Chapter 11.
Mediaeval Scandinavian maps and geographical oeuvres report the "Mongolian" conquest of Eurasia and Africa.
3. The Trojan conquest of Europe.
Scandinavian geographers report that the nation of Thracia populated Svitjod and later the whole of Norway, whence the Thracians travelled to Iceland and Greenland as settlers ([523], page 65). The information is interesting enough for us to study it at greater length.
3.1. The origins of the settlers who populated Russia, Norway, Iceland and Greenland.
This is what the mediaeval author tells us: “Tracia was initially populated by Thiras [the Turks – Auth.], son of Japheth and the grandson of Noah. Many ancient books report that the settlers came to Svitjod from these parts, then from Svitjod to Norway, and from Norway to Iceland, and from Iceland to Greenland” ([523], page 65).
Modern commentary is as follows: “The legend about the population of the Scandinavian countries by the Asian settlers was famous in the ancient Scandinavian historical literature in the XIII-XIV century ([523], page 71).
3.2. It turns out that Europe, Britain and Scandinavia were populated by either the Turks or the Asian Trojans.
Another mediaeval Scandinavian author reports the following: “In the beginning of every veracious stories told in the North we encounter the reference to the fact that the whole North was conquered by the Turks and the Asians. One can therefore make the reliable claim that their language accompanied them to the North – the one that we call the Nordic language. It was spoken in Saxland [Germany – Auth.], Danmorku [Denmark – Auth.] and Svitjod [Russia – Auth.], as well as in Norway and a certain part of England” ([523], page 95).
This ancient evidence is in good concurrence with our reconstruction, according to which the first great empire was founded by the Byzantines and its lifespan covers the XI-XIII century. After its decomposition in the XIII-XIV century as a result of the Trojan = Gothic War, all of its former provinces ceased to obey the centre and became independent states. Initially, they were led by the representatives of Byzantine nobility, which had fled Byzantium as a result of its fragmentation and settled in different lands. This must have taken place in the XIII-XIV century. They took their Byzantine chronicles and documents along.
However, the Imperial baton was immediately taken from the hands of the weakened Byzantium by “Mongolia” = Russia (Horde) of the XIV century, which proceeded with the conquest of the world for the purpose of restoring the Empire.
Since the history of Byzantium and Russia (or the Horde) is closely tied to the history of Thracia, or Turkey, it is quite natural that remote peoples may have perceived the invasion of the Byzantines and the Asians from the Horde as a Turkic expansion. It is remarkable that the Scandinavian chronicle tells us the exact same thing: “Thracia is the same as Girkland. Its first dweller was Tiras, son of Japheth” ([523], page 96). In Part 6 of the present book we cite some evidence taken from Scandinavian tractates that proves Girkland to be the same as Byzantium.
Apparently, the Scandinavians perceived Thracia, Turkey, Byzantium and Russia, or the Horde, as a single state. Moreover, Scandinavian documents may have been referring to the second conquest of Europe by the Ottomans, or the Atamans, in the XV-XVI century when they wrote about the Turks and the Asians settling in Europe; this conquest became reflected in the Bible as the “conquest of the promised land”, qv in CHRON6.
3.3. The exodus of the Trojans from Byzantium in the XIII-XIV century virtually coincided with the beginning of the “Mongolian” conquest.
The “exodus from Byzantium” of the XIII century and the “Mongolian” conquest of the XIV century that came in its wake, resulted in the occupation of the key positions of power in the former provinces of Byzantium by the “Mongols” and the natives of the former imperial centre. The newly formed countries received the legacy of the ancient Byzantine and the new “Mongolian” chronicles, which had been brought from Czar-Grad and Russia, or the Horde. These chronicles were subsequently integrated in the local history.
This had happened because the Byzantine and “Mongolian” origins of these chronicles were forgotten, and they were erroneously perceived as the description of the local events, and not the large-scale Imperial ones. This must have been the case with the initial parts of the insular history of England, qv in CHRON4, France, Germany, Prussia (or P-Russia), Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and even the remote China.
On the one hand, it appears as though we learn of the conquest of the desolate and sparsely populated areas of Europe and Asia. On the other hand, after the fall of Byzantium in the XIII century, its former provinces, or themae, automatically fell into the hands of the Byzantines for a certain period of time. These provinces had also been ruled by Byzantine governors formerly. After the fall of Czar-Grad the local governors became independent rulers, who must have been very pleased by this fact and hastened to segregate from the weakening Constantinople. This political process of redistributed power was natural and understandable perfectly well. However, this must have lasted for a rather short time. Soon Europe and Eurasia in general were swarmed by the wave of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the XIV century. The time of anarchy and chaos was over. The “Mongolian” Empire was formed.
It is very interesting that the famous historian John Malalas describes the Western Europe of that day and age as a savage land with no cities. He writes: “There were no cities or courts in the West, people have simply lived there the way they did since these lands were populated by the tribe of Japheth” ([338], page 28). It turns out that life had still been very simple in many parts of the Western Europe – people neither built cities, nor any other fortifications of any kind. Thus, the “Mongols”, or the Great Ones, could easily conquer the West with bare hands.
Also, the “Asian colonisation” must have implied something beyond mere colonisation and the relocation of the ruling cliques from Byzantium and the Horde to the provinces from the centre. Asia was called “Asia-Land”, which may have initially stood for Isa-Land, or the Land of Jesus, since, according to our reconstruction, Jesus Christ had lived in Constantinople, or Jerusalem, or Troy, and got crucified there (1152-1185). Therefore, this whole land was named after him; hence “Asia-Land”, later to become Asia.
Byzantium of the XII-XIII century and the enormous “Mongolian” Empire of the XIV-XVI century were Christian countries. Therefore, the “Asian expansion” must also have resulted in the propagation of the Christian religion. This is how it came to Russia from Byzantium, for instance. It is likely that the main force that had held Byzantium, and later the “Mongolian” Empire together was Christianity as the official religion. Thus, the geographical borders of the Empire were more or less the same than the borders of the Christian lands. Christianity had still been unified in the XII-XV century – the schism that resulted in the nascence of the Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc happened later.
Let us return to the old Scandinavian chronicles and their reports of Europe and its northern parts colonised by Asian invaders. As we have mentioned above, Byzantium fell apart as a result of the Trojan, or Gothic War of the XIII century. After the fall of Troy, or Constantinople, the Trojans flee the country and found new ones after long wanderings. The “Mongols” come immediately in their wake. We may well assume that Scandinavian chroniclers named the Trojans as the founders of their country.
Our prediction is confirmed. The Scandinavian chronicler continues his narration concerning the colonization of Germany, Denmark, Russia, Norway and Britain by the Turks and the Asians as follows: “This nation was led by Odin, Son of Thor; he had many sons” ([523], page 95).
The name Thor must be related to the names Troy, Turk, Tartar etc. Thor, the Scandinavian god of thunder, must be of Turkish, Tartar or Trojan origin. The name Odin is similar to the Slavic word for “one”, which is “odin”. We must recollect that the Russian Czars were called Autocrats, which meant that they were the sole rulers of the entire country and didn’t share their power with anyone. This might be the possible etymology of the Scandinavian name Odin.
3.4. TRUE STORIES OF MEDIEVAL SCANDINAVIANS DO NOT AGREE WITH SCALIGER HISTORY
This stories of the chronicler cause distrust among modern commentators. It is clear why. They are formed on the erroneous concept of Scaliger-Petavius.
For example, E. A. Melnikova writes: << By the mid-thirteenth century due to the growth and strengthening of the national identity in the Scandinavian countries a creative interpretation of world history begins to play an important role.
Numerous sagas of the 13th century ("Younger Edda" by Snorri Sturluson, "The Saga of Skeldung", "The Third Grammatical Treatise," "The Saga of Sturlung ", etc.) tell us about that the descendants of the Trojan king Priam (or simply natives of Troy), under the rule of the chief called Odin, that moved from Asia to the north of Europe (hence their name "Ases") and settled in the Scandinavian countries (the description of their settlement of the country is structurally close to the story of the settlement of Earth by the sons of Noah).
Thus, - concludes Melnikova, - the Scandinavian peoples not only found themselves involved in the general course of the history of European peoples, but also acquired illustrious ancestors >> [523], p.98.
It is unlikely that all similar stories were invented by the Scandinavians exclusively for "ennobling" their past. Likely, they were mostly telling the truth. It's not their fault that the truth contradicted the later invented concept of Scaliger-Petavius, the one that turned out to be erroneous. In our reconstruction, most of these Scandinavian statements become natural and understandable.
Let us recall here the Kingdom of Prester John. That is how the Western Europeans called the Great = "Mongolian" Russ-Horde of the XIV-XV centuries, see above. If the Scandinavians said that their country was inhabited by Asians and Scythians - that is, from Russia = from the Kingdom of Prester John - then it should be expected that in Scandinavian chronicles, we will encounter a memory of Ioann – the king and the "progenitor" of the Scandinavian people.
Our prediction turns true. Indeed, the "euhemeristic interpretation of the origin of pagan gods in Scandinavia became possible only after the establishment of Christianity ... It is directly related to the "scholarly" legend of the origin of the Scandinavians from Asia ... where the Ases and Vans (that is, the Vans are descendants of Ivan = Ioann - Auth.) are regarded as some of the Eastern kings, whom the people, seeing their wisdom and good fortune, began to offer sacrifices" [523], p. 99.
According to our reconstruction, it follows that all similar Scandinavian texts were written not earlier than the XIV century, when the Kingdom of Prester John = Ioann = Ivan, that is, Great = "Mongolian" Russia-Horde has reached a great influence.
3.5. OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WERE ALSO SUPPOSEDLY MISTAKEN PRESUMING THAT THEIR NATIONS DESCENDED FROM THE TROJANS
It turns out that not only Scandinavians "ennobled" their past," inventing noble ancestors."
E.A. Melnikova continues: "Ethnogenetic legends of the same type appear around the same time (that is, in XIII-XIV centuries - Auth.) in a number of other European countries; this fis reflected in such stories as " The History of the Kings of Britain" by Geoffrey of Monmouth (1130-1140), The Chronicle of the Abbey of Saint-Denis (about 1300) etc.>> [523], p.98.
It follows from our reconstruction that all the above mentioned medieval authors were, apparently, right. It puts many things in their right place and removes the suspicions expressed sometimes by commentators about alleged ignorance or "nationalistic tendencies" among medieval chroniclers. Historians, by the way, can also be understood. They are loaded with the Scaliger's erroneous conception.
E.A. Melnikova mentioned here Geoffrey of Monmouth – one of the main chroniclers of ancient English history. We talked a lot about him in the book "New Chronology of Russia". As it was shown, the initial period of English history is copied from Byzantium and Russia-Horde Chronicles. Moreover, the Scaligerian dating of the life of Geoffrey of Monmouth by the twelfth century is likely incorrect. According to our reconstruction, it should be moved past the XIV-XV centuries.
Let's return to the Scandinavians. E.A.Melnikova notes: << In no other country, this "scholarly" legend has spread as much as in Scandinavian countries, where it quickly replaced the vague-mythological traditions of pagan time >> [523], p.98.
Our good luck is that such authentic testimonies are preserved, although presently they are mocked by the erring followers of the Scaligerian version of history. Just listen to the Scandinavian chroniclers, paying attention to their words. And that's what we'll hear.
3.6. THE SETTLEMENT OF ENGLAND BY THE BRITONS - THE TROJANS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS IN THE XIII-XIV CENTURIES AD
"Brutus was called the man, descendant in the fourth generation of Aeneas by name Bruti and nicknamed Britto when he arrived. After him was named Britain, which is now called England, and before - Britland" [523], p. 97
Apparently, it's true. According to our reconstruction, the "antique" Aeneas probably is the biblical Noah, reflected as well as medieval Charles of Anjou (supposedly of the XIII century) one of the "antique" Trojans, leaves Byzantium-Troy after the Trojan War of the XIII century. Moreover, he founded new kingdoms in Europe. If Brutus is his descendant in the fourth generation, then these events occurred later than the XIV-XV centuries.
All this agrees well with our reconstruction of English history, see the book "The New Chronology of Russia." Besides, the legends of "ancient Aeneas" reflected the events of the XV century - the conquest and colonization of America by the Biblical Noah = Aeneas = Columbus, see the book "Biblical Russia."
Modern commentators believe that the quoted story was borrowed by Scandinavians from the "Saga of the Britons" (allegedly of the XIII century), existing in the "Book of Hauk" [523], p. 101. "It describes in detail the history of the settlement in Britain of Brutus, a descendant of the Trojan kings... By this name was called the entire country" [523], p. 101.
4. SLAVIC CONQUEST OF EUROPE ALLEGEDLY OF THE VI-VII CENTURIES AD AS ONE OF THE REFLECTIONS OF THE RUSSIAN "MONGOLIAN" CONQUEST OF THE XIV-XV CENTURIES
The corollary is this: in an unbiased and frank Scandinavian story about settlement and conquest of Europe by the descendants of the Mongols, the Goths, the Turks and the Tatars, was reflected the military and political conquest of a significant part of the still underpopulated Western Europe during the Great ="Mongolian" invasion of the XIV century. It was also called Scythian invasion in Western Europe. According to our reconstruction, Scandinavian geographic treatises and the Bible repeatedly speak of it as the settlement of the world by the descendants of Japheth.
This colonization was not entirely forgotten by Western Europeans in XVII-XVIII centuries. As a result of an artificial shift down in time, because of an error in the date of the Nativity of Christ (dated by us by the XII century), it was
moved into the deep past - in the "early Middle Ages." And it was reflected there in the form of well-known in Scaliger's history Gothic - Hunnic - Slavic conquest of Europe allegedly of the V-VI centuries. The result is a downward shift of about 1,000 years. Then it was declared the "wild, barbaric invasion," in general, very bad thing.
By the way, the "Mongolian" colonization of the barren lands of Europe and Asia, supposedly V-VI centuries, is called in many historical texts "the Great migration of peoples". Reading the word "great" in Greek, we get "megalion", that is simply the Mongolian migration of peoples. Which completely corresponds to the essence of the matter. It's about the "Mongolian" = GREAT invasion of Western Europe and Eurasia in the XIV century. It was also called the Migration Period.
As we have already said, in the XVII-XVIII centuries, apparently, the work "to improve its history" was carried out in the countries of Western Europe, externely unobtrusive for the common population, but with far-reaching consequences. Psychologically and politically unpleasant moments were carefully pruned from the history of the XIV-XVI centuries. Probably, this activity was conducted secretly, in any case, was not widely advertised. This was not difficult, because the writing of the" correct " history of antiquity was concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of people: Scaliger, Petavius, partly astronomer Kepler, etc. This circumstance, the small number of the "creators of new history" is an important and well-known fact, but usually, it is not considered particularly important.
The produce of this activity was then, with visible efforts, canonized and adopted "for compulsory execution" in the school and university education, as well as in scientific practice in general. Nevertheless, the true historical evidence fortunately survived. AKA in the European Chronicles of the XVII - XVIII centuries, and even more - on the frontiers of the then Western European world, for example, in Scandinavia. Although the Scandinavian tractates that have survived to us are already covered with a thick layer of Scaligerianship, the traits of true history manifest themselves clearly. Probably, the organizers of the "improvement of Western history" did not think "to clear" the archives of remote countries.
It is quite difficult to completely eradicate all traces of the truth, although they tried very hard. In the XVII-XVIII centuries many voluminous treatises on world chronology were written. "Undesirable" chronicles were pushed into the shadows, the authors, who for some reason did not fit into the Scaliger’s history, were declared ignorant. The distorted version of history was obligatory for studying at schools and universities, and then it was introduced into broad public consciousness.
But with the development of science, more and more new contradictions began to be revealed. In our opinion, its volume has already exceeded the limits when the scientific question should be raised: Is the Scaliger chronology accurate?
Therefore, we propose for scientific discussion a new trimmed chronology, built on the basis of propriotary mathematical, astronomical and statistical methods.
While developing a new concept, we drew attention to the medieval pieces of evidence that had escaped the possible "cleansing". The Scandinavian geographic tractates considered here are also among them. Under the pressure of these testimonies, we must admit that the role of Ancient Russia in the medieval world of the XIV-XVI centuries was not quite the same as the Scaliger version shows us. Moreover, it is entirely different.
We emphasize once again that it is wrong to think that historical documents, including Western European ones, are silent about everything that we have told. They say a lot, one just has to listen to them anew. As we tried to show above, our analysis is based on medieval documents. All such information is generally well preserved. In fact, we did not invent anything, but only quoted medieval pieces of evidence. We only suggest is to look at all this data with a new, open-minded look, based on a new concise chronology elaborated on the basis of mathematical methods.
5. Comparison of the West and the East in the Works of A.S. Khomyakov
5.1. About Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov
We are aware that the perception of this paragraph can cause the reader a certain psychological discomfort. Because all that we have said is very contrary to the picture of the relationship between East and West, instilled in us since childhood. Broadly, but quite accurately, the traditional view can be described with the words: "enlightened free West" vs " backward slave East." In this opposition, Russia is usually referred to as the East.
All described above breaks up the usual pattern. Now we are surprised to realize that a different view of the West and the East, which today is presented to us as full of curiosities and paradoxes, is actually more accurate than the one to which we are accustomed.
We mean the Slavophiles, at least some of them. As an example, we remind the reader of the works of the well-known A. S. Khomyakov.
We briefly tell about him: <<Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov was born in Moscow, on Ordynka street on May 1, 1804. He came from an old Russian noble family, which preserved sacredly the grandfather's letters, and patrimonial stories "for two hundred years in the depths of old times." Of ancestors, which... since the XV century... since the days of Basil III, served faithfully to the rulers of Moscow as hunters and solicitors.
He had a brilliant education. His teachers were famous professors of that time [932], p.6. <<First his own literary work: the translation of Tacitus "Germany" refers to 1819 (Later it was published in the Proceedings of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature at Moscow University) >> [932], p.6.
He was a versatile scientist and organizer. <<He... was addicted to engineering, invented a steam engine "with double pressure" (and even got a patent in England for this), he invented a long-range rifle and special artillery shells during the Crimean war. He practiced medicine and did a lot in the field of practical homeopathy. He invented new recipes for distilling and sugar refining, and searched for minerals in the Tula province >> [932], p.4.
<< Both excited admirers, and numerous enemies undoubtedly agreed that: Khomyakov was a "type of encyclopaedist" (A.N. Pleshcheev), endowed with "an amazing gift of logical fascination" (A.I. Herzen)." What an extraordinary mind, what vividness, abundance in thoughts... how much information, the most diverse ... Is there anything he does not know?» (M.P. Pogodin). The detractors considered his brilliant erudition to be superficial and shallow>> [932], p.3.
How do you think - disliked Khomyakov thoroughly? The foremost Russian historian of that time, S.M.Soloviev, we already talked about in the book "The New Chronology of Russia," did. According to our analysis, the work of S.M.Soloviev on Russian history is one of the thickest layers of the plaster, or rather the concrete, covering the real picture of the history of Russia.
Here is how he refuted << Historian S. M. Soloviev... considers Khomyakov "self-taught" and "dilettante" >> [932], p.3. Well, when there are no arguments, the conversation is transferred to another plane.
"Before the revolution of 1917 in Russia THE COLLECTED WORKS of Khomiakov were published three times,(the latest version - in eight weighty volumes, published in 1900-1910, was repeatedly reprinted and supplemented), monographs on him were published too... After the revolution, only a collection of poetic heritage (1969) and selected literary critical articles of Khomyakov (1988) came out. - V.A. Koshelev notes in the preface to the publication [932], - at least two dozen books were issued abroad in the last forty years, dedicated to Khomyakov "[932], p.5.
As far as we understand, Solovyov's discontent was caused by the fact that A.S. Khomyakov dared to write about history, and absolutely NOT WHAT SOLOVIEV WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
It turns out that Khomyakov's interest in history was due to "the famous polemics of the 1820s about "The History of the Russian State" by Karamzin. This polemic embraced almost all circles of the creative intelligentsia of Russia, one of the main topics of which was the question ... of the admissibility of the "artistic" approach to history >>[932], p.8.
But most likely, the problem was not in the ‘’artistism’’ per se. The publication of books by N.M. Karamzin made a falsified version of Russian history well-known, the one manufactured shortly before by Schlözer, Bayer, Müller and several others.
For many, this version was a total surprise, in the psychological sense primarily. In Russia, they still remember their true history of their ancestors. Khomyakov belonged to them. It is clear that the old family history did not correspond to the version of Schlözer- Müller -Karamzin.
Hence originated the dispute between the Westernizers, that is, the followers of Schlözer and Müller, and the Slavophiles. Of course, on the side of the Westernizers, there was covert, unofficial support of the ruling Romanov dynasty. It was expressed in the fact that the Slavophiles were not admitted into the official academic historical science, which was financed from the state treasury and was dependent on it. The Slavophiles, on the contrary, were free to express their protest but were subject to the harsh accusations of amateurism. Besides, they had restricted access to academic, that is, state archives.
The weakness of the Slavophils was in a "purely negative" position. They could not offer in exchange their own completed picture of the correct history. They only noted numerous contradictions. But their distrust of the Schlözer-Müller version, apparently, was fueled continuously by their family stories.
A.S.Khomyakov was among the Slavophiles. "World history became for him the material for research ... He understood the complexity of the task ... He kept hundreds of historical, philosophical and theological writings in his memory ... Khomyakov declares: the dominating historical science isn't able to determine... the real causes of history" [932], pp. 8-9.
5.2. A.S. KHOMIAKOV ABOUT THE DISTORTION OF THE RUSSIAN HISTORY BY THE WEST EUROPEAN AUTHORS
A.S. Khomyakov wrote: "There is no faraway tribe; there is no unimportant fact that would become the subject of study for many German scientists ... Only one human group did not attract their attention - the SLAVS. As soon as it comes to the Slavs, the MISTAKES of German critics are so glaring, THE BLUNDERS ARE SO RIDICULOUS, AND THE BLINDNESS IS SO GREAT that you
do not know what to attribute this STRANGE phenomenon...
The peoples, like the individuals, have passions, and these passions are not entirely noble. Perhaps, in the German instincts enmity lurks, which is based on the fear of the future or THE MEMORIES of the past, hostility based on insults inflicted or received in THE OLD, IMMEMORIAL YEARS.
Whatever it was, - continues Khomyakov, - it is almost impossible to explain THE STUBBORN SILENCE OF THE WEST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS THE STAMP OF THE SLAVS " [932], p. 57.
Further, A.S.Khomyakov notes that scientists from "arbitrarily assigned to the German root nations, wrote and wrote countless volumes; and Vends (Slavs! - Auth.) did not. VENDS already at Herodotus time lived on the beautiful shores of the Adriatic ... after that VENDS meet the Greeks on the cold shores of the Baltic ... VENDS (Veneti) occupy the picturesque slopes of the Ligurian Alps; VENDS fight with Caesar on the stormy waves of the Atlantic, - but such a strange fact does not attract any consideration ... And these were not some scattered tribes, without communication and links, but a chain of inseparable, embracing half of Europe.
Between the Pomorie (seashores) of the Baltics Vends and the Illyrian Vends - GREAT VENDS ... and Russian Vends, and then Austrian VENDS (Vindobona) "[932], p.57.
Furthermore, A..S Khomyakov lists tens of examples of traces of the Slavic tribe Vends, still scattered throughout Western Europe. We limit ourselves here only to specific examples: the city of Vienna, the lake VENETS lake, the old name of the Konstanz lake, the French VANDEE, etc.
A.S. Khomyakov writes: "In the land of Vends rivers and cities bear the names of Zebras, Sevra, Sava ... there are still FIFTEEN CITIES, AND THE TREES have a name Bellegarde (that is simply a WHITE CITY, BELGOROD - Auth.) which is not found in the rest of France, and which is translated by the word Albi (i.e., White – Auth.) "[932], p.58. "In GETH and DACS they fancy recognizing the Germans, despite the bas-reliefs, which show completely Slavic type"[932], p.59.
We are not capable of citing here even a small fraction of the vast amount of historical and geographical evidence of this kind collected by A.S. Khomyakov. Who is interested in the details, we refer to his works.
Summing up, A. Khomyakov writes that if we follow Western interpretation of historical evidence, then << we should come to a simple conclusion: "It was not in the old days of the Slavs nowhere, and how they came and multiplied - this is a great historical mystery ">> [932], p.59.
"Critics that are more gracious, - Khomyakov continues, - leave for the Slavs some ancestors too, but these ancestors should be homeless and landless; no name in the areas populated by the present Slavs, should have Slavic meaning; therefore all the lexicons of Europe and Asia must present THE MOST INCREDIBLE ROOTS, OR REPLACE THE SIMPLE SENSE OF THE SIMPLE WORD. IF THE ELIMINATION OF THE PEOPLES FAILS: THEN PULL THE EARTH FROM UNDER THERE FEET " [932], p.59.
5.3. DON AND RONA - OLD SLAVIC NAMES OF THE RIVER
A. Khomyakov long before us noted the importance of understanding the historical chronicles of the fact that the word DON in old-Russian meant merely a "river." He wrote: "Our quiet, indigenous, Slavic DON - the root of almost all river names in Russia, Dnieper, Dniester, Dvina, Dyna (TsNI), the Danube, ten or more DUNAYTS, many DONTEZ "[932], p.60.
We have already used this fact several times. A. Khomyakov also noted that the famous RHONE river in Western Europe used to be called ERIDAN, that is, as he remarks - YARN DON [932], p.60. Thus, the name RHONE, according to Khomyakov, is Slavic too. His remark complements our observation well, according to which RHONE is a Slavic word meaning WATER FLOW, RIVER. Hence - "drop tears", etc. See above and in [866].
It seems, the river flowing from new Geneva Lake was formerly called the YOND DON. That means the "stormy river" or "fast river." Later it began to be called – again in Slavonic - RHONE, that is, "flow."
Nowadays, the Geneva lake itself is still called on the modern maps, - and in Geneva itself, - by the name of Leman = Leman. This reminds the word LIMAN, meaning BAY in Russia and Ukraine.
A.S. Khomyakov concludes: "This fact, evident for all eyes, not spoiled by the book reading, contains hard proof that the residents of the estuaries of the Danube, Timok, Po, and Rhone came from the same tribe if such a truth still requires new proofs "[932], p.61.
5.4. WHO ARE BULGARIANS
A.S. Khomyakov says: "In defense of the theory of the TRANSMUTATION of peoples usually mention BULGARIANS stating: Bulgarians speak Slavic, look Slavic, in a word, they are perfect Slavs. In ancient times the Bulgarians belonged to the Turkish or Tibetan yellow tribe. THEY TRANSMUTED. Let us try to understand the basis of such a conclusion. Certain Bulgarians appear in Europe on the border of the Byzantine Empire, shocked by their tumultuous throng. They somehow seem akin to ALMARS and HUNS, with whom they are confused. But they are neither Avars nor the real Huns. They also have some affinity with the Slavs, but they were not the old-timers Pre-Dunai Slavenia...It is clear that Bulgarians COME FROM THE VOLGA."[932], p.61-62.
This is how A.S. Khomyakov describes the point of view of historians. He's trying to explain all the contradictions, but then Scaliger chronology gets in the way: "On the Volga, Nestor knows the strong Bulgarian Kingdom ... So, the Bulgarians of the Danube, natives from the banks of the Volga, also were akin to Turks. But Nestor did not write that before the XI century, but Bulgarians came to the Danube with all the indubitable signs of Slavship in the IVth century AD"[932], p.62.
The time has come, finally, to clarify all this. According to our reconstruction, all is pretty clear.
Bulgarians are, most likely, the VOLGARIANS. That is - Russians from THE VOLGA. They moved to the conquest of Europe in the XIV century, together with the Turks, including the ones from the Volga. They are the AVARS. They are the Huns.
The Hungarians, natives of the "Great Hungary" beyond the Volga, were among them, see the book "The New Chronology of Russia." That is, approximately from present Udmurtia.
After the conquest, Bulgarians appeared on the Danube, Turks - in the Turkey, Hungary - in Hungary. Therefore, today historians cannot understand - who are those Bulgarians - either the Turks, or Avars, or Huns, or Slavs.
5.5. A.S. Khomyakov on the traces of the Slavic conquest in Western Europe
A.S. Khomyakov in his book brings his curious observations of the peoples of Western Europe. Of course, they are subjective and do not prove anything. But they are valuable as personal
views of the scientist-encyclopaedist, the Russian aristocrat, who knew all European languages, was interested in the history of peoples, and therefore capable of perceiving something that eluded the sight of many. For us, his opinion is a kind of historical evidence, reflecting the view of a specific part of the aristocratic Russian estate, today is already gone.
A.S. Khomyakov, speaking of Russia, writes: "Slavery (quite recently introduced by the state power ) did not inspire owner's contempt for his slave-farmers ... The meritable peasant earns EQUALITY not the law only, BUT by Custom, sacrificed by the most popular opinion, with the inheritors of the founder of THE STATE. In the same land (in Russia - Auth.) The slaves are not peasants, but the servants who inspire a different feeling. These differences are absent in
law ... but they exist for the right observer. The peasant (in Russia - Auth.) was the landowner's relative, the blood brother, but the ancestor of the SERVANTS was a war prisoner. From that, the farmer is called a peasant, and the servant - the CHOLOP. In this state (that is, Russia - Auth.) there are no traces of conquest "[932], p.52.
Opposing Russia to Western Europe, A.S.Khomyakov continues: "In another country, which is only fifty years old, the proud FRANKLIN still calls the enslaved villains (1. A villain, serf peasant, 2. shoddy, low, ugly, vile, nasty, vile, despicable, nasty – Auth.), roturier (1. commoner, 2. rude - Auth.), etc. There was no case, and there was no virtue, there were no merits that would equal a distinguished commoner with Aristocrat. There was no slavery, and there was no even oppression of the law. But in the customs, opinions, feelings deep hate and insecurity. THE TRACES OF THE CONQUEST were obvious and WARM ... This is a subtlety, since there is no such thing either in grammars or lexicons or statistics "[932], p.52-53.
Thus, A.S. Khomyakov directly states that according to his personal observations, in Russia of the XIX century was not yet forgotten about the bond by BLOOD OF RUSSIAN ARISTOCRACY AND RUSSIAN PEASANTS. And slaves in Russia, that is, servants, - according to the testimony of
A.S. Khomyakov, - was a separate estate that had nothing to do with the peasants. And the attitude towards them in Russia was entirely other - as to the descendants of prisoners of war, as slaves.
Moreover, in Western Europe, - asserts A. Khomyakov, on the example of France, there was an irresistible abyss between ARISTOCRACY and ALL OTHER LOCAL population. Per his
observations, the French aristocrats treated all other French AS TO THE POPULATION of the formerly occupied country.
In the representation of the French aristocracy of that time, the gulf between the nobility and the "natives" did not disappear, even if an ordinary Frenchman, that is, not an aristocrat, turned out, be the will of destiny, to be equal with an aristocrat on the public staircase. A.S. Khomyakov
explains this by the fact that the West European aristocracy are the descendants of the conquerors who came to Europe from the outside, i.e., apparently, (according to our hypothesis) Slavic conquerors of the XIV century.
While in Russia the Russian aristocracy originated from the Russian community itself that is, from the Russian peasantry. In this, according to the observation of A.S. Khomyakov, - the fundamental difference between the Russian populace of that time from Western Europe. Of course, all such considerations, as rightly notes A.S. Khomyakov himself, are somewhat subtle since they relate to the NON-WRITTEN laws of society. However, sometimes harder than written ones.
Moreover, we can not but note the excellent matching of observation A.S. Khomyakova with our reconstruction. In the distant foggy past of THE FOURTEENS CENTURY, Russian Horde conquers and colonizes many underdeveloped regions of Eurasia and Africa, including the sparsely populated Western Europe. Having broken off, the wave of conquest left here descendants of Slavic and Turkic conquerors. They, then, probably became the ancestors of the western European aristocracy of the XIIIth-XVIth centuries.
The abyss between the conquerors and the conquered remained for a long time. The conquerors mingled with the local population, but the void continued until the XIX century.
Furthermore, in Russia, there was no such precipice, because nobody conquered Russia. The estate of the Russian serfs, - testifies A.S. Khomyakov, was a separate class of descendants of soldiers taken to a metropolis from the conquered countries.
Today, the opinion of A.S. Khomyakov, highly probably, will seem very extreme. We do not undertake to judge the correctness of the observations of the Russian aristocrat of the nineteenth century. We only note that A.S.Khomyakov was not alone in this, and his opinion was not even the most extreme. So Khomyakov mentions a "sensational work Yu.I.Vėnelin "Ancient and present-day Bulgarians in the political, popular, historical and religious attitude towards Russians," Moscow, 1829-1841, Volumes 1, 2 >> [932], p.63 and 546. It turns out that «Venelin even declared Franks as SLAVS» [932], p.63.
