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

Chapter 4.
THE EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY

26. 'THE APPEARANCE OF THE CROSS' WHICH BROUGHT VICTORY TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND DMITRY DONSKOY'S VICTORY 'WITH THE AID OF THE CROSS'. CANNONS ARE 'THE SCHEMAS WITH CROSSES' IN THE ARMY OF DMITRY DONSKOY.

In the Battle of Kulikovo Dmitry Donskoy's army used cannons [4v1], ch.6. It seems that in the army of Mamai there were either no cannons or there were significantly less of them. On some of the old Russian icons a range of cannons were depicted in Dmitry's army firing at Khan Mamai's troops, fig.38. Each cannon is depicted here as a stretched forward arm with a nimbus enshrouded with smoke. As we show in [市] one of the symbols of the fire arm was Constantine's Labarum. It is thought that cannons appeared in the battle fields precisely in the middle of the XIV century. This is the time when gunpowder was invented.


     There were no cannons in the army of Mamai depicted in the icon. It is probable, that it is due to the advantage in the artillery Dmitry was able to defeat Mamai. Mind you, Mamai's army was a professional one, and Dmitry's troops were more like a people's militia [4v1], ch.6. It is feasible that cannons were used for the first time on such a large scale in the Battle of Kulikovo [世荾 [市] ch.3.


    Before the battle Sergiy Radonezhsky blessed Dmitry and handed over some 'secret weapon', which in the later sources was called 'THE SIGN OF THE SCHEMA CROSS' (a special embassy cross paramand - part of monastic robes – schema – translator's note). It is said: 'Sergiy presented him with a sign of the Schema cross and said: 'HERE IS THE WEAPON IMPERISHABLE! LET IT SERVE YOU INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS!' [362], v.5, ch.1, column 36.  


    Nikonovskaya Letopis' (Chronicle) informs us : "The Venerable Sergiy commanded them (Peresvet and Oslyabya – Author's note) to prepare for an imminent battle … HE GAVE THEM WEAPONS ("Behold a weapon which faileth never!", CHRIST'S CROSS SOWN ONTO SCHEMA (VESTMENTS), and commanded them INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS to put those on their heads' [586:1], v/11, p.53.


    So, Sergiy Radonezhsky handed Peresvet and Oslyabya some new weapon – SCHEMA, instead of conventional armour – helmets, etc.


    Commentators assure us that allegedly under the word SCHEMA or SCHEME was meant a head-dress made of fabric with a cross sown onto it. However, it is quite possible that behind the editorial term SCHEMA or SCHEME is concealed the word MUSKET (MASQUET) or MUSHKA (MUZZLE-SIGHT or BEAD in Russian) read backwards, as in Arabic: MUSHKA = MSHK --> SHKM = SHKM = SKHIMA (SCHEMA), when SH turns into --> S. See [6v1], ch.4:9.


    Why is a word MUSKET usually derived from the word MUKHA (a fly – in Russian)? A direct link between a Latin MUSCA and Slavonic MOSHKA (midge in Russian) is noted by Max Vasmer [866], v.2, p.667. The word musca = mukha ('fly' in Russian) most likely entered Latin from the Russian language. Then everything falls into place. As the Russian word MUSHKA means not only a fly, but also a RIFLE SIGHT! It is not surprising that in Russia, where there are so many midges, the aiming device was compared to a midge (a fly) which came in sight). So they called the aiming sight MUSHKA (A FLY). That is why a new weapon with an aiming device (mushka) was called MUSKET in Russian. The invented aim caught the imagination of the warriors and gave name to the whole gun itself. Incidentally the Russian writers of the XVIII century called the musketeers MUSHKATERY, clearly deriving it from the word MUSHKA [866], v.3, p.20.


    The parchment passed on by Sergiy Radonnezhsky to Dmitry Donskoy said: 'Help us with this HOLY WEAPON to bring down our foe'. See the details in [市] ch.3, p.20. Let us turn to the 'Ancient' Roman history now. There is a famous event in it – the vision of the Cross to the Emperor Constantine the Great on the eve of his battle with Maxentius. Constantine wins with the help of the CROSS. The 'Ancient Roman' story is a reflection of Dmitry's victory over Mamai. Also 'with the help of the Cross'. Dmitry Donskoy is described by the 'Ancient classics' as Constantine I the Great, and khan Mamai – as Maxentius, Constantine's co-ruler.


     What is said about Constantine's victory over Maxentius with the help of the Cross? Though the essence of the event was described by the different authors similarly, however, there prevailed a strange variety of opinions in the question of what was exactly 'The Cross of Constantine'. At first Constantine beheld a gleaming apparition in the sky, various authors are saying different things about its shape. Constantine ordered to make 'labarum', on which he placed the sign he saw in the sky. The labarum with Chi Rho (the sign of the Cross) helped him to achieve victory. Once again however, there are various opinions on the question of what labarum was made of and what was depicted on it – and whether it was a banner in the sense of a flag at all or it was something else.


    The story of Eusebius about Constantine reminds of the famous Biblical story of Moses who made 'a serpent of brass' and PUT IT ON THE POLE, by doing so he saved his people from 'the venomous serpents' (Numbers 2:1, 8-9).


    What else is said about the serpents in the Bible? It turns out, 'in Numbers 21:6 the venomous snakes refers to the 'serpents' attacking (those who fight for God) = the Israelites in the desert – Author's note) are called in Hebrew SERAPHIM (NEKHUSTAN), THE FIERY ONE [845], commentaries to 4 Kingdoms 18:1-8. And the Biblical Encyclopaedia translates a word SERAPHIM, in particular as FLAME, FIRE. In [6v1], ch.4:10-11, we showed that here in the Bible we are given a description of the firing cannons. There is an old Ataman (Ottoman) banner of huge dimensions which survives today, on which there is depicted a cannon firing cannon balls, fig.39. This banner is kept in a museum in Vienna. It is not impossible, that this Ataman (Ottoman) banner is made following the design of the famous banner of Moses and labarum of Constantine. It is possible that on Moses' and Constantine's old banners there was depicted a cannon in the form of a 'cross'.

27. WHY THE CHRONICLES MISTOOK A CANNON FOR A CROSS.

It is likely, that the first cannons invented by Sergiy Radonezhsky were wooden and not metallic. The production of metallic cannons requires complex procedures. On the other hand the inventors of the first gunpowder hardly waited for the cannons' casting method to be invented. Most likely they tried to make use of the new invention for military purposes straight away. For that a solid pipe closed-ended on one side was needed. Then it is stuffed with gun powder and a closing plug applied and then filled with stones. That's it, the weapon is ready.

 
    But it was not easy to make such a pipe. Oak, being an exceptionally strong type of wood, has a wonderful quality. Its core approximately 10 centimetres in diameter under certain conditions can separate itself from the rest of the trunk. Several wooden layers surrounding the core rot and turn into dust. The rest of the wood remains hard and whole. The core begins to dangle around inside of the developed wooden pipe, and it is not difficult to remove it with a long chisel. Or to split and scorch it out. You will get a strong oak pipe. If you bind it with iron rods like a barrel, an oak mortar cannon like this can withstand several shots. Particularly that the first gun-powder was far less powerful than later on. Only with the refinement of the gun-powder it was necessary to switch to the cast metallic cannons.

 
    Direct indications survive that in the XV century in Russia they indeed used the wooden cannons [市]. It is interesting that they were used until comparatively recent time. Such a cannon is exhibited for example in the Nuremburg museum [中忍] ch.4.


    How would the people perceive such new weapon when they beheld the terrible 'firing logs' on the battle field for the first time? Besides knowing that they were invented by the Christians. The wooden cannons could have been described for example like this: 'Christian trees which brought victory to the Christian Czar'. But the Christian cross is also often called 'a tree'. In the canonical sources the expression 'tree of cross' means a cross on which Christ was crucified.


    That is why it is not surprising that the 'Christian tree which brought victory to the Czar Constantine could have turned under chroniclers' quill into 'the Christian tree of cross which brought victory to the Czar Constantine'. I.e.  to the Russian Prince Dmitry.


    The first Russian wooden cannons which provided Russia-Horde the undeniable advantage in the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century, soon gave way to the metallic ones. However, the wooden cannons had one important quality, which ensured their long standing inclusion in the armament. The simplicity in their manufacture was very appealing. Besides, it was not obligatory to carry them during the campaign. It was sufficient to bring just the gun-powder. Having arrived at the battle place they would find the oak trees and quickly make the cannons and fire buckshot from them. Of course, you cannot fire a lot of shots from wooden cannon. But it is not necessary. If needed, they could always make new ones. The main thing was to have gun-powder. After the victory they left the wooden cannons on the battlefield and moved on. It is clear why they almost entirely didn't stand the test of time. After being thrown away they rotted. That is why in the museums you can see only some rare examples which have survived.


    While the cannons were a new weapon, never-before-seen by most, the effect of this gun on the enemy was overwhelming. The 'Christian tree' spitting fire and bringing death, inspired panic and fear. The cannons were reflected in various 'ancient' myths and legends. Later, when the concept of a cannon was adopted by many, there began a competition in precision and range. The wooden artillery gave way to a metallic one.

28. THE OUTSTANDING CZAR-KHAN CONSTANTINE I = DMITRY IVANOVICH.

In the 'ancient' biography of Constantine-Dmitry there is included another reflection of the Battle of Kulikoivo. It is Constantine's second famous battle, this time with his co-ruler Licinius. Instead of adversaries, Constantine – Maxentius, here it concerns the pair of Constantine – Licinius. Constantine's battles with Maxentius and Licinius are considered to be the two main military combats in his biography.

 
    Constantine's final victory over his co-rulers and opponents – is the execution of Licinius. He was decapitated. In the Russian chronicles it is the execution of Ivan Velyaminov, the son of tysiatsky (dux, Heerzog, captain of the thousand - a military leader in Ancient Rus, who commanded a people's volunteer army called 'tysyacha', or a thousand – Translator's note) by Dmitry's order. The tysiatskies were effectively the co-rulers of Grand Princes. Having abolished this post, Dmitry became the mogul. But to achieve this he had to dispose of the son of the last tysiatsky – Ivan Velyaminov. On the whole it is the same picture as under Constantine the Great. According to the old law there were several co-rulers reigning in the Empire. In Rome there were several august figures and Caesars ruling simultaneously. In Russia there was a Grand Prince and tysiatskies. And then one of the co-rulers removes the others, becomes the sole czar and changes the political system. From that moment the Czardom is controlled autocratically and the reign is passed on to the son of a deceased czar. Prior to that it was different. In both Rome and Russia. In the Roman history before Constantine becoming the emperor was not hereditary, and only after Constantine the succession to the throne from father to son was established.


    The primary sources unanimously stress the role of victory of Constantine = khan Dmitry over 'paganism'. It indeed concerned an enormous event – the adoption of the Apostolic Christianity throughout the entire 'Mongol' Empire. The words by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History on Constantine's victory are imbued with a new meaning now.


    'His enemy Licinius lay there prostrate, the mighty victor Constantine… won back their own Eastern provinces and COMBINED THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO A SINGLE WHOLE, as in former days. BRINGING IT ALL UNDER THEIR PEACEFUL RULE, FROM THE RISING SUN TO THE FARTHEST DUSK, IN A WIDE CIRCLE FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. People now lost all fear of their former oppressors'. Quotation from [140], p.120-121.


    In honour of this event there were erected the monumental constructions, paintings were created and literary works were written. Some of them have survived. For example, Constantine Arch in Italian Rome. To remind you, Vatican (Batu-Khan) was the Western-European mission of the Catholic 'Mongol' church in Italy. To this day the Vatican memorialises the stormy religious events of the late XIV century. For example, the frescos in the Hall of Constantine in Vatican. The famous Raphael was appointed to paint them.

29. THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL.

The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to New Rome is an event of the late XIV century. The emperor Constantine I, aka Russian-Horde czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy after the victory in the Kulikovo Battle in 1380 arrived to Czar-Grad and proclaimed it the second capital of the Empire. It became the second metropoly after the main one in Vladimir and Suzdal Rus'. Having made the Apostolic Christianity the religion of the entire Empire, Constantine = Dmitry most likely decided to place the spiritual and religious centre into the old Czar-Grad = evangelical Yoros=Jerusalem, where in 1185 Christ was crucified. Thus, not far from Yoros, a little to the South, Constantinople emerged. The military and administrative centre of Empire Constantine kept in Russia-Horde = Israel. i.e. in the biblical Assyria-Syria (in Egypt).


    Hence you can see that the chroniclers could confuse OLD ROME and NEW ROME. As is shown in [1v], the confusion reflected in several versions of transfer of the Roman Empire capital. In some versions it was transferred from Old Rome into New Rome. And other claim the opposite – transfer from New Rome to the Old one.


    The comparison of the locations of Yoros-Jerusalem and Istanbul-Constantinople, situated close to it, shows that Constantinople is a later capital. Why didn't Constantine = Dmitry transfer his capital unchanged to the holy city of Yoros, but founded a new centre on the other side of Bosporus 30 kilometres from Yoros? This is our hypothesis.


    Constantinople's location itself indicates that the city was built quite late, when people have already invented the cannons capable of firing long distances and learnt to build large ships with the deep draught for open sea navigation. Istanbul is located in the Bosporus' wide point, by the Sea of Marmara. Being in such a location the absence of cannons would have made it impossible to control the Bosporus and to prevent foreign water crafts pass through into the Black Sea and back. That is why in the earlier times when there were no cannons it would have been much better to position the city in the Bosporus' narrow point, which would provide full control over the strait. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE YOROS WAS LOCATED.


     A big advantage of the location of Istanbul-Constantinople was The Golden Horn – harbour-cleft, capable of receiving large naval vessels with a deep draught at its cliffy shores. But in the epoch if the XII-XIII cc. there were yet no such ships. That is why there was no need for such a harbour. Small ships of that time navigated along the coast and had comparatively shallow draught. It was quite possible to keep them immediately in the Bosporus, in the harbour between Yoros and Beykoz. The sea storms do not penetrate there. For the epoch of the XII-XII cc. it was a fairly ample harbour.


    So the location of the Yoros fortification – evangelical Jerusalem was ideal for the capital of the XII-XIII cc., but in the end of the XIV century it no longer satisfied the requirements of that time. That is why Constantine = Dmitry founded New Rome, Constantinople – not in the place of Jerusalem, but approximately 30 kilometres from it. However – not very far. It is likely that he none the less wanted to establish the capital as close as possible to holy Jerusalem.

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