit
the vowels, thereby essentially shortening the
text.
J.Sunderland
continues:
"However, if
we take the Jewish Bible or a manuscript today, we
shall find in them the skeleton of vowels filled
with dots and other signs denoting the missing
vowels. These signs did not belong to the old
Jewish Bible. The books were read by consonants,
and the intervals were filled with vowels
according to one's skill and the apparent
requirements of the context and oral legends"
([16], p. 155).
Imagine how
exact the meaning of a word written in consonants
can be if, for example, CLN can mean clean, clan,
colon, and so forth.
According to
T.Curtis, even for the priests, the content of
manuscripts remained extremely doubtful and could
be understood only by means of the authority of
the legend ([16], p. 155).
It is
assumed that this serious short-coming of the
Jewish Bible had been eliminated not earlier that
the 7th or 8th century A.D., when the Massoretes
revised the Bible and added signs replacing the
vowels; but they had no manuals, except their own
reason, and a very imperfect legendary tradition
([16], p. 156-157).
Well-known
expert S.Driver adds that, since the times of the
Massoretes in the 7th-8th century A.D., the Jews
have taken to keeping their sacred books with
extraordinary care, but then it was too late to
repair the damage already done. The result of such
attentiveness was just the immortalization of the
distortions, which were then placed on exactly the
same level of authority with the original text
([16], p.157).
J.Sunderland: "The opinion
reigning earlier was that the vowels had been
introduced into the Jewish text by Ezra in the 5th
century A.D. But in the 16th and 17th century,
E.Levita and J.Capellus in France refuted this
opinion and proved that th vowels had been
introduced only by the Massoretes. The discovery
created a sensation in the whole of Protestant
Europe. Many people believed that the new theory
would lead to disproving the religion completely.
If the vowels were not a matter of Divine
Revelation, but only a human invention, besides, a
much later one, then how could we rely on the text
of the Scripture? This discussion was one of the
hottest in the history of the new biblical
criticism and proceeded for more than a century,
stopping only when the validity of the new point
of view was acknowledged by everyone" ([16], p.
157-158).
5.5. Geography and chronology
of biblical events.
5.5.1. Problems with
traditional geographical
localizations.
Even if the
vowels of common words are not that important (you
can easily reconstruct a well-known word from the
context), the situation changes completely when
combination of consonants meaning a city, country,
the name of a king, etc., appears in an ancient
text. Tens and hundreds of different variants of
vowels for one term (word) may be found, stating
the "identifications" of the biblical vowel-free
names of cities, countries, and others, made by
traditional historians proceeding from the
chronological (and geographical) version of
J.Scaliger and the localization referring the
biblical events to the Near East.
As the
archaeologist M.Burrows notes, the archaeological
job generally leads to the undoubtedly strongest
creed in the reliability of biblical information
(cit.from [18], p. 16).
F.Kenyon of
the British Museum insists as much categorically
on archaeology refuting the "destructive
skepticism of the second half of the 19th century"
[18].
But here is
unexpected information reported by the well-known
archaeologist G.Wright, who, by the way, is a
staunch partisan of the correctness of orthodox
localization and of traditional dating biblical
events. He wrote, "A great many findings do not
prove or disprove anything; they fill the
background and only serve as historical artifacts.
Unfortunately, the desire "to prove" the Bible
permeates many works available to the average
reader. Historical evidences may be used in an
incorrect manner, whereas the conclusions dawn are
often erroneous and only half correct" ([18], p.
17).
If we
attentively examine the fundamental facts about
the Bible discovered by N.A.Morozov [19], then we
shall see that none of the books of the Old
Testament contain any solid archaeological
confirmation of their traditional geographical and
time localization. As I.A.Kryvelev noted, the
whole "Mesopotamian" biblical theory will be
questioned.
The
traditional localization of the events described
in the New Testament is no better.
I.A.Kryvelev
many years studied the biblical geography and
chronology. He wrote, "The reader interested in
biblical archaeology may be bewildered by the
hundreds of pages speaking of excavations,
landscapes, or artifacts, historical and biblical
background. And, in the conclusion, when it comes
to the results of the whole job, there are only a
number of indistinct and imprecise statements
about the problem not having been completely
solved, but that there is still hope for the
future, and so forth. We may be absolutely sure
that none of the stories of the New Testament
contains any somewhat convincing archaeological
confirmation (in terms of the traditional
localizations - Authors). This is perfectly true,
in particular, if applied to the figure and
biography of Jesus Christ. Not a single spot
traditionally regarded as the arena of a
particular event occurring in the New Testament
can be indicated with the slightest degree of
confidence" ([18], p. 200-201).
The natural
question arises: where the events of Old and New
Testaments were geographically located in
reality?
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was
located?
In reality,
considerable difficulties accompany the attempts
of geographical localization of many of the
ancient events and cities (not only from the
Bible).
For example,
one of the accepted today traditional
localizations of the famous city of Troy is near
the Hellespont (= the sea of Helen). It is for
this particular reason that Schliemann ascribed
the famous name of Troy (described by Homer) to
the rests of a small ancient village he excavated
near the Hellespont. It is well known that today
we have not any proofs of this
"identification".
It is
assumed today, that according to traditional
chronology, Troy was completely destroyed in the
12-13th century B.C. and after this was never
reconstructed [17]. But, it turns out, that in the
Middle Ages, Italian city Troy, which still exists
today [1],[24], enjoyed widespread fame. This is
celebrated medieval city which played an important
role in many medieval wars; especially, in the
well-known war of the 13th century.
Many
Byzantine historians also speak of Homer's Troy as
of an existing medieval city, namely, Choniates
Nicetas and Gregoras Nicephoras ([20], v. 6, p.
126).
T.Livy
indicates the spot named Troy and the Trojan
region in Italy (Book.1). Certain medieval
historians identified Troy with Jerusalem (see,
for example, [21],p.88,235,162,207), which
embarrasses the modern commentators: "The book of
Homer somewhat suddenly turned (in the medieval
chronicle, while describing Alexander's expedition
to Troy - Authors)... into the book on the
destruction of Jerusalem" ([21], p. 162). Let us
recall that the second (well-known) name of Troy
is Ilion, whereas the second name of Jerusalem is
Aelia Capitolina ([19], v. 7). It is absolutely
clear that in the names of these cities there is a
similarity: Aelia = Ilion.
The books
[1] and [2] contains the data and arguments which
allow to assume that Homer's Troy is the
Constantinople (= New Rome), and that the Trojan
War is the reflection of crusades which started
from 11th c.A.D. The Constantinople was captured
during crusades. Besides this, some part of the
legend on Trojan War is the reflection of a real
medieval war from the middle of 13th c.A.D. in
Italy. The Italian city Troy was involved in this
war (see [1]).
The
identification of the Great Troy with
Constantinople follows also from the texts of
crusades epoch. The chronicler Rober de Clari told
that the Great Troy was located near the entrance
into the "branchium Sancti Georgii" ([25],p.210).
It is supposed today that this is the Dardanelles.
From the other hand it is also known that another
famous chronicler of the 4th crusade -
Villehardouin - calls as "branchium Sancti
Georgii" not only the Dardanelles but also the
Bosporus! M.A.Zaborov (modern historian) notes:
"Villehardouin applies the name "branchium Sancti
Georgii" to the Dardanelles and to the Bosporus"
([25],p.238).
Thus, the
Great Troy can located also near the entrance into
the Bosporus. But here we see the
Constantinople!
Consequently, it was
completely unnecessary to search the "rests" of
the Troy on a desert hills as Schliemann done. Our
conjecture: the Trojan War is the reflection of
the one or several crusades on the Constantinople
or on Italian Troy.
The
well-known medieval "Novel on the Troy" of Benoit
de Sainte-Maure ("Roman de Troie") was finished
allegedly between 1155 and 1160 A.D. "The source
of this novel is the "History of Troy destruction"
written by some Dares, who was allegedly the
eyewitness of Trojan War (possibly, he was one of
the crusaders - Auth.). Benoit looks in the
antiquity through the prism of his epoch and his
reality... In his basis is the ancient Greek epos,
but its personages and heroes are transformed into
noble knights and beautiful ladies, and the Trojan
War itself is transformed into the sequence of
knight's duels... Ancient Medea is represented in
his chronicle as courtier lady, whose clothing is
exactly the same as the clothing of the lady of
her social level in medieval France of the middle
of 12th century"([10],p.235).
We suggest
to read the old chronicles "in direct way",
without some special complex interpretations; we
need to read "what is written" and not "what
should be written". In this case we are forced to
agree that Benoit de Sainte-Maure describes the
Trojan War as the event from medieval epoch.
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled
in reality?
Let us
return to the Bible. Many strange phenomena occur
in an unprejudiced analysis of biblical geography
(see detailed Morozov's analysis in [19]).
That many
biblical texts describe volcanic activity has been
stressed in history long ago. Let us take the
Bible.
The Lord
said to Moses, "I am now coming to you in a thick
cloud... But when the ram's horn sounds (when the
cloud leaves Mount Sinai - Authors), they may go
up the mountain'... there were peals of thunder
and flashes of lightning, a dense cloud on the
mountain and a loud trumpet blast... Mount Sinai
was all smoking because the Lord had come down
upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke
of a kiln... and the sound of the trumpet grew
ever louder" (Ex. 19:9, 13, 16, 18).
And then:
All the people saw how it thundered and the
lightning flashed, when they heard the trumpet
sound and saw the mountain smoking..."
(Ex.20:18).
"You
stood... at Horeb... THe mountain was ablaze with
fire to the very skies: there was darkness, cloud,
and thick mist. And the Lord spoke unto you out of
the midst of the fire " (Dt. 4:10-12).
The
destruction of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah
has long been regarded in history to have been due
to a volcanic eruption. For example:
"And then
the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the
skies on Sodom and Gomorrah... He saw thick smoke
rising high from the earth like the smoke of a
like-kiln" (Gn.19:24,28). And so on.
The complete
list of all apparent volcanic eruptions mentioned
in the Bible was compiled by V.P.Fomenko and
T.G.Fomenko (see [1],[24]).
To associate
(as is done traditionally) all these descriptions
with Mn. Sinai = Mn. Horeb (and Jerusalem in
traditional Palestine) seems doubtful; it is
generally known that it has never been a
volcano.
Where did
the events occur then?
It suffices
to study the geological map of the Mediterranean
area to obtain immediately the unique answer.
There are no acting volcanoes in the Sinai
peninsula, Syria, or Palestine; there are only
zones of tertiary and quaternary volcanism, as,
for example, near Paris. In the above-mentioned
regions, where the biblical events are
traditionally located, no volcanic activity has
been discovered in historical epoch since the
birth of Christ. Besides, Egypt and North Africa
have no volcanoes. The only powerful, and by the
way, acting volcanic zone, is Italy together with
Sicily.
Thus,
according to the Bible, we have to find
1) a
powerful volcano active in the historical era;
2) a destroyed capital (see
the book of the Prophet Jeremiah) near the
volcano;
3) two other
cities destroyed by the volcano, namely, Sodom and
Gomorrah.
There exists
such a volcano in the Mediterranean, and it is
unique, namely the famous Vesuvius, one of the
most powerful volcanoes in history.
Famed
Pompeii (biblical "capital"?) and two destroyed
cities Stabiae (Sodom?) and Herculaneum
(Gomorrah?) are located nearby. We cannot but
mention a certain similarity in the names of these
Italian and biblical towns. It is possible that
the name of Sinai for Vesuvius originates from the
Latin Sino (sinus), and biblical Horeb from the
Latin horribilis (horrible).
The
following analytic study worth mentioning, which
permits to read the vowel-free text of the Bible,
was performed by Morozov in [19]. It took into
account placing Mt.Sinai=Horeb=Sion in Italy.
We
illustrate by several examples.
The Bible
speaks: "The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and
said, "You have stayed on this mountain long
enough; go now, make for all KNN (Canaan)..."
(Dt.1:6-7).
The
theologians supply the Hebrew KNN with vowels
Canaan and place it in the desert on the Dead Sea
coast, but another solution is also possible,
namely, KNN = GENUA (Italian Genoa).
The Bible
continues: "All KNN (Canaan) and the LBN
(Lebanon)..." (Dt. 1:7). The theologians restore
the Hebrew LBN with vowels as Lebanon; however
lebanon means "white", i.e., the same as Mont
Blanc, or White Mountain. Famous mountain in
Europe. "As far as the great river, the PRT" (Dt.
1:7). The theologians restore PRT with vowels and
decipher is as Euphrates; but, there is the large
tributary of the Danube, the Prut, located in
central Europe, as beyond Mont Blanc. "Then we set
out from Horeb... and marched through that vast
and terrible wilderness" (Dt. 1:19).
In fact, the
famous Phlegraei, vast and burnt-out spaces filled
with small volcanoes, fumaroles, and solidified
lava streams are located near Vesuvius=Horeb. "And
so we came to KDS-BRN" (Dt. 1:19).
KDS-BRN is
traditionally supplied with vowels as
Kadesh-Barnea, which is, from the other hand,
possibly, a town on the Rhone ([19], v. 2, p.
166). It is also possible that modern Geneva was
meant as "town on the Rhone". "And we spent many
days marching round the hill-country of Seir" (Dt.
2:1).
Mount Seir
was left here without translation; however, if it
is translated, we obtain Devil's Mountain(s). And
there is such a mountain near Lake Geneva, namely
Le Diableret ("Devil's Mountain").
Then, the
"Children of Lot" (Dt. 2:9) met on the way can be
evidently identified with the Latins ( = LT).
"And cross
the gorge of the Arnon" (Dt. 2:24). In the
canonical translation we see Arnon (RNN). But,this
is the Italian river Arno existing up to now!
"Next we...
advances... to Bashan" (Dt. 3:1). The town Bashan
(Bassan) is often mentioned in the Bible. It is
surprising that town Bassano still exists in
Lombardy.
"King of
Bashan... came out against us at Edrei" (Dt.3:1).
Adria is still here, on the Po delta; the Po, by
the way, has often been mentioned by ancient Latin
authors (e.g., Procopius) and called the Jordan
(in Procopius' Eridanus), which is very consistent
with the biblical spelling of the Jordan, namely
hay-yarden (JRDN) ([19], v. 2, p. 167).
"And we
captured all his cities... sixty cities..."(Dt.
3:3-4).
Indeed, in
the Middle Ages, there were many big cities in the
region: Verona, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and
others.
"From the
gorge of the Arnon to Mount Hermon (HRMN)" (Dt.
3:8).
But it is obvious that MNT
HRMN can be supplied with vowels to be translated
as the "German mountains". "Only the Og king of
Bashan remained... His sarcophagus of iron may
still be seen in the... city of Rabbah" (Dt.
3:11).
Here is
mentioned not only Ravenna (=Rabbah), but also the
famous tomb of Theodoric (493-526 A.D.) of the
Ostrogoths (Og = Goths?). It is clear that
biblical OG means possible GOTH.
There
follows TBRN (Taberiah in traditional biblical
translation), which is naturally identified with
the Tiber in Italy; ZN is Siena, southeast of
Livorno. The slopes of Monte Viso are called Jebus
(Jgs. 19:10-11) in the Bible, and Rome is called
Ramah (Jgs. 19:14).
And so on.
As we see, the shift of some biblical events from
"the deep antiquity" in the medieval epoch does
not contradict with the ancient text of the Bible
(without vowels). Thus, now we can continue our
analysis of English history.
5.6. Why English chronicles
suggested that both Russia and England were
located on islands?
The
fact that modern England is located on the island,
does not surprise us. But Russia!? There are no
geographical reasons to think that Russia is the
island! But nevertheless, for example the
well-known chronicler Benoit de Sainte-Maure in
his "Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy" [22]
speaks, that
There exists
an ISLAND called Cansie (or Canzie), and I think
that this is Rosie (in another copy of the
manuscript - Russie - Auth.), which is surrounded
by the great salty sea. And they (the people of
Russie - Auth.) fly out as great swarm of bees,
and their number is thousands; and they... can
attack the great kingdoms and take the great
procurement and they can win and conquer.
Here the
original text: "Une isle i a par non Cancie
(Canzie in manuscript B - see [10],p.240), e si
crei bien que c'est Rosie (Russie in manuscript B,
see [10],p.240), qui est de la grant mer salee de
totes parz avironnee. Dunc autresi com les euetes
de lor diverses maisonnetes gitent essains granz e
pleners, ou moct a nombres e millers, ou com de
ceus qui sunt irie' sunt en estor glaive sachie',
tost e isnel d'ire esbrasez, trestot eissi e plus
assez seuct icil poples fors eissir por les granz
rennes envair e por faire les granz ocises, les
granz gaaiz e les conquises."
Russia is
called here Rosie or Russie. If we look in the
table of medieval names, titles and their
duplicates (see above), we will see that here the
chronicler really speaks about Russia.
V.I.Matuzova (who included this text in her book
"English Medieval Texts") comments this fragment
as follows:
"Rosie is
Russia. The report that Russia is an ISLAND is
similar to another such reports..."([10],p.244).
And then Matuzova quotes another medieval authors
who were confident that Russia is an ISLAND (in
particular, some Arabian and Persian chroniclers;
but, by the way, it is not so clear - where they
lived in reality, may be in Spain?).
It is
supposed sometimes today that Cancie is
Scandinavia. But Scandinavia also is not an
island! By the way, the "Chronicle of Monastery of
Saint Edmund" (13th c. A.D.) is also convinced
that Russia is located on an island, because
reports that Tartars rushed on Hungary FROM
ISLANDS ([30], and also [10],p.100-101).
How we can
explain it? The simplest way - to accuse the
authors of 12th century that they were completely
ignorant (this is the standard explanation in
modern historical textbooks and this idea allows
to the modern historians simply to "close the
problem").
But another
explanation is also possible. English word island
means today the piece of land surrounded by a sea.
But may be in the medieval epoch this word had
also another meaning? Our conjecture: it was
Asia-Land, i.e., the Land located in Asia. Without
vowels we have: asialand = SLND, and island =
SLND. This is the same word!
Then all
things immediately fit in their "correct places".
Russia really can be considered (from the Western
point of view) as far Asian Land = island. Large
part of Russia belongs to the Asia. Consequently,
medieval chroniclers were quite right when we
talked about Island Russia. They were not so
ignorant as it is supposed today.
Let us
repeat once more our conjecture: the word island
had two meanings in the past: piece of land
surrounded by a sea, and Asia-Land.
But in this
case the natural question arises (as the flash).
If the ancient English authors speaking about
island Russia, assumed that they speak about
Asia-Land Russia, then we do not see any obstacles
to assume that when they told bout island Anglia,
they also speak about Asia-Land Anglia. And only
after this, in a new epoch, the word island Anglia
become to be considered only as island Anglia in a
modern sense (piece of land surrounded by
sea).
We saw the
remarkable parallel between English history and
Byzantine history. But Byzantine Empire really was
Asia-Land for Western chroniclers. And only in the
next epoch (when Byzantine chronicles were
transported in England and were inserted into
English history) the Asia-Land Anglia was
transformed into Island Anglia.
Thus, were
was located the land Anglia-Britain in 10-12th cc.
A.D.? This is complicated question. To get the
answer we have unique way - to take the old
English chronicles. Our answer will be as
follows:
Anglia-Britain of 10-12th
cc.A.D. was Byzantine Empire.
5.7. Where was the land
Britain which was conquered by Brutus located? In
what direction his fleet cruised?
On the face
of it, the answer on this absurd question is
completely evident: on the same place where
England-Britain is located today. But let us not
to hurry.
Let us
recall after "accidental murder of his father",
Brutus was expelled from Italy. He went to the
Greece ([9],p.7). Here Brutus fixed the ancient
relationship and he was staying among Trojans
([9],p.7). The period of wars in Greece started at
this time. These wars are described by Galfridus
in many details. Then Brutus organized the army
and fleet and after this started the
campaign-cruise. It is supposed today that his
fleet went in Atlantic ocean and then arrived in
modern England. Is it true? May be the chronicles
describe in reality the military operations inside
Mediterranean sea and on the territory of Greece
and Byzantine Empire?
For example,
Brutus' army arrived in Sparatin. Modern
commentary: "Location is unknown" ([9],p.230). Of
course, you cannot find Sparatin if you assume
that Brutus travel far from Mediterranean sea. But
if these events occurred in Greece, then you do
not need to search Sparatin, because this is
well-known Sparta.
Then
Galfridus describes the path of Brutus' fleet
which is considered today as a "proof" that Brutus
really went in Atlantic and then arrived in modern
England. But we see suddenly from modern comments
that it turns out that Galfridus "repeat the
mistake containing in his source - namely, in
"Historia Brittonum" of Nennius, who made the
mistake because of erroneous reading of Orosius'
chronicle..."([9],p.231). Moreover, then it turns
out that "following to Nennius, Galfridus
ERRONEOUSLY placed Tyrrhenian Sea BEHIND
Gibraltar. We recall that Tyrrhenian Sea is BEFORE
Gibraltar because is a part of Mediterranean Sea
near Western coast of Italy" ([9],p.231).
But we are
sure that here - no mistake! Galfridus was right
because he describes in reality some complicated
military movements INSIDE Mediterranean Sea, in
particular, near Italy, where you can see
Tyrrhenian Sea. Brutus' fleet did not pass in the
Atlantic Ocean! Modern historians try to accuse
Galfridus (and other chroniclers) in some
"mistakes" only because historians try to adjust
their modern "traditional" chronological and
geographical concepts with real evidences of real
medieval texts. Of course, a lot of contradictions
appear. All these contradictions are considered
today as "the fault of medieval authors".
Then
Galfridus describes the battle between Brutus'
army and Greeks on the Akalon (Acalon) river
([9],p.8). The modern commentary is as follows:
"This name is, possibly, the fantasy of
Galfridus... E.Pharal is his book formulated the
idea that this description of Greek's defeat
during the battle with Trojans near Acalon river,
was taken by Galfridus from the story of Etien de
Blua about the defeat of TURKS during the battle
with CRUSADERS near "Moscolo" river at March 1098
A.D." ([9],p.230).
Consequently, here we can
penetrate through the thick cover of traditional
plaster into the real contents of the Galfridus
chronicle. He describes in reality (following to
some old documents) the epoch of the First Crusade
in the end of 11th c.A.D. in Byzantine Empire.
Thus, we can
assume that Brutus' campaign = Julius Caesar's
campaign is the reflection of well-known crusade
in the end of 11th c.A.D. The conquest of Britain
is shifted from the 1st c.B.C. into the 11th
c.A.D. (about 1000-year shift !). This fact
confirms the discovered parallel
("identification") between Roman-Byzantine history
of 10-15th cc.A.D. and old English history
starting, allegedly, in 1st c.B.C. See above.
After some
time they (Brutus' fleet) arrived to "the island
which was called Albion" ([9],p.17). Modern
commentary: Albion = Al'bania - one of the early
(old) names of Britain or the part of it, which
was appeared in ancient sources" ([9],p.232).
When
speaking about Britain, Galfridus very often uses
its second equivalent name: Al'bania
([9],p.19).
Thus,
Britain = Al'bania.
Let us
refuse now to follow the traditional historical
version which identifies persistently the Anglia
of 10-12th cc. A.D. with the modern island. Then
we immediately recognize the modern name Albania
(located on the territory of medieval Byzantine
Empire) in this Galfridus' term Al'bania.
Thus,
Galfridus places the medieval Britain on the
territory of medieval Byzantine Empire.
The name
Albania or Al'bania was slightly transformed into
Albion later (occasionally or, possible,
deliberately), when somebody decided to erase the
evident traces of Byzantine origin of the old
English chronicles.
5.8. With whom Brutus fights
while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
After landing on the coast of
Albania (later Albion), "Brutus named the island
Britain using his own name, and named his fellows
Britts" ([9],p.17). By the way, transformation of
the Asia-Land Albania into island Albion (as a
piece of land surrounded by sea) can be supported
and partially explained because of the reason that
Brutus arrived into Albania with his fleet, i.e.,
after sea expedition. And in some texts the
landing on the coast of Byzantine Empire was
transformed into the landing on the coast of some
island.
With whom
meets Brutus after landing?
With giants.
We think that here chronicle means different great
nations which lived in Byzantine Empire and
possibly formed some individual dependent or
independent states.]
"Among these
giants was one especially disgusting, abominable,
who was called Goemagog" ([9],p.17-18). This
"giant" was (according to Galfridus) extremely
powerful and terrible. Brutus' army meets in
battle with 12 giants (among them - Goemagog).
Initially, Britts were defeated. But then they
"won and killed all the giants except of Goemagog"
([9],p.18). The battle with Goemagog continues and
in the end Britts won.
Let us stop
for a moment and think a little. What tells us
Galfridus in his poetic chronicle (of course, he
was based on some old real documents).
1) About the
victory of Britts. In other words, as we think, -
about the victory of crusaders who conquered
Byzantine Empire.
2) About one
of the most dangerous their enemies - some
Goemagog.
The modern
commentary:
"Galfridus
combined in one name two ones: Gog and Magog"
([9],p.232). The modern historian, the commentator
of Galfridus chronicle, noted that the nations Gog
and Magog are frequently mentioned in the Bible
(in Revelation, in Ezekiel). For example, in the
biblical book Ezekiel we can see the following
text about these terrible and powerful
nations:
"Set thy
face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief
prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal...Gog shall come
against the land of Israel..." (Ezekiel,
38:2-3,18). According to the Bible, death and
destruction carry these nations.
Remark. In
some English publications of the Bible the word
"Rosh" is omitted! Why?
About the
hordes of Gog and Magog with fear speaks the
biblical book of Revelation: "Satan shall be
loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to
deceive the nations... Gog and Magog, to gather
them together to battle: the number of whom is as
the sand of the sea" (Revelation, 20:7-8).
The modern
historian tells us: "Late the people fantasy
transformed Gog and Magog into spiteful, malicious
giants. In London starting from the Middle Ages
there are two monuments - the figures of Gog and
Magog (near entrance to the City, today near town
hall" ([9],p.232).
These two
medieval nations are well-known and are identified
according to some medieval chroniclers with Goths
and Mongols. In 13th c.A.D. Hungarians considered
Gog and Magog as Tartars ([9],p.174). All these
facts forced us to move the events described by
Galfridus into Byzantine Empire (or in neighboring
countries).
From the
other hand it is impossible do not mention about
the following important remark.
The Moscow
kingdom, according to the old Russian legend,
which can be found in Russian textbooks until 19th
century, "was founded by biblical patriarch
Mosoh". This legend explains why Moscow is called
in Greek as Mosha (Moska). When the Moscow kingdom
was founded? The reader gives the answer
immediately: the first note in chronicles about
Moscow is dated by 1147 A.D.
Because the
Bible speaks about Gog, the chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal, N.A.Morozov formulated an
interesting question:
"Is it true
that the Russian MUZHIK (man, fellow) =
Rosh-Meshech was reflected in this famous biblical
fragment, as the founder of Russia-Muzhikovii ?
Then, after the filtration of the sound ZH through
the Greek language, where this sound is
transformed into S, this word was returned again
into Russia as "Russia-Moscow".'
([19],vol.2,p.579).
Morozov
wrote: "Any kind of interpretation for these
fragment from the Bible leads you to the
historical epoch of Mongolian period in Russian
history, i.e., to the epoch starting from 1227,
when Mongol Batu (Batyi) becomes the ruler (king)
of Moscow. When we agree with this point of view,
then all things become very natural..."
([19],vol.2,p.615).
We realize
that for the reader who is not acquainted with the
history of chronological problems and with the
books of Morozov [19], Fomenko [1],[24] and
Fomenko, Kalashnikov, Nosovskij [3], some of our
ideas sound sometimes strange. Nevertheless, from
the other hand, as can see the reader, all these
ideas are produces by the formal logical analysis
of the old English chronicles.
Thus, if we
return to the Galfridus chronicle, we are forced
to formulate the corollary: during the landing on
the coast of Byzantine Empire in 11th c.A.D. the
Brutus' army meets with several large nations, and
among them are Goths, Mongols and Russians. It is
quite natural for 11th c.A.D. because of an
important role which play these nations at this
time in medieval Europe and Asia.
5.9. With whom Julius Caesar
fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
Let us
remind that the Brutus' epoch is simultaneously
the Julius Caesar's epoch. If so, the military
operations of Brutus should be reflected in the
texts speaking about the same operations but from
the Caesar's camp.
Galfridus,
when finishing the Brutus' story, and passing
several centuries along time-axis, comes finally
to Caesar's epoch. Then he started to repeat the
same "Brutus' story", but, of course, from
different point of view.
Galfridus:
"As it was mentioned in Roman history, Julius
Caesar (after victory in Gallia) appeared on the
coast of Rutheni. Looking from there on the island
Britain, he asked his fellows, - what about this
country and which nation lives here"
([9],p.37).
It is quite
clear to the trained reader that, according to the
opinion of modern historians, Galfridus again
demonstrates here his medieval ignorance. The
modern commentary to this fragment of Galfridus'
text is as follows: "Rutheni are the Gall nation
lived in Aquitaine (southern-western Gallia). It
is impossible "to view" Britain from there, and
consequently, Rutheni appeared in Galfridus text
erroneously" ([9],p.238).
Who are
Rutheni? The reader can take again the dictionary
of medieval names and their duplicates (see
Matuzova [10]) and he will obtain the answer
immediately:
Rutheni are
Russians.
Really:
ANCIENT
RUSSIAN STATE: Susie, Russie, Ruissie,Rusia,
Russia, RUTHENIA, RUTENEA, Ruthia, RUTHENA,
Ruscia, Russcia, Russya, Rosie.
RISSIANS:
Russii, Dogi (!), Rugi (!), RUTHENI (!),
Rusceni.
It is
well-known that Russian army several times took
part in the military operations on Byzantine
territory, in particular, they attacked the
Constantinople. Thus, in the Middle Ages Russian
forces really occupied some Byzantine regions. And
it was quite possible "to view" the Albania =
Britain = Byzantine Empire from there.
Thus, our
conjecture is as follows. Rutheni mentioned in old
English chronicles during the Julius Caesar's
conquest of Albania = Britain - are the Russians
of 10-12th cc.A.D.
Later these
Rutheni were shifted along the geographical map in
Western direction, when the old English chronicles
were taken from Byzantine Empire into modern
island England. As a result of such artificial
displacement (shift) the name Rutheni appeared on
the map of Gallia (in France). Consequently, real
Rutheni were "doubled, duplicated". Then the
initial, original location of real Rutheni was
forgotten among the English chroniclers. Let us
note the important idea.
When the
Byzantine chronicles were transported from the
East to the West (and were inserted in the history
of modern island Britain), this shift also
generated the "geographical shift" of many names
and titles which were initially located in
Byzantine Empire and around it. Rutheni (=
Russians) are only one of these examples. We will
demonstrate below some another examples.
Let us
return to Julius Caesar in Galfridus' description.
The fleet of Caesar invades into Albania =
Britain. Here he starts the battle with Britts
([9],p.38), then defeats them and conquest the
country. Let us stop for a moment and ask the
question: who are Britts in 10-12th cc.A.D.?
Traditional explanation is as follows: Britts are
the descendants of Brutus. This "explanation"
explains nothing. Basing on our experience, we can
suspect that "Britts" of 10-12th cc.A.D. is some
real nation of Middle Ages living in some part of
Byzantine Empire. We do not need to search too
long. The answer is on the surface.
An important
part of Roman-Byzantine Empire is Romania =
Rumania, and also Bulgaria. Here you can see the
well-known river Danube with large afflux Prut =
PRT (without vowels) or = BRT. In the epoch of
crusades the Byzantine Empire was the collection
of several feudal states. One of the important
nations, which were represented here (as
crusaders), were Germans and Prussians. Let us put
the question: which name was used by medieval
English chroniclers for Prussians? The immediate
answer is given by the same dictionary by Matuzova
[10]:
PRUSSIA:
Prurenia (!), (P-Rutenia = P-Russia),
PRUSSI
(Prussians): Prateni, Pruteni, Pructeni, Prusceni,
Praceni, Pruceni.
Thus, the
medieval sources call the Prussians as Pruteni =
PRTN. It is possible that here we see the medieval
BRT = Britts = Brits, described by Galfridus.
Thus, it is possible that Julius Caesar was at war
with medieval Prussians = Pruteni. In particular,
Britain = BRTN (in 10-12th cc.A.D.) coincides with
RRTN = Pruneti = Prussia ! Thus, one of the large
regions in Byzantine Empire, namely, - occupied by
Prussians = Pruteni, - gave the name for Britain =
Prutenia.
But another
answer is also possible.
According to
the Abglo-Saxon Chronicle, the British language is
the language Welsh ([2],p.3). But Welsh is
evidently Vlachi = Blachi and, according to the
Matuzova's dictionary, denotes the Thurki = Turci
= Turks. If so, in some cases the Britts can be
identified with Turks (at least in some medieval
chronicles). But this identification again leads
us to the Byzantine Empire as the location of
early English history.
We hope that
we gave the reasonable answer of the natural
question:
With whom
Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
5.10. Where was London
located in 10-11th cc. A.D.?
Trained reader waits with
answer because suspects (and it is reasonable)
that correct answer can be completely
unexpected.
And we
continue to read the old English chronicles which
give us the correct answers on the all such
questions. But we need to read "what is written"
and not "what should be written". The second
formula is sometimes the point of view of modern
historical Scaliger's tradition which is in the
basis of a modern textbook on ancient history.
Galfridus:
"When
finishing with the division of the kingdom, Brutus
decided to built a new town-capital... He founded
the town and called it NEW TROY (! - Auth.). The
town preserved this name during many years and
then, because of distortion the initial title, the
name was transformed into TRINOVANT. After this,
Lud... who fighted with Julius Caesar,... ordered
to call the town CAERLUD which means "Town of Lud"
(the word Caer = Cair means simply "town", see
details below - Auth.). It was the cause of a
great conflict between Lud and his brother
Nennius, because Nennius was not agree with Lud
who wanted to forget the initial name TROY"
([9],p.18).
And then:
"The title was distorted and was transformed into
Caerludein, then into Lundene and finally, into
Lundres" ([9],p.37).
The modern
commentary: "Trinovant is today the city London"
([9],p.232).Thus, the old English chronicles
states that:
New Troy =
Trinovant = Lud = Lundene = London.
Here we
recall that according to the analysis in [1],[24],
the NEW TROY of 10-11th cc.A.D. is New Rome =
Constantinople. As we have mentioned above, the
most known historical version states that "the
Troy of Homer" is "somewhere near" the
Constantinople = Istanbul. Schliemann wrongly
spent a lot of his time for senseless "excavations
of the Troy" (he discovered not the Troy). It was
sufficient simply to point out on the
Constantinople = future Istanbul.
This idea is
in a nice correspondence with all previous results
which give the Byzantine location for initial old
events of English history.
Thus,
Galfridus possibly tells us about the 1st crusade
of 1099 A.D. As the result of crusade, the new
capital was founded - NEW TROY = future
Constantinople.
Let us
attract the attention of the reader to the
following remarkable fact. There exists a
well-known town TYRNOVO in Bulgaria. But this name
is similar to the name TRINOVANT and means simply
TROY NEW, i.e., TROY NEW = TyrNovo. It becomes
clear that the name Trinovant was initially
appeared in Byzantine Empire, on the Balkan
Peninsula, in the Slavonic region and its initial
meaning was NEW TROY. In English the word new
means the same as Slavonic nova or new. Thus, one
the initial names of LONDON was TROY NEW (its
trace is Tyrnovo in Bulgaria). It is interesting
that Galfridus states the same, when he tells us
about transformation of the name NEW TROY into
TRINOVANT. In reality, this is not a
transformation, but simply the transposition of
two words: Troy and New inside the joint
title.
It is clear
also, that "town Lud" means simply "town LD" or
"town LT", i.e. = "town of Latins" = "Latin town".
The appearance of the name LT in old English
chronicles is quite natural: in the epoch of
crusades in 1204 A.D. the new LATIN EMPIRE was
appeared on the territory of Byzantine Empire.
Latin Empire gave its name to the capital: LATIN
TOWN, i.e. Caer-Lud (Cair-Lud). Nennius tells us
that word "Cair" means in old Britts' language
"Town" ([8],p.190).
Identification of New Troy =
London with Constantinople follows also from the
following fact. As we saw, New Troy was called
later Cair-Lud or Caer-Lud. But Caer or CR
(without vowels) sounds also, for example in Slav
languages, as ZR because of often oscillation
between C and Z. Thus, CR or ZR is evidently ZAR
(czar = zar which means "king", "ruler"). Slavonic
name for Constantinople was ZAR-GRAD, which means
"king-town". Thus, CAER-LUD = ZAR-LUD, i.e.
"king-town of Latins" (Latin king town). This is
exactly Constantinople = ZAR-GRAD in Slav
language.
Trained
reader expects that the whole this story of
Galfridus (about origin of London's name) the
modern historical science claims as wrong and
erroneous:
The
Galfridus' information about the history and
origin of the name London (from the name of Lud)
is wrong. The antique authors (Tacitus, Ammian
Marcellinus) call this town Londinium or
Lundinium. The real history of the name of London
is disputable" ([9],p.237).
Thus, after
the 1st crusade in 1099 A.D. some chronicles
called the New Rome as NEW TROY. Then, after the
foundation in 1204 A.D. the Latin Empire the
capital was called also (or was renamed?) LATIN
TOWN, i.e., Caer-Lud and finally, LONDON. This
name was then transported into island England when
some of Byzantine chronicles were moved in this
direction (after the fall of Constantinople in
1204 A.D. or 1453 A.D.).
Nennius
listed in his chronicle "the names of all towns
which exist in Britain, and their number is 28"
([8],p.190). The modern commentary: "Cair means
Town in Britts' language" ([8],p.283). We can note
here that the capital of Egypt is Cairo.
Consequently, we see again, that in Britts'
language the clear "Eastern trace" was remained.
May be, this fact indicates the Eastern origin of
initial old English history.
Galfridus
tells us that New Troy ( = London) was founded on
the Thames river ([9],p.18). We think that
initially "Thames river" was one of the name for
the Bosporus, where Constantinople is located. The
Bosporus sound (strait) is really very long,
sufficiently thin, and was represented on the old
geographical maps as large river. Schliemann, by
the way, decided to place "his Troy" also in this
region, namely - in the end of another long and
thin strait (sound) - the Dardanelles, which is
close to the Bosporus.
Today the
name of the "London river" is Thames. But because
all these events are happened in the East, we need
to remember that here some people read the text in
opposite direction: from the right to the left (in
Europe: from the left to the right). The word
SOUND (= strait) without vowels is SND and after
opposite reading is DNS. Because D and T were
sometimes equivalent, and the same is valid to M
and N, we see that the following conjecture
(equivalence) is possible: DNS = TMS, i.e. "sound"
= "Thames".
From the
other hand, Thames is practically identical with
Themis. But Themis is the name of well-known GREEK
goddess of justice.
5.11. Who
were scots in 10-12 cc.A.D. and were did they
live? Where was Scotland located in 10-12
cc.A.D.?
Scotland = Scot + Land = the
Land of Scots. Scots live in Scotland - this is
well-known fact.
But sufficiently less is
known that in old English
chronicles the Scots
sometimes are called Scithi, i.e., Scyths !
See, for example the
manuscript F of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
([2],p.3, comment 4). Thus,
one of possible answers on the
question in the title of
present section is as follows:
Scots = Scyths.
In other words, Scotland =
the Land of Scyths = Scithi-Land.
Scyths lived in Scythia,
which is partially identified with
some regions in modern
Russia. Old English chronicles call
Scythia also as Scithia,
Sice, Sithia, Barbaria (see [10]). Are
there some "traces" of
medieval name Scots (for Scyths) in modern
Russia? Yes! It is known that
Scyths are considered partially as
the nation which cultivated
the cattle. But before now the
Russian term for "cattle" is
SCOT. Our conjecture: the Scots
mentioned in old English
chronicles of 10-12th cc.A.D. are
Scyths = Scithi which lived
near Byzantine Empire on the
territory (partially) of
modern Russia.
It was in 10-12th cc.A.D.
Then, after transport of Byzantine
chronicles into modern island
Britain, the name of Scyths was
also automatically shifted in
modern England. And today we see in
the modern England the
Scyth-Land as Scot-Land.
And
we see again that the old English chronicle tell
us
about the real
Byzantine history, because really Scyths of
10-12th
cc.A.D. lived near
Byzantine Empire. Nennius, in the section with
title "About Scots when they captured Hybernia",
informs us:
"If somebody wants to know
when... Hybernia was uninhabited,
desert, then the most
informed among SCOTS told me the following.
When the people of Israel
went from Egypt, the Egyptians who
haunted Israelits (according
to the Bible), were sank in the Sea.
Among the Egyptians was one
noble man from SCYTHIA (! - Auth.)
with many relatives and with
many servants. He was expelled
(banished) from his native
kingdom and we was in Egypt when
Egyptian army was sank in the
Sea... Then the survived Egyptians
decided to expel him from the
Egypt because they afraid that he
can captures their country
and to establish his power in Egypt"
([8],p.174).
Then, as a result, these
Scyths were expelled from Egypt,
and then their fleet
conquered the Hybernia. This event is
considered (in Nennius'
opinion) as conquest of Hybernia by Scots
([8],p.175). Thus, here we
see that Nennius was sure that Scots
were descended from
Scyths.
It is possible that here the
name Hybernia was in reality
applied to the Hyberia = old
name of modern Georgia (or, may be
to the medieval Spain). It is
supposed today in historical
science that medieval
Hybernia = Ireland.
As we expect (and this is
really true), the modern
historical commentary to this
fragment from Nennius' chronicle is
very angry:
"Which Scythia is mentioned
here? Bede Venerable calls the
Scandinavia as Scythia. The
version about "Scyths" origin of
Scots was appeared because of
some similarity between words
"Scithia" and "Scottia"
"([8],p.272). The commentator here passed
over in silence that
sometimes "Scots" were written in old
English chronicles as
"Scithi", i.e., "Scyths" and this fact is
well-known to the real
experts in the ancient English history.
See [2]. By the way, the
replacement of Scythia by Scandinavia
does not help, because (as we
have demonstrated above), the old
English chronicles sometimes
identified Cansie = Scandinavia and
Russia (Rossie) (see [10]):
"Cansie (or Canzie), and I think that
this is Rosie (in another
copy of the manuscript - Russie -
Auth.)" (see the discussion
above).
If it was really true that in
some medieval historical
period the Scithia was called
as Scotland (in some historical
chronicles), then the great
interest will obtain the following
fact. As we saw, the English
chronicles called Russian king
(ruler) Jaroslav the Sage
(Wise) as Malescold (Malescoldus)
([10],p.58). Thus, his whole
title (if Scythia was Scotland)
should be Scottish (or Scoth)
king Malescold (or Malcolm?). But
we know several medieval
Scottish kings Malcolms in traditional
Scotland history. May be one
of them is Russian king Jaroslav the
Sage who was "transported"
into "island Scottish history" as a
result of chronological and
geographical shift?
5.12. Five original languages
of ancient Britain. Which nations used these
languages and where did they live in 10-12th
cc.A.D.?
On the first page of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the following
important information is
presented: "Here in this island (i.e. in Britain -
Auth.) are five languages:
English, British or Welsh,
Irish, Pictish, and Latin...
Picts came from the south
from Scythia with warships, not
many, and landed at first in
northern Ireland, and there asked
the Scots if they mights
dwell there... And the Picts asked the
Scots for wives... A part of
Scots went from Ireland into
Britain" ([2],p.3).
Is there any contradiction
between these facts and our
identification of old English
events with events of crusades
epoch of 10-12th cc. A.D. in
Byzantine empire? No
contradiction! Moreover, here
we see certain confirmation of our
conjecture.
1)
Appearance of the name Anglia (English) in the
old
English history is
quite natural - this is the evident reflection
of well-known dynasty of
Byzantine emperors: Angels = Angelus
).
2) The name Latin is the
reflection of Latin Empire in
Constantinople (13th c.
A.D.), and a little earlier - the
reflection of a group of
Latins who came in Byzantine Empire
during crusades epoch. Then
they settled here and founded several
feudal states.
3-a) The name British = BRT
(and its duplicate=equivalent
Welsh, see [2]) also is
presented in the medieval Byzantine
history. This is the name of
Prussians=Pruteni = PRT (see above).
3-b) The English term Welsh
is also well-known in medieval
Byzantine empire. It is
sufficient to look in the table of Matuzova [10]
to get an immediate answer:
Vlach (or Blachi) = Welsh -
this is Turci = Thurki = Turks.
Really:
Turks = Coralli, Thurki,
Turci, Vlachi = Blachi, Ilac, Blac (!).
The
name Vlachi=Blachi or Volochi is well-known in
the
medieval Europe.
Starting from 9th c. A.D., they lived on the
territory of modern Romania =
Rumania ([11],p.352) and they
formed the state Valachia. It
is remarkable that the another,
second name for Valachia was
Zara Rumanska, i.e. the Kingdom of
Romania (or Rumania). The
most serious influence (on the fate of
the whole region) Valachia
had in 14th c.A.D.
The history of Valachia is
closely connected with the
history of Turkey. The
medieval Valachia several times was in a
heavy war with Turkey (with
Osman Empire). In the end of 14th
century and in the beginning
of 15th century the rulers of
Valachia became the vassals
of Turkey ([11],p.356). Consequently,
the names of Valachia (Welsh)
and Turkey are closely connected in
the whole medieval history of
Byzantine Empire.
Moreover, the name Vlachi is
well-known in the history of
Constantinople. One of the
main residences of Byzantine emperors
was in Vlachern Palace
([25],p.226-229). This "Palace was the
favorite residence of
Comnenus" ([15],p.137). Greeks called it
Vlacherni.
"Valachia (in the form
Blakie) - is geographical name which
is often used by Robert de
Clari (and also by Geoffrey de
Villehardouin) for the
territory of Eastern Balkan" ([15],p.135).
This region was called by
Byzantine authors as Great Vlachia. In
other words, the Great
Vlachia is the part of the modern
Bulgaria.
Thus, the old English name
Welsh points out on Balkan's
Valachia of 9-15 cc. A.D., or
on the Turkey, or on the whole
Byzantine Empire.
4) The original (preimage) of
Pictish (Picts, Pict = PCT) in
Byzantine Empire is quite
clear. It is well-known that the
ancient name of Egypt was
Copt (= CPT) or Gipt. Thus, we obtain
the immediate answer: Picts -
are Copts or Gipts (i.e., Egyptians).
By
the way, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is quite right
when
speaking that Picts
came (in Britain - Auth.) from the country
which is in the South with
respect to Scithia. Really, Egypt is
in the South with respect to
the Scythia.
5) And finally, what about
the language IRISH ? Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle states that some
part of Scotts came from Ireland
([2],p.3). Besides this, at
least in some historical epochs we
have:"Down to the time of
Alfred this term Scottas refers either
to the Scots of Ireland or of
the Irish kingdom of Argyll"
([2],p.3, comm.5).
But
this means that Ireland is the part of
Scot-Land.
Because we have
possible identification of Scots of 10-12th cc.
with Scyths, then we obtain
the following conjecture:
language Irish is Russian
(RSH = Russia),
because without vowels we
have RSH - RSS, "irish" and "russian"
sound very closely.
Consequently, in this historical epoch we
have:
Ireland = Ire + Land is the
Russia.
We
realize that this possible identification of
Ireland (in
some
historical epoch) with Russia (and
consequently,
identification of Scotland
with Scythia), can generate a certain
irritation and even
indignation of some scientists. Nevertheless,
we are forced to repeat once
more that all these conclusions
follow from the text of old
English chronicles, when we read
them without the restrictions
generated by traditional Scaliger's
chronology. By the way, may
be not all readers know that the
legendary English (British)
king Arthur (who is one of the most
famous rulers of ancient
England and is placed traditionally
approximately in the 5th
c.A.D.) was in direct contact with the
king of Russia ("and the king
of Russia, the most severe of the
knights"). This is the report
of Layamon (the beginning of 13th
century) - the author of the
poem "Brut, or the Chronicle of
Britain" ([23], see also
[10],pp.247-248). By the way, in the
time of the king Arthur the
princess (or queen) of Russia was
kidnaped (see [23]).
When
speaking about nations populated the old
England,
Galfridus tells
us ([9],p.6):
Normans,
Britts, Saxs, Picts, Scots.
We
spoke about Britts, Picts and Scots. Now - about
Normans.
6) Normans play an important
role in Byzantine Empire of
10-15 cc. They took part in
crusades. However, it is possible,
that Normans are simply one
more variant for the name Romans. If
so, they are Romans - Romei,
the people who lived in Roman
(Byzantine) empire.
7)
Now - about Saxs (Saxons). "Saxs (Saxons) - German
nation
lived in northern
Europe, mostly on the territory near North Sea.
In 5-6 centuries Britain was
conquered by German tribes...
Galfridus usually calls he
GERMAN INVADERS by generalized name
SAXS (SAXONS), but in some
cases speaks about Angls (Angels)"
([9],pp.229-230). Let us
compare with Byzantine history. It is
well-known that Germans took
part in crusades. Consequently,
Saxons (Saxs) and Angls
(Angels) were among the nations which
invaded into Byzantine empire
in 10-12 centuries.
Thus, finally we see that the
old English chronicles tell
here not about some small
nations which, as supposed today, lived
many years ago on the modern
island England, but about real great
nations, states and empires.
These great medieval nations were
well-known in medieval
Byzantine empire and Mediterranean region.
If so, the old English
chronicles describe important events in
medieval world (crusades et
cetera). (From traditional point of
view they speak about "local
events" on isolated island).
And
only later, after the artificial transport of
some
Byzantine chronicles
into modern island England, this remarkable
history of great events was
artificially compressed, "decreased
in the size" and was
transformed into "small" local history on
sufficiently "small area" -
on the one island.
5.13. Where were located six
original English kingdoms Britain, Kent, Sussex,
Wessex, Essex and Mercia in 10-12 centuries.?
The
answer is given in the previous section.
All these states (and
nations) are real states (and nations)
of medieval Europe in 10-12th
cc. They took part in the conquest
of Byzantine empire and then
they created several feudal
crusaders states.
1)
Britain - is, most likely, Prussia = Prutenia or
Turkey (= Vlachia).
2) Kent is, according to
J.Blaire [6], the Saxons region
= Saxonia. Let us recall that
in 10-12th cc. on the German
territory there exists Saxons
area = Saxonia.
3) Sussex = South Saxons.
4)
Wessex = West Saxons.
5) Essex = East Saxons.
6) Mercia. Possible this is
again Germany or some of its
part, because in the Middle
Ages Germany was called Moesia and,
for example, town Marburg was
called Merseburg, i.e. Merse + Burg
([10],p.263). It is also
possible that chronicles mean Turkey
when speaking about Mercia
(Mersia). See, for example, large town
Mersin in Turkey on the coast
of Mediterranean sea.
Anyway, we see that all six
old-English kingdoms of
10-12th cc. can be located in
Europe around the Byzantine
Empire and all of then took
part in its "feudal-state
organization" during
crusades. And only later all these states
and nations were
"transported" into island England, were
artificially "decreased in
size" and were inserted in a modern
textbooks, where they are
considered today as the initial English
kingdoms of 5-8th cc.A.D.
REFERENCES
|
|
A.T.Fomenko. Methods for
Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and
Applications to Chronology. (Recognition and
Dating of Dependent Texts, Statistical Ancient
Chronology, Statistics of Ancient Astronomical
Records). - Moscow, Moscow Univ.Press,
1990. |
|
|
The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Translated and edited by
G.N. Garmonsway. 1990, Everyman's library,
J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd: London. |
|
|
A.T.Fomenko,
V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskij. Geometrical and
Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star
Configurations. Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. - CRC
Press, 1993. |
|
|
A.T.Fomenko. Investigations
in the History of Ancient World and Middle Ages.
Mathematical Methods for Analysis of Sources.
Global Chronology. - Moscow, 1994 (in
print). |
|
|
A.T.Fomenko. Criticism of
Traditional Chronology of Antiquity and Middle
Ages. In which Century We Live ? - Moscow, 1994
(in print). 6*. J.Blair, Blair's Chronological
and Historical Tables from the Creation to the
Present Time etc., G.Bell & Sons, London,
1882. |
|
|
J.Blair.
Chronological Tables. Russian translation:
Moscow, Moscow University, vols.1,.
7*. C.Bemont and G.Monod, Histoire de l'Europe
au Moyen Age. Paris, 1921. |
|
|
C.Bemont
and G.Monod, Histoire de l'Europe au Moyen Age.
Petrograd, 1915. |
|
|
Nennius.
Historia Brittonum. In the book: Galfridus
Monemutensis - "Historia Britonum". - Russian
translation. Moscow, Nauka, 1984. |
|
|
Galfridus
Monemutensis. "Historia Britonum". - Russian
translation. Moscow, Nauka, 1984. |
|
|
V.I.Matuzova. English
Medieval Sources. - Moscow. Nauka,
1979. |
|
|
History of
the Middle Ages. - Editor: S.D.Skazkin. -
Moscow, Vyschaya Schkola. 1977, vol
1. |
|
|
M.P.Alexeev. About
Anglo-Russian relations in the epoch of Jaroslav
the Wise. - Scientific Bulletin. Leningrad
Univ.Press, 1945, No.4, p.31. |
|
|
Chronica
magistri Rogeri de Houedone, ed. W.Stubbs. - RS,
N 51, vol.II. London, 1869, p.236. English
translation: The Annals of Roger de Hoveden,
comprising the history of England and of other
countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201.
Tr.H.T.Riley, vol.1-2. London, 1853 (Bohn's
Antiquarian Library). |
|
|
Ancient Laws and
Institutes of England..., ed.B.Thorpe, vol.1.
London, 1840, p.198. |
|
|
Robert de
Clari. The Conquest of Constantinople. - Moscow,
Nauka, 1986. |
|
|
J.Sunderland. Holy Books in
the Light of Science. - Severno- -Zapadnoye
izdatelstvo, 1925 (in Russian). 17*.E.Bickerman.
Chronology of the Ancient World. Thames &
Hudson, London, 1968. |
|
|
E.Bickerman. Chronology of
the Ancient World. Russian translation: Moscow,
1975. |
|
|
I.A.Kryvelev.
Excavations in Biblical Countries. - Sovetskaya
Rossiya, Moscow, 1965 (in
Russian). |
|
|
N.A.Morozov. Christ. (The
History of Human Culture from the Standpoint of
the Natural Sciences). Moscow and Leningrad.
1926-1932. vols. 1-7. (In Russian).
20*.Gregoras, Nichephorus. Byzantinae historiae.
In J.P.Migne Patrologiae cursus completus.
Series graeca, t.148,149. Paris,
1857-1886. |
|
|
Gregoras,
Nichephorus. Roman History. Peterburg, 1862.
Russian translation. |
|
|
Alexandria: Romance of
Alexander the Great. Leningrad, 1966. (In
Russian). (According to the Russian chronicle of
15th century). |
|
|
Benoit de
Sainte-Maure. Chronique des ducs de Normandie
par Benoit, publee... par C.Fahlin, t.I. - In:
Bibliotheca Ekmaniana universitatis regiae
Upsaliensis, 55. Uppsala, 1951,
p.8-11. |
|
|
Layamon.
Brut, or the Chronicle of Britain. Ed. F.Madden,
vol.II. London, 1847, pp.525-526,
vv.. |
|
|
A.T.Fomenko.
Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative
Material and its Applications to Historical
Dating. Volume 1: The Development of the
Statistical Tools. Volume 2: The Analysis of
Ancient and Medieval Records. - Kluwer Academic
Publishers. 1994. The Netherlands. |
|
|
M.A.Zaborov. History of
Crusades in Documents and Materials. - Moscow,
Vyschaya Schkola. 1977. |
|
|
Geoffroy
de Villehardouin. La conquete de Constantinople.
- Historiens et chroniqueurs du moyen age. Ed.
A.Pauphilet. P., 1963. |
|
|
The
Concise Columbia Encyclopeadia. - Avon Books.
1983. Columbia University Press.
USA. |
|
|
Bartholomaeus Angicus. - De
proprietatibus rerum. Apud A.Koburger.
Nurenbergi, 1492, lib.XV,
cap.CXXXI. |
|
|
Ex
Annalibus Melrosensibus Ed.F.Liebermann,
R:Pauli. - MGH SS, t.XXVII. Hannoverae, 1885,
p.439& |
|
|
The
Chronicle of Bury St.Edmunds, 1212-1301. Ed.
A.Gransden. London-Edinburgh, 1964,
p.10. |
|
|
Peter
Hunter Blair. Roman Britain and Early England,
55 B.C. - - A.D.871. - The Norton Library
History of England. W.W.Norton & Company.
New York. London. 1963. |
|
|
Christopher Brooke. From
Alfred to Henry III, 871-1272. - The Norton
Library History of England. W.W.Norton &
Company. New York. London. 1961. |
|
|
A.L.Morton. A People's
History of England. Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.
London. 1979. |
|
