Part 3.
Scythia and the Great Migration. The colonization of Europe, Africa and Asia by Russia, or the Horde, in the XIV century.
Chapter 8.
West Europeans writing about the Great = “Mongolian” Russia.
1. Invasion into Europe, the Mediterranean region and Asia under Ivan Kalita (Batu-Khan). The foundation of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire.
1.1. Scaligerian chronology of the “Mongolian” invasion.
The book entitled Following the Footsteps of Marco Polo ([677]) is of the greatest interest to us. It is a collection of notes written by four mediaeval traveller monks of the XIV century, who had followed the route of Marco Polo from Europe to India. It is believed that they were sent by the Popes and the generals of the Franciscan and Dominican orders. We shall discuss Marco Polo specifically in the chapters to follow.
Y. M. Sveta, the translator and the author of comments, wrote: “In the first half of the XIII century, the entire territory between the Carpatian Mountains and the Yellow Sea was conquered by the powerful Mongolian Empire as a result of several quick and decisive campaigns” ([677], page 7).
Let us recollect the main landmarks of this turbulent epoch as per the chronology of Scaliger and Miller according to [677] and [722]. In reality, the events referred to below must have taken place about a century later than it is presumed today – in the XIV century and not the XIII, that is. Therefore, all the dates indicated below require the addition of about 100 years for greater veracity.
In 1206 (more likely, around 1306) Genghis-Khan started his conquest of the world. According to our reconstruction, the same character can be identified as Youri (Georgiy) Danilovich of Moscow, whose lifetime dates from the XIV century in reality. Two other reflections of this historical figure are known as Ryurik and St. George the Victorious. According to the historical sources, Genghis-Khan “soon conquered the North of China and turned his hordes to the west, conquering Turkistan en route and invading Persia. In 1222-1224 a part of his troops rounded the Caspian Sea and swarmed through Southern Russia like a hurricane” ([722], page 239).
The following observation was made by M. I. Grinchouk: “It is interesting to note that the Latin version of the name CINHYS (Genghis) transforms into Sineus when transcribed in Greek, seeing as how the letter Sigma as written at the end of a word resembles “s”, and looks more like “c” in other cases. Could it be that Ryurik + Sineus + Truvor aren’t the names of three different characters, but rather the name, or the title of a single person – Georgiy Genghis Truvor?”
Let us return to the “Mongolian” conquest.
In 1223 (most likely, around 1323), the “Mongols” (the Great Ones) invaded the Caucasus.
In 1236 (most likely, around 1336), they devastated the Great Armenia. “The Mongols burnt down nearly every single town in Armenia and destroyed Ani, the capital of the Great Armenia, which never managed to recuperate from this blow” ([677], page 161). Great Armenia needs to be mentioned specifically – it is most likely a reference to the Great Romania, or Romea, and not the modern Armenia.
In 1238 (most likely, around 1338) the “Mongols” (Great Ones) conquered Kiev.
In 1240 (most likely, around 1340) Poland was laid waste.
In 1241 (most likely, around 1341) the “Mongols” (Great Ones) crushed the army of Henry the Silesian near Wroclaw.
In 1241 (most likely, around 1341) they invaded Poland (Land of the Polovtsy?), and then Hungary, Moravia and Silesia.
In 1242 (most likely, around 1342) the troops of Batu-Khan (the Cossack Batka) reached the Adriatic coast.
These data are cited in [677] and [722], for instance.
“Western Europe was in a state of panic. The terror spread all across Germany, as well as France, Burgundy and Spain, leading to a complete stagnation in the trade between Britain and the continent. Emperor Frederick II was the only exception, since he had been in correspondence with Batu-Khan, secretly as well as openly” ([211], page 512). We shall mention the relations between Frederick and Batu-Khan below; they were very interesting indeed.
“However, in 1243 [most likely, around 1343 – Auth.] the enslaved nations of the Central Europe could draw a breath of relief, when the news of the Great Khan’s death made the invaders’ army retreat to the Russian plains and stay there for the centuries to follow” ([722], page 239-240).
According to our reconstruction, this “breath of relief” should really be dated to the XVII century and not the XIII – that was when the Great Empire fell apart after the mutiny of the Reformation, and the Western Europe managed to attain a certain degree of independence.
By the way, this also explains the fact that we find the Hungarian coat of arms on some of the Russian coins minted by the Great Czar, or Khan, Ivan III, qv in CHRON5, Chapter 2:8. Apparently, these coins were minded by the Great = “Mongolian” Empire for the conquered Hungary. Everything is perfectly clear – the coins in question were issued for the recently colonised lands. The situation is typical and familiar to us from recent history. This explains some of the quirks inherent in the consensual Romanovian version of Russian history at least.
1.2. The reaction of the Western Europe to the “Mongolian” invasion.
The invasion of the “Mongols” (Great Ones) immersed the whole of Europe into a state of panic. We have already quoted from the English, Hungarian and German chronicles, qv in CHRON4, Chapter 18:16. Now let us add a few details to the picture.
“The fate of Bela IV, King of Hungary, whose domain was ravaged completely, testified to the reality of the menace looming over Italy, France and Germany . . . Moreover, disturbing news of the Mongols came to the West from Georgia . . . and Asia Minor . . .
Ala ad-Din Qai-Qubad was pleading for help . . .
In 1238 [most likely, in 1338 – Auth.] the chieftain of the Ishmaelites . . . who had terrified the entire Syria and Iraq, sent envoys to Europe. The Ishmaelites implored to save them from the Mongolian conquerors” ([677], page 8).
“Rumours of the terrifying invasion of the Mongols into Europe reached England as early as in 1237. Matthew of Paris, the English chronicler, recorded the unprecedented drop in prices for herring in Yarmouth under 1237. Merchants from Gothland and Friesland, who normally bought most of the fish caught by the British fishermen, didn’t come to England in fear of the Mongolian conquest” ([677], page 12).
“The brief, but extremely informative note of Ruggero, an Italian from Pulia who had participated in the battles on the Danube and escaped from Mongolian captivity in 1242, which reports the utter havoc wreaked upon Hungary by the Tartars, stands out among alarm signals as ominous as the letters of Bela IV [from Hungary, which was conquered by the “Mongols” – Auth.] and Prince Daniel Galitskiy” ([677], page 12).
Historians report the following noteworthy fact: “There is an opinion that the environs of the Southern Ural were the ancient homeland of the ancient Ugric (Hungarian) tribes. It is largely based on the references to the ethnic proximity of the Hungarians and the Bashkirs made by Ibn-Ruste, Plano Carpini, V. Rubruck and others, as well as the fact that Southern Ural was referred to as ‘Greater Hungary’” ([817:1], page 82).
1.3. Negotiations with the “Mongols”. The curt response sent by Guyuk-Khan to the Pope.
It is presumed that the Catholic world started negotiations with the “Mongols”. Pope Innocent IV sent the Franciscan Plano Carpini to the East with a missive addressed to the “Czar and the People of the Tartars”. The dismayed Pope “was mildly admonishing the addressee for the devastation of the conquered lands, expressing his wish for peaceful relations and heartfelt concordance. In another letter . . . the Pope was persuading the ‘Tartar Czar’ to become converted into the true (Catholic) faith” ([677], page 13).
According to our reconstruction, this picture was painted by Scaligerite historians in the XVI-XVII century. As we are beginning to realise, there weren’t any Popes in the XIV century Italy yet. Most likely, the pontiff is a reflection of a spiritual leader or a local governor of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, expressing his grief about some destructive excesses of the invasion.
Batu-Khan (also known as Yaroslav the Wise and Ivan Kalita = Caliph, according to our reconstruction) did not accept the papal epistle and redirected Plano Carpini to Guyuk-Khan; the latter countered with a curt and even arrogant response. Incidentally, “the Persian original of this document was found in the archives of the Vatican as recently as in 1920” ([677], page 14).
The “Mongolian” Guyuk-Khan “demanded a token of complete obedience from the Pope and the Christian rulers of the West, adding a number of explicit threats to his demand . . . He severely castigated the Christian rulers who had the nerve to resist the Mongols, and expressed his doubts about the right of the Pope to speak on God’s behalf” ([677], page 14).
1.4. Christianity of the “Mongols”.
The last phrase from Guyuk-Khan’s letter is particularly noteworthy. Historians believe that it reflects the conflict between Christianity and Islam; however, there is no documentary proof to this hypothesis. On the contrary, “according to Rashed ad-Din, Christianity was much stronger than Islam under Guyuk-Khan” ([677], page 14). It turns out that the whole chancellery of the Khan was headed by two Christians, Kadak and Chinkay; the former had even held the rank of Atabek under Guyuk-Khan. Furthermore, we learn that Guyuk-Khan “always permitted the education of priests and Christians” ([677], page 14).
A very odd brand of Islam with so many Christians about, isn’t it then? Could Christianity and Islam have still been a single religion back in those days? Also, all of the above leads us to the justified question: could the “Mongolian” = Great Guyuk-Khan have been a Christian?
We get a positive answer from the actual mediaeval documents. In 1248 (most likely, around 1348) two Mongolian envoys coming from the Great = “Mongolian” Empire negotiated with Louis IX.
They “reported that the Great Guyuk-Khan, believing Presbyter Johannes to be his umbilical ancestor [a Christian ruler, qv below – Auth.] got baptised, and demanded eighteen Mongolian princesses to follow suit” ([677], page 20). The modern commentator couldn’t possibly keep silent, “explaining” to us that the envoys “deceived” Louis ([677], page 20). Yet could this “deceit” of the envoys exist in the imagination of the Scaligerite historian exclusively? Incidentally, it turns out that the envoys themselves were Christians as well ([677], page 20).
Thus, two Christian “Mongol” envoys tell Louis that their Khan, the Mongol Guyuk, is a Christian as well.
Apparently, the conflict between the Great = “Mongolian” Guyuk-Khan and the Latin Pope Innocent IV (if there was one in the first place) must have been of an internecine nature, breaking out between the imperial centre and one of its own affiliates in the conquered Europe. Alternatively, it might reflect the nascent dissension between the two branches of Christianity, later to become the Orthodox and the Catholic Church. In other words, the two conflicting parties identify as the Christian Eastern Russia, or the Horde, and the West, also Christian but already revealing the tendencies that shall eventually manifest as distinctive traits of the Catholic Church. The schism between Orthodox Christianity and Islam dates from a later date – the XVI-XVII century.
1.5. The missive sent to the French king by the “Mongolian” Khan.
Letters of a similar nature were sent by the Great = “Mongolian” Khans to other parties but the Pope. Let us consider the report of the missive sent by the “Tartar Czar” to the French King in 1247 as found in the chronicle of Matthew of Paris ([1268], pages 14-15).
Matthew reports that the French King received a “mandate” from the Tartar Khan, wherein the latter commands him to become his vassal. It is most significant that the Khan supports his right for world domination by words taken from the Christian Book of Psalms, no less ([1268], page 14).
Our opponents might suggest that the savage and uneducated “Mongolian” Khan could have written any inanity at all in his yurt in the Orient, addressing it to the French king. The obvious thing to do would be to throw a letter of this sort into the dustbin. However, the French king of the alleged XIII century reacted differently – he didn’t throw the letter away, but rather issued a special decree for the assembly of a large parliament for the specific purpose of reading the Khan’s letter aloud to everyone present ([1268], page 14).
One may well wonder about his motivations. Apparently, the French King was hurrying to inform his subjects that his right to rule in France was backed by “the Khan’s mandate”, also known as a yarlyk. Otherwise, why would he inform all his subjects of an absurd letter wherein their monarch was addressed in this “rude” a manner?
It could be assumed that the parliament was assembled for the purpose of organising resistance to the forces of the savage conquerors. However, as one sees from the chronicle of Matthew of Paris, the issue of resistance wasn’t even raised once. Moreover, the king demanded the participation in a crusade from his subjects – and it is commonly known that the Mongols took part in every crusade back then, qv below. Thus, the French king virtually acts as the ally of the “Mongols”, or the Great Ones.
Our explanation of all these “oddities” is as follows. The French King, being the local monarch subordinate to the power of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, received a mandate (yarlik) from his liege, the Great Khan of the “Mongols”, or the Russian Czar of the Horde. The mandate must have contained an order to gather the troops for a crusade, apart from other things. The king immediately gathered a large parliament, obliging his subjects to obey the order of the Great Khan and participate in the crusade as an allied force.
Why, then, would Matthew of Paris, allegedly a contemporary of the events in question, demonise the Tartars the way he does (qv below)? The answer is simple – his chronicle has reached us as a rather late edition. It only “surfaced” in the XVI century, whereas in the epoch of the XVI-XVII century the Russians, or the “Mongols” were already customarily described in the worst manner imaginable.
Another piece of evidence has survived, which speaks volumes of the relations between Russia, or “Mongolia”, and France as one of its parts. The Great Khan “had sent envoys to Innocent IX in Rome and Louis IX in Cyprus. The latter charged André Longjumeau, a Dominican monk, with the mission of conducting negotiations with the Khan; however, the friar only managed to reach Caracorum after the death of the Khan. The regentess Ogoul-Gaimysh . . . demanded tribute, threatening with a massacre of the French nation” ([212], page 260).
Since there was no massacre to follow, one must assume that the tribute was paid in due time.
1.6. The second armed invasion of the Russians as a real menace in the late XVI – early XVII century.
Apparently, starting with the second half (and particularly the end of the XVI century) Western authors begin to treat Russia, or the Horde, with suspicion to say the very least. S. Herberstein, for instance, made numerous references to the “vulpinism” of the Russians in the middle of the XVI century – all of this considering his reputation of a hardcore Russophile among the Western authors.
This is what Pantaleone, the translator of Herberstein’s book from Latin to German, writes in his “Annex, or Additional Information about the Latest Deeds of the Muscovites” included in the German edition of this book, which was exceptionally popular in the West around that time. This particular edition was published in Frankfurt in 1567, qv in [161], page 47, and Comment 182 on page 302.
“In January 1567 a rumour spread all across the land that the Great Prince of Moscovia was already completely prepared for a new campaign against Lithuania [which stands for “Latinia”, or the Latin world – Auth.] and the neighbouring countries, which was to take place the next year. May the Lord turn all of it for the better.
Their numerous campaigns and glorious deeds made the very name of the Muscovites a cause of great fear for all the neighbouring nations, even in the lands of the Germans; and so, one gets the preapprehension that our great sins . . . will make the Lord subject us to bitter ordeals at the hands of the Muscovites, the Turks or some other great monarchs, and punish us severely” ([161], page 78).
Pantaleone was expressing a general mood – namely, the terror invoked by the possibility of the second “Mongolian”, or Russian, invasion, in the hearts of the entire Reformist Western Europe back in those days. The West only managed to “relax” when the Great Strife began (was organised?) in Russia around the late XVI – early XVII century, and a serious Russian military offensive was already quite out of the question. We have considered the Great Strife in detail in Chapter 9 of CHRON4.
1.7. German historians of the second half of the XIX century still remembered much of the authentic mediaeval history.
Let us open the multi-volume German edition entitled The History of Humanity. World History ([336]). This rare book was pointed out to us by the readers of our publications on chronology, who have discovered many surprising and remarkable facts therein. All of them are in excellent concurrence with our reconstruction. This work was translated into Russian at the end of the XIX century. The German original was written just a little while earlier, in the second half of the XIX century, by German Professors of History, including such famous names as G. Winkler, K. Nibur, I. Ranke etc. In general, at least 35 German Professors took part in the creation of this fundamental oeuvre.
A closer acquaintance with the actual volumes proved extremely useful to us. It turns out that German historians of the second half of the XIX century adhered to a viewpoint that largely fails to coincide with that of the XX century historians. Although the XIX century historians had already been confined by the erroneous Scaligerian chronology, they referred to veracious events of the authentic mediaeval history every now and then. All such references were later whitewashed courtesy of the XX century historians. Over the last century, most such “odd spots” have gone – in the books of the modern historians, the Scaligerian version is polished into perfection. Every contradiction thereto is declared a falsehood ipse dixit. However, the historical version of the XIX century historians is still at odds with modern history – the amazing thing is that in many cases it is closer to our reconstruction. Thus, the historians’ conception of the “antiquity” have evolved considerably over the last century. It would therefore be of great interest to find out how the scientists of the late XIX century imagined the “ancient” history.
1.7.1. Mediaeval authors were of the opinion that the famous Byzantine Emperor Justinian was Slavic.
German historians of the late XIX century write the following about the famous Emperor Justinian, whose lifetime they date to the alleged VI century A. D.: “The Emperor’s mother tongue was Latin, and his surname (Sabbatius) is of Thracian origins; however, Slavic roots were also ascribed to him. It was said that his initial name had been “Upravda”, Justinian being its Latin translation; his father was named Istok, and his mother, Belenisse”. The XIX century historian cannot refrain from making an irritated comment in this respect: “However, ‘The Life of Justinian’ by Theophilus, which was rediscovered by James Bryce in the Roman Barberini Library, is the only source where we see these Slavic corruptions of names, which are awkward and must be rather recent . . . Most probably, most of them were simply invented by the Dalmatian Luccari ([1605]) and his fellow countrymen. Therefore, every reason for ascribing Slavic progeny to Justinian gets invalidated” ([336], Volume 5, page 39).
One must note that the German authors of the “World History” have nevertheless given accurate references to the old texts that contain the abovementioned data, quite unlike the historians of today, who treat this data as absurd a priori and usually don’t bother with references to sources – could it be done in order to preclude the readers from turning to the sources on their own?
1.7.2. The Slavic conquest of the Balkans and the “ancient” Greece.
Scaligerian history is of the opinion that the famous Slavic conquest of Europe dates from the distant VI-VII century. As we are beginning to realise, this conquest is the same as the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the XIV-XV century, which didn’t merely involve Europe, qv below. Therefore, all the dates cited by the German historians below need to be shifted forwards into the epoch of the XIV-XVI century A. D.
German historians of the XIX century report: “It isn’t just the Northern part [of the Balkans – Auth.] that becomes completely Slavic – the invading hordes of the Slavs also settled in Greece; however, they couldn’t have been quite as numerous as Jac. Phil. Fallmeier (1790-1861) suggests – he is of the opinion that they destroyed the descendants of the ancient Hellenes and built a Slavic Greece; however, the fact that the Greeks received a hefty influx of Slavic blood can be considered proven. One also cannot deny the Slavic supremacy in Greece between 588 and 705 . . . According to Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus, ‘the whole land [Hellas] turned Slavic and Barbaric” . . . This whole course of events can be confirmed by the following eminent witnesses:
1) John of Ephesus (around 585) writes the following about the Slavs in 577-582 A. D.: “They were the masters of the land, living there freely, as though it were they own. They could do whatever they pleased, limited by nothing but the will of the Lord. Even to this day, they live peacefully in Roman provinces . . . they have become wealthy; their possessions include silver and gold, herds of horses and armaments galore; their military schooling excels the Romean”.
2) The Chronicle of Monembasia . . . provides a good account of the Slavic supremacy in 588-705 A. D. . . .
3) The report made by Willibald of Eichstätt about his journey of 723-729 A. D. . . . According to this report, Monembasia was part of the Slavic kingdom . . .
There is much more to add to this evidence – apart from the names of villages, rivers and towns, which are partially Greek and partially Slavonic, we have the reports of Evagrius Epiphanius (around 593 A. D.); they relate the havoc wreaked upon the entire Greece by the Slavs. Other reports were written by Menandrus and Thomas, the Presbyter of Emesus, according to which the Slavs attacked Crete and other Greek islands in 623 A. D. . . . Here we find the names of the Slavic tribes that took part in the conquest . . . Apparently, a great many Slavic tribes settled in the North of Greece . . . The Patriarch’s See in Constantinople was occupied by the Slav Nicetas in between 766 and 780 A. D.; the father-in-law of Christopher, the son of Emperor Roman I Lecapene, is believed to have belonged to a distinguished Slavic family from Peloponnesus. As for the claim made by the Arab Hamsa about the Slavic origins of Basil, King of Armenia, it is just as false as the tall tale of Theophilus about ‘Justinian the Slav’.
All of these Avaro-Slavic relocations must be regarded as real migrations, or waves of nation” ([336], Volume 5, pages 47-49).
Thus, we can see that the German Scaligerite historians of the late XIX century were already “correctly educated”, meaning that they were oriented at de-emphasising the Slavic conquest of the alleged VI-VIII century, and offhandedly rejecting the theories about the Slavic origins of prominent mediaeval rulers. Nevertheless, the authors of [336] still demonstrate a certain scientific honesty when they cite the ancient sources that contain evidence already considered “heretical”.
1.7.3. Turkish princes minted coins with representations of Christ with a sceptre and a Christian orb, presumably “failing to comprehend” the meaning of these symbols.
German historians of the late XIX century, who were already raised on the erroneous Scaligerian version of history, appear confused and even embarrassed when they report such facts as the following:
“Starting from 1100 A. D., some of the Turkish princes from the Danishmenden dynasty in Cappadocia were minting rather peculiar coins for several decades – first with Greek lettering and the image of Christ, identical to the coins of Tancred of Antiochia. Later on, the image was removed and the lettering became Graeco-Arabic. The rivals of the Ottomans [certain Turkish princes – Auth.] emulate the gigliati (named thus after the cross and lily symbol on their reverse side) – coins minted by Charles II of Anjou (1285-1309) and his son Robert (1309-42) . . .
It is possible that other Turkic princes from Asia Minor wanted to keep up with the Ottomans. We are amazed to see how these ancient proponents of Islam don’t just put their portraits on these coins, but also depict themselves wearing a crown, holding a sceptre and an orb decorated with a cross with lilies upon it . . . Some of the inexperienced local craftsmen tried to emulate them, failing to comprehend the Latin inscription” ([336], Volume 5, page 113).
Our reconstruction provides an adequate explanation of all such facts – in reality, the coins in question were minted in different parts of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire; their symbolism was imperial rather than local – hence the images of Christ, crosses, sceptres, Christian orbs of state etc. Modern historians in their inability to comprehend this fact are forced to construct “theories” of “emulation” and so on, trying to convince us that the ignorant minters would decorate their coins with inscriptions they did not understand.
As a matter of fact, the ancient name “Ottoman” (“Ataman”) by no means identical to the more recent term “Turk”. Apparently, “the Muslims of Anatolia, Mesopotamia and European Turkey, who keep the memory of Ottoman, still consider it to be a near-insult for anyone to call them Turks” ([336], Volume 5, page 122).
1.8. Conclusion.
We hope that the brief synapse of sources that we cited was useful to the readers for getting some idea of just how vigorously the mediaeval Great = “Mongolian” Horde, or Army, started to conquer Europe and Asia in the XIV century.
Let us remind the reader that the capital of the Horde was in Novgorod the Great – the agglomeration of cities around Yaroslavl. It is curious that Sigismund Herberstein, a famous author of the XVI century, uses the term “republic” for referring to the state of Novgorod the Great. Initially, there seems to be nothing wrong with it – every textbook tells us about the “Republic of Novgorod”. However, it is surprising that Herberstein’s text transcribes the word “republic” as two separate words – “Res publica” ([161], page 148). Also, he uses the word “publicus” in the meaning of “stately” ([161], page 180).
Thus, the Novgorod State is called “State of Res”, which apparently stands for “Russian State”. We are beginning to understand the etymology of the famous word “respublica”. The Latin dictionary gives us two versions, transcribing it as a single word (“respublica”) and two words (“res-publica”). Herberstein’s book explicitly transcribes the word “Res” with a capital R, which probably identifies it as a name. Thus, Herberstein was perfectly correct to transcribe “Russian State” as “Res Publica”.
How is the word “Res” translated from Latin today? According to the Latin Dictionary ([237]), this word has a variety of meanings, starting with the rather general “thing or object” and ending with “case” ([237], pages 873-874). Among them we see the following meanings: “world, universe, essence of the world, state, war and history”. They are in good concurrence with what appears to be the original meaning of the word “Res” (“Russian”), since the Empire with the capital in Novgorod the Great (or Yaroslavl) was the Russian Empire. It has to be pointed out that the first letter of the word “res” isn’t capitalised in the modern Latin Dictionary, since its initial meaning has already been forgotten.
Let us also recollect that the word “res” is used in the German language as “reich” (“state” and “empire”; also “rich”, cf. “rich” in English and “rico” in Spanish). The Polish version of “Res Publica” is “Rzecz Pospolita”. The modern transcription also unites both of the words into one – “Rzeczpospolita”.
We shall conclude the present fragment with a quotation from Herberstein. “They appointed princes to rule their republic (Res publica) in accordance with their wishes and considerations, making it stronger as their neighbours became their debtors in one way or another and were made protect their state for a regular wage, like mercenaries” ([161], page 148).
Let us carry on with our overview of the Western European records telling us about the mediaeval “Mongolia”, or Russia, delving into another layer of documents. It is said that “although the myth of Presbyter Johannes hasn’t lost its appeal after the journey of Plano Carpini, the Westerners became less hopeful about the pro-Christian sympathies of the Mongols” ([677], page 14).
More precisely, the dwindling hopes of the Westerners weren’t for the “pro-Christian” sympathies, but just for the “pro-Latin” ones, seeing as how the Russians (or “Mongols”) were Christians themselves, albeit Orthodox and not Catholic.
Once again we hear about the “myth of Presbyter Johannes”. What is this myth exactly?
2. The “Mongolian” Empire and the famous Christian kingdom of Presbyter Johannes. Khans of the “Mongols” as Orthodox Christians.
History of the legendary Kingdom of Presbyter Johannes is believed to be one of the most fascinating mysteries in the Scaligerian history of Europe and Asia. The matter can be formulated in brief as follows.
Apparently, Western Europe in the Middle Ages was deeply convinced of the existence of an enormous kingdom in the East, ruled by some Christian ruler called “Presbyter Johannes” – presumably, the ancestor of the Great Khans of the Mongolian Empire. The legends of the mysterious kingdom started to spread across Europe in the alleged XII century, reaching the peak of their popularity in the XIII-XV century ([677], page 9).
According to the historians of today, the kingdom of Presbyter Johannes was nothing but a myth and a delusion of the mediaeval Europeans. However, our reconstruction believes the Western Europeans to have been correct – the results of our research identify it as a historical reality. The kingdom in question identifies as the “Mongol” Empire of the Russians, whereas Presbyter Johannes (Ivan) is apparently none other but Ivan Danilovich Kalita, also known as Batu-Khan, according to CHRON4.
Bear in mind that our conception interprets the “Mongol and Tartar invasion” as the unification of Russia under the power of the Novgorod, or Yaroslavl, dynasty of St. George the Victorious (Genghis-Khan) and his brother Yaroslav (also known as Batu-Khan and Ivan Kalita, or Caliph), qv in CHRON4. The name “Presbyter Johannes” is derived from that of Ivan Kalita, seeing as how John and Johannes are but two different versions of the same name. All of this took place in the XIV century A. D. Later on, Ivan Kalita “travelled backwards in time” as a result of chronological shift, manifesting as the so-called “mysterious Presbyter Johannes” two centuries earlier. This is why the English chronicles used this name for referring to Genghis-Khan, confusing one of the brothers for the other ([517], page 185). See also CHRON4, Chapter 18:16.
It is easy to understand why modern historians are confused by this “myth” – mediaeval Europeans apparently believed the Kingdom of Presbyter Johannes to have been Christian, whereas contemporary historians are convinced that the “Mongols” were Muslims. Hence the claim that “Mongolian” Khans couldn’t possibly have had any Christian ancestors. The picture is however perfectly clear and obvious to us. Ivan Danilovich Kalita (Caliph), a. k. a. Batu-Khan, was naturally a Christian ruler of the Orthodox Christian Russia, so there is nothing absurd or controversial about this fact.
Moreover, it turns out that in mediaeval Europe “this myth [of the kingdom of Presbyter Johannes – Auth.] was associated with vague hopes for the future union of the Mongols and the Catholic West” ([677], page 9). There is nothing surprising about the fact that many European Catholic Christians of the XVI-XVII century still harboured a hope for a union with the Eastern Orthodox Christians, or the “Mongol” (Great) inhabitants of the Orthodox Russia, also known as the Horde, notwithstanding the schism between the two branches of the Christian Church and even the Reformation.
Given this explanation, one must pay more attention to the surviving references to the mysterious Presbyter Johannes, since these legends apparently represent a fresh point of view on the history of Russia, and one of the ancient XIV century founders of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire in particular. He was known as Ivan Kalita, or Caliph, and also as Batu-Khan, qv in CHRON4.
From this moment on, we must develop a different attitude to the mediaeval Western European accounts of the kingdom of Presbyter Johannes. They are directly related to Russian history, despite the distortions introduced by the foreigners, some of them accidental and others deliberate. Albeit obscured by a veil of legend, these historical references, which were fortunately preserved by the mediaeval chroniclers, are of the greatest value. It goes without saying that the travellers from the Western Europe, let alone the XVII-XVIII century editors of their books, failed to understand many of the reports, and were generous enough in applying their imagination. Nevertheless, these reports appear to have been based on the authentic Russian history of the XIII-XVI century.
And so, let us relate some of these mediaeval accounts.
The Bavarian chronicler Otto von Freisingen, whose lifetime was apparently misdated to the XII century instead of the XIV, writes: “King, or Presbyter Johannes launched a campaign against the Muslims, setting forth from a faraway Eastern land; he had reached Ekbatan (Khamadan), but didn’t have the resolve needed to cross the Tigris, so he turned his troops back . . . Otto of Freisingen is incorrect in his attribution of the campaign against Iran and Mesopotamia to the Kara-Kitai, whom he considers subjects of a Christian ruler . . . In his rendition, the Chinese and Mongolian title of Van-Khan transformed into the Christian name Johannes” ([677], page 10).
Otto didn’t make any mistake – he is perfectly correct to claim that the title “Van-Khan” corresponds to the Christian name “Johannes”, or Ivan (Kalita = Caliph). We also find out that Ivan Kalita was also the ruler of the Kara-Kitai; however, we already know enough about Chinese history to perceive this information as obvious. In the Middle Ages, Kitai (Scythia) was another name of Russia. See also Part 6 of the present book.
Furthermore, we discover that many European chroniclers identified Presbyter Johannes as Genghis-Khan ([677], page 10-11). This is almost spot on – according to our conception, Genghis-Khan identifies as the Great Prince Youri (Georgiy) Danilovich “the Muscovite”, who was a brother of Ivan Danilovich Kalita (Caliph).
It is obvious that the reports made about Russia, or the Horde, by the chroniclers of the Western Europe are often rather garbled – however, the facts registered therein correspond to reality in general, although the two brothers mentioned below were often mistaken for one another:
Youri (Georgiy) Danilovich “the Muscovite”, a. k. a. Genghis-Khan,
and Ivan Danilovich Kalita, a. k. a. Batu-Khan (the Cossack Batka).
Apart from that, it is reported that “alongside Presbyter Johannes, the first reports about the Mongols made by European authors mention King David, also a Christian . . . The chronicle of . . . Richard de Saint-Germain clearly uses this name for referring to Genghis-Khan” ([677], page 11). Our reconstruction provides a good explanation of these facts, since Russia, or the Horde, was also known as Israel in that epoch, whereas the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire identifies as the Kingdom of Judah.
Many European chroniclers explicitly state that the “Mongols” were Christian – and yet the modern historians tend to scoff at such assertions, “explaining” them away or altogether refusing to argue with the “ignorant mediaeval authors”.
Here is a good example of this patronising attitude: “Shortly before the campaign of Batu-Khan, Romans received reports that the Mongol rulers had presumably adhered to the Christian faith” ([677], page 11).
Why “presumably”? The only reason is that we have grown accustomed to considering the “Mongols” Muslim. This is why the modern commentators “correct” the mediaeval chroniclers all the time – yet the latter carry on claiming that the “Mongols” were Christians. How can the modern historians react? They simply quote the mediaeval sources, each time with the “explanation” that the mediaeval chroniclers “made a mistake”.
Another example of this modern “scientific approach” is as follows: “A certain Philip, Dominican Prior of the Holy Land province, claims Christianity to be prevalent in the Mongolian East in a missive sent to Rome, which is obviously wishful thinking [? – Auth.]” ([677], page 12).
But Prior Philip was perfectly right! He describes the Orthodox “Mongolian” (Great) Russia in good faith. Although the Muslims did appear in Russia in the XVI century, according to our reconstruction, but Orthodox Christianity remained the official religion adhered to by the “Mongol” Khans of Russia, or the Horde.
One must point out that the contacts between the Western Europe and the Great = “Mongolian” Empire were complicated by the military prevalence of the Horde, or Russia. This is the picture that we get from the surviving documents that must have been edited in the XVII-XVIII century and then misdated to the ancient epoch of the XIII century.
“When we mentioned the first contacts between the Western Europe and the Mongols, we were primarily referring to the history of the diplomatic negotiations conducted in the 1240’s and the 1250’s by said two parties, neither of which was too eager to make concessions. Yet the very fact that the Westerners kept on sending their envoys to the Mongolian East makes it obvious that Europe was very interested in establishing a connexion with the Mongols” ([677], page 29).
Moreover, the Westerners took part in military operations as allies of the “Mongols”. One might wonder about the leadership – according to our reconstruction, in the XIV-XVI century the entire Europe was part of the “Mongolian” Empire, so the identity of the leaders is hardly an issue.
Mortal fear of the Horde, or Russia, prevailed in Europe during this epoch. For instance, “The letter written by Emir Khomsa Malik al-Mansur . . . in 1245 urges Innocent IV [the Pope – Auth.] to refrain from trusting the Tartars, “this spawn of the Antichrist, devastating the world like the plague” ([677], page 13).
However, it is possible that all the curses addressed at the “Mongols” (Great Ones) date from a much later epoch – the XVII-XVIII century, backdated by several hundred years. It is nevertheless obvious that the unification of Russia and the conquests of new lands involved warfare and bloodshed as well as negotiations – the defeated parties would curse the “spawn of the Antichrist”. These emotions became reflected on the pages of chronicles.
The deeper we delve into the mediaeval documents, the better we understand why the modern comments try to convince us that the multiple references to the “Christianity” of the Mongols contained therein are “erroneous”. See for yourselves.
According to “Khetum the Historian” who is said to have lived in the XIV century, the Armenian King Khetum I addressed Munke, the Great Khan of the Mongols, to wrest the Holy Land away from the Saracens and make it Christian again. The Khan’s response was as follows: “Our deep reverence of Jesus Christ implies our actual participation, but seeing as how we are greatly occupied in these parts, we shall trust our brother Khaolon (Khulag) to carry it out in the appropriate fashion” ([677], page 25).
Modern commentators declare this mediaeval correspondence “highly doubtful” ([677], page 25), since the Christian allegiances of the Great = “Mongolian” Khans contradict the Scaligerian and Romanovian version of history.
3. Great Tartary and China.
This is what we find in the book entitled “Wonders Described by Brother Jourdan from the Order of Preachers, a Native of Severac and a Bishop of Columbus, a City in Greater India” ([677]). The source is presumed to date from the XIV century. Let us recollect that the name of the Russian Empire used by many cartographers up until the middle of the XVII century was “Great Tartary”, or “Mongol Tartary” (qv in Part 1 above).
What does Jourdan tell us? He writes: “I can tell you the following about Greater Tartary . . . It is very rich, very just and very vast. It has four kingdoms, as great and as densely populated as the French kingdom . . . They use paper sheets with prints made in black ink, which can be traded for gold, silver, silk, gemstones and anything one’s heart desires [the author is referring to paper money – Auth.] . . .
This empire has temples with idols, and also friaries and nunneries just like ours; they observe fasts and pray the way we do . . . Their idol-worshipping is amazingly magnificent, luxurious and opulent . . .
This empire . . . has many great cities. One of them is called Giemo; it is said that this city cannot be crossed in a straight line within one day, even by a rider.
I have heard that this emperor has two hundred cities larger than Toulouse, and I’m certain their population is also greater.
The inhabitants of this empire are extraordinarily docile, tidy, polite and generous” ([677], pages 154-155).
Let us turn to the modern commentary to this mediaeval text (which must have been written a while later than the XIV century, seeing as how it contains references to paper money). Historians comment in the following manner: “Greater Tartary identifies as the Yuan Empire, which comprised the entire China in the first half of the XIV century and was ruled by Mongol invaders, the descendants of Genghis-Khan” ([677], page 168).
What have we managed to find out? The following facts, which are of great interest to us.
1) The descendants of Genghis-Khan, or Great Prince Youri Danilovich “the Muscovite”, a. k. a. Ryurik, reigned in China (or Kitai = Scythia).
2) The Yuan Empire is likely to identify as Ivan’s Empire (since Ivan = Yuan = Ian) – in other words, the “Mongolian” Empire of Ivan Danilovich Kalita, or Batu-Khan.
All of this is in good concurrence with our reconstruction of Chinese history as related in Part 2 of the present book.
Let us cite another modern commentator. “Tartaria Magna [or Mongolian Tartary – Auth.] is a term used by late mediaeval geographers. Great (or Mongol) Tartary was the name of the Yuan Empire [the Empire of Ivan – Auth.] . . . The name hadn’t survived the Yuan Empire itself by too long, and was used in European geographical literature until the end of the XVIII century” ([677], page 217).
Everything is perfectly correct. However, for some odd reason the modern commentator doesn’t tell us that the XVIII century European cartographers wrote the name “Great Tartary” across the entire territory of the Russian Empire, including the Far East. From Europe to the Pacific, that is. The words “Russian Empire” were written in medium-sized letters, whereas the letters of the words “Great Tartary” (or “Mongol Tartary”) were much larger – a token of respect and a sign of recent fear.
Incidentally, J. K. Wright reports: “Overland voyages were stipulated by the nascence of the greatest military empire that the world has ever seen” ([722], page 239). The Great (“Mongolian”) Empire, that is. Nothing surprising about this fact – before the formation of the Great Empire long voyages were unsafe, due to the incessant skirmishes between the numerous minor principalities. People were naturally reluctant to travel far from their homeland. However, after the foundation of the “Mongolian” Empire, order was established on the territories controlled thereby; the imperial authorities also built a ramified system of long roads and guarded outposts, which made it possible for traders and other people to travel far.
