A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy
HOW IT WAS IN REALITY

Chapter 3.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY

4. THE TROJAN HORSE.

A famous legend about The Trojan Horse is associated with the Trojan War. For the seizure of Troy the Greeks used 'something resembling a grey horse' [851], p.76. Different chronicles describe the 'horse' in different ways. For example: 'The magi proclaimed that it is impossible to seize Troy in a battle, but to conquer it only with subterfuge. So the Greeks constructed a wooden horse (?–Author) of UNPRECEDENTED SIZE and hid brave warriors in its womb… The Trojans decided to 'DRAG THE HORSE INTO THE CITY (?-Author). Having dragged the horse in, they indulged in a joyous feast… and then fell asleep… Meanwhile the warriors, hidden inside the horse, quietly crept out and set fire to the Trojans' houses… Countless myriads of Greek forces flooded through the gates which had been open by their comrades who were already inside Troy…. Thus fell strong-towered Troy. [851], p.76.' So:

1) For the seizure of Troy the Greeks used a GREY LIKENESS OF A HORSE. 2) The gigantic size of this 'horse likeness' is mentioned. 3) Inside a few hundred soldiers could have been placed. 4) The 'horse' stands on enormous legs, on wheels and it's been wheeled. 5) According to some chroniclers the 'horse' is wooden; the others think it was made of brass. Alternatively it was made of glass, wax, etc. [2v]. There is clearly an obvious variety of opinions here. 6) The 'horse' somehow 'entered the city'.

The chroniclers of the Gothic war, allegedly of the VI century, make no mention of a horse. They inform us about the following: during the military assault of the New City (Naples, duplicate of New Rome = Czar-Grad) the general Belisarius used a cunning strategy indeed [196], v.1. Naples' thick walls were penetrated from outside by an old half destroyed AQUEDUCT, i.e. an enormous stone pipe. At some point the aqueduct delivered water to Naples. An opening of the mouth of this water-pipe was sealed off with a stone plug at the walls' level. The aqueduct was inactive for a long time [196], v.1.

A Greek-Romans squadron of several hundred soldiers secretly infiltrates the enormous pipe from outside of the city. Having walked through it up to the wall the Greeks unseal the plug and make their way at night into the New City = Naples. Early the next morning the Greeks emerge from the aqueduct, signal to the main body of the troops outside and open the gates from the inside. Belisarius' troops burst into Naples. A massacre ensues. Half-sleeping defenders don't have enough time to even reach for their weapons. This is how Naples = the New City falls.

It is possible that the half-destroyed aqueduct 'entering' Czar-Grad was poetically perceived as a 'huge animal'. The famous Trojan Horse is a poetic image of an enormous construction of stone – aqueduct-water pipe, successfully used by the Greeks for the seizure of the New City.

Besides, in Latin the word 'horse', 'mare' is spelled EQUA (equae). And the word 'water' is spelled AQUA (aquae) [2v1], ch.5. In other words WATER and HORSE are spelled practically the same! That is why, WATER-PIPE – AQUEDUCT (aquae-duct = channelling water, aquae-ductio) could have turned into HORSE by the later authors who could have mixed up one vowel. That could have become the birth of a bouquet of legends of an 'enormous likeness of a GREY horse'. Its grey colour could have been explained by the colour of an aqueduct covered in dust.

Or it could be that the question at hand concerned a portable siege tower on wheels covered with wet skins to render it inflammable from the fire missiles launched by the besieged. Such medieval wooden towers were indeed mounted on wheels and pushed towards the walls of the town under the siege. It is for a reason the horse was often depicted standing on wheels and was referred to as wooden. It was called a 'horse' because the tower was moving. It is quite possible that such a siege construction was first used in the XIII century and contributed to whole host of legends about the Trojan Horse [ĶĪŠ] ch.1.

 

5. SCHLIEMANN'S FALSE TROY.

Here it is relevant to mention the ruins of a poor medieval fortification (approximately 120 by 120 metres) on the mound at Hissarlik in Turkey, which Heinrich Schliemann mistakenly declared to be the 'remains of Homeric Troy'. The truth is that 'having lost' 'ancient Greece' in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. the historians started to look for it all over again [2v1], ch.5.

Why did they start searching for 'Homeric Troy' in that exact area? The matter is, as it seems, that there still remains a vague memory of Troy situated somewhere 'near the Bosphorus'. But the historians of the XVIII century could no longer point New Rome out directly in Bosphorus, i.e. Czar-Grad, as it was safely forgotten that Czar-Grad was exactly 'ancient' Troy. In fact the Scaligerian history as early as in the XVII century altogether 'forbade' even thinking of Czar-Grad as 'Homeric Troy'. However there remained all kinds of medieval records which have luckily escaped destruction, and persistently suggested that 'ancient' Troy is situated 'somewhere near the Bosphorus'. That is why the historians and enthusiasts started searching for the 'lost Troy' near Istanbul.

Turkey is awash with ruins of medieval settlements, military fortifications, etc. It was not difficult to 'pick out appropriate ruins'. The ruins on the mound at Hissarlik were also considered as one of the possible candidates. But both historians and archaeologists alike understood very well that it was necessary to dig up some kind of 'proof' that it was indeed 'Homeric Troy'. This task was 'successfully fulfilled' by H.Schliemann. He started excavation on the mound at Hissarlik.

The ruins that were unearthed showed that there indeed used to be some kind of settlement [2v1], ch.5:11. There was nothing "Homeric' of any kind here of course. Such ruins in Turkey can be seen at every step of the way. It is most likely that here used to be a small Ottoman fortification. Presumably, Mr.Schliemann understood that something outstanding was required to draw the public's attention towards these scant remains. So in May 1873 he 'unexpectedly finds' a cache of gold, which he immediately publicly declares to be 'Priam's ancient treasure. Purportedly 'the very same' Homer speaks of.

# However, Schliemann did not specify the place, the date and the circumstances of the 'discovery of Priam's treasure', bringing a peculiar ambiguity into this matter. Schliemann never presented any conclusive, proof of his discovery of 'Homeric Troy'.

# There are grounds to suspect that Schliemann simply ordered Parisian jewellers to fabricate 'ancient golden jewellery'. Schliemann was an extremely wealthy man.

# It is quite possible that after that Schliemann secretly brought the jewels to Turkey and announced that he 'found' them in the ruins in the mound at Hissarlik. In other words, exactly in the place where a little earlier some enthusiasts 'had located ancient Troy'. Schliemann didn't even trouble himself with searching for Troy. Backed up by his gold he simply 'substantiate' a hypothesis previously put forward by Choiseul-Gouffier and Frank Calvert.

# Many skeptics as early as in the XIX century didn't believe a word he was saying. But the Scaligerian historians remained satisfied overall. At last, they said in discordant chorus, we have found legendary Troy.

# The historians decided to deal with 'Priam's treasure' the following way: to affirm that it was indeed the treasures of Homeric Priam would have been careless. As a retort the sceptics immediately asked: 'But, how do they know?' They had no answer. Everyone concerned with 'Schliemann's Troy' understood that very well. On reflection, they found an elegant way out. They said this, without any proof: True, it is not Priam's treasure. But it is much more ancient than Schliemann himself had previously thought.

# But what if Schliemann didn't deceive us and in fact did find at Hissarlik some ancient golden jewels? It still remains completely unclear why this treasure should be considered proof of 'ancient Troy' and be situated exactly in this spot? As the golden objects 'found' by Schliemann do not bare ANY LETTERS OR SYMBOLLS [2v1], ch.5:11.

# After some time when the sceptics got tired of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in the 'discovery of Troy', eventually an 'orderly scientific stage' began. Serious scientific journals 'about Troy' started to appear and were regularly published. Numerous articles and dissertations sprang up. However nothing from 'Homeric Troy' on the mound at Hissarlik was ever found to this day of course.

 

6. EXODUS OF TROJANS FROM TROY = CZAR-GRAD.

With the fall of Jerusalem = Troy and downfall of the Romaic Empire, the exodus-flight of various groups of people from the capital began. The diagram of Romaic femas are nominally shown in fig.3. In hot pursuit of the fugitives follow the avenging Horde-Crusaders seizing and colonizing new territories. They settle in different countries of Europe and Asia. This picture is well-known from the Scaligerian 'ancient' history of 'transmigration of peoples'. The fugitives from Romea are called Trojans, i.e. descendants from Troy = Czar-Grad. They were also confused with the Argonauts (i.e. cossacks-Hordians), who, according to the 'ancient' Greek myths, after the Trojan War embark on a voyage, seizing and colonizing various lands.

Home
Home in English
Contents HOW IT WAS IN REALITY
Continuation >>