We know the name of Heracles since childhood. A powerful hero of "Ancient" Greece made many great labours. It appears that his life story consists of two layers. The first – this is data about imperator Andronicus-Christ (he is also prince Andrew the Pious) from the XII century. The second layer – these are events of the epoch of the Osman=ataman conquest of the XIV-XVI centuries. Moreover, in the famous twelve labours of Heracles we found description of the placement of planets by constellations of zodiac. So, probably, the date of composing of the life story of Heracles was codified by the ancient authors. We determined it. There turned to be the only astronomical solution. This is November 17-20, 1513 A.D.
Moreover, it appeared that the life story of the famous "antique" hero Theseus was also one of the variants of "biography" of Andronicus-Christ.
In the present book we also date several new, recently found by us ancient zodiacs. Before us nobody understood that these pictures bear astronomical information. The received datings threw new light on the famous events of the past.
In conclusion we provide all the found by us until now seventy reflections of imperator Andronicus-Christ, that is the great prince Andrew the Pious. There is an impressing list of "phantoms".
Let's state our principal idea. The present book continues an important stage in our studies. It is described in the books:
"Beginning of Horde Russia",
"Christianization of Russia",
"Tsar Rome in-between rivers Oka and Volga",
"Christ and Russia in the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks",
"Conquest of America by Ermak-Cortes and rebellion of Reformation in the eyes of the "ancient" Greeks",
"Split of the Empire: from Ivan the Terrible-Nero to Michael Romanov-Domitian",
"Christ was born in Crimea. There Blessed Virgin died",
In these books we, resting on the New Chronology, interpret the main ancient sources of the "antique" history of Rome and Greece. (Just several texts, not so many, on the history of the Roman Empire allegedly of the III-VI centuries remained; we will discuss them in the next books). So, we looked at all these big works from a new point of view, which opened after restoration of the correct chronology based on astronomical and mathematical methods. It appeared that the Bible and allegedly ancient texts of Herodotus, Titus Livius, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus Flavius, Homer, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Plutarch, Pausanias, Strabo, Diodorus of Sicily, Appian of Alexandria, Apollodorus, Eutrpius, Sextus Aurelius Victor, Aelius Spartianus, Iulius Capitolinus, Aelius Spartianus and other authors (used in the listed our works), actually told about the events of the XII-XVII centuries. Of course, the proposed by us their reading (as well as any interpretation) is not a strict proof. But we demonstrated the possibility of understanding of "antique" texts as important evidences of the medieval events. We showed that nearly all the "antique classics" naturally fit in the New Chronology and not only don't contradict with it (as some historians tried to state), but confirm it. Moreover, it appeared that the "classical" sources tell much new and unexpected about the events of the XII-XVII centuries.
As a result it was found that around FOUR TENS of "antique" works, studied by us (including the Bible), "cover" nearly all the main events, known in the "ancient" history of Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia, Israel and Judaea. With this it appeared that there are not so many such primary sources. They occupy just four-five shelves in a standard bookcaseðå. So, one shouldn't think that "too many sources" are required for restoration of the skeleton of "antique" history (as some people think). Four tens are enough, as appeared. Of course there are many documents of a smaller character, describing ones or others details of the ancient events. We speak here only about the main books, on which the skeleton of "antiquity" rests.
Next, we discovered the following interesting circumstance. There are a lot of ancient texts of a secondary character, which just retell or comment the indicated main sources. The amount of such "retales" several times exceeds the amount of books of the basic fund (so we call the main primary sources, mainly already studied by us). So, just relatively a small number of main texts lies in the fundament of the "antique" history.
Our explanation of the found facts is such. At the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries, when the Scaligerian historians started to create a false version of the ancient history, they took as a base not so many authentic ancient chronicles. They were archly edited in the required course and then announced "authentic originals". The authentic originals were destroyed. For example, the existing today "History" of Herodotus – it is a considerably edited source. The original, unfortunately, didn't reach us. It is clear why it was decided to leave a small number of "basic books". The issue is that so it was easier to edit and falsify. It is easier to coordinate with each other "cleared" versions of just three-four tens of chronicles than, for example, of several hundreds. More a falsifier writes – it is easier to catch him at frauds. The Scaligerians understood this.
After this the fresh-made "written core of antiquity" was covered and fogged with a big number of secondary comments and made a visibility of "a big complex of primary sources". Since that time we are convinced: in order to understand the antiquity in a proper way one should read thousands of books. As appeared, this is wrong.
We are thankful to Ò.N.Fomenko for useful discussions and valuable additions.
Lomonosov Moscow State University