5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 11-16th CENTURIES.
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered Britain (and the first king of Britts).
We have analyzed above the durations of rules and suggested the conjecture that old English history is "a chronological reflection" if one period of real Byzantine history. The following question immediately arises: what about old English chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or there are some contradictions? Let us take these chronicles and let us read them once more by "fresh sight", without a priori "school" hypothesis about "great antiquity" of these sources. Now we recall to the reader well-known facts from traditional history of England (Anglia in old texts). Let us take, for example "Historia Brittonum" of Nennius, "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Galfridus calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as follows. After the end of the Trojan War and after the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero Aeneas arrived on the ship in Italy. After two or three generation his great-grandson Brutus was born ([9],p.6-7). By the way, Nennius thinks that "time distance" between Aeneas and Brutus is sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that "the distance" between Trojan war and Brutus is about several hundreds years. However, this difference is not so important for us. Then Brutus leaved Italy and arrived it Greece, where becomes the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus collects the large fleet and then his army (on the fleet) leaves Greece. After some time they landed on some "island", began the battle with local people, won the war and founded the new kingdom. This is Britain. Brutus is the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain. Today they are considered as legendary heroes, because, according to traditional chronology, these events were "in a deep past" (before Jesus Christ). Nennius tells the analogous story of Brutus (but more short). Nennius definitely states that Brutus "arrived on the island, which was called by HIS NAME, i.e., on the island Britain, then populated the island by his posterity and lived there. From this day and before now the Britain is populated" ([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the name of Brutus. Then Nennius informs us about opinion of some other authors, that "island Britain was called by the name of Britt, son of Isicion, who was the son of Alan" ([8],p.172). But according to the most widespread and authoritative version (which is quoted by Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of Brutus, who was ROMAN CONSUL (! - Auth.)" ([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of Britain was Roman consul. This statement is extremely strange and impossible from the point of view traditional Scaliger's chronology, because Rome was founded only about 753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no Rome! Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that: "The first inhabitants of this land were the Britons, who came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..." ([2],p.3). It is quite clear that here the name Armenia points out on the Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which was called Romai-Romania. Thus, as we see, the English chronicle again connects Britain and Roman-Byzantine empire. Of course, today this statement of old chronicle is declared by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary is as follows: "instead of erroneous name Armenia one should read Armorica = Brittany" ([2],p.3). However, the replacement of Armenia by Armorica does not help to traditional history: the name Armorica also can be connected with the name of Roman-Byzantine empire. Our conclusion does not change. Thus, old English chronicles state that Britain was at first conquered by Roman consul Brutus, who arrived there with a military fleet and founded the British kingdom. He became the first king of an island Britain.
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a contemporary of Julius Caesar?
It seems that the answer is quite clear. We need only to understand - when lived this remarkable Roman consul (according to traditional chronology)? It is very simple. The qualified reader already prompts to us the right answer: it was 1st century B.C. In this century we see (in modern textbook in ancient history) the well-known Roman consul Brutus - the friend and brother-in-arms of Julius Caesar. Brutus took part in many campaigns of Julius Caesar. Then Brutus betrayed Caesar - his patron and protector. We remember from our "scholar childhood" the bitter words of Caesar: "And you, Brutus", which Caesar said when Brutus struck him by the sword. As we also known, the traitorous murder of Caesar - one of the most important episode in "biography" of ancient Roman consul Brutus. It is remarkable, but the old English chronicles also speak about this episode but in a slightly different words. They state that Brutus (the first Britts' king) killed his farther. This murder is considered by chronicles as accidental, unintentional. Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow and accidentally killed "his farther" ([8],p.173). In our opinion, this is slightly distorted Roman story about murder of Julius Caesar by Brutus. Here "farther" is Caesar - former friend and protector of Brutus. Because of this terrible murder, the people expel Brutus from his native land. It was done in both stories: in Roman and in English. Brutus started on a journey. Our simple and natural conjecture is as follows: in the old English story about conquest of Britain acts Brutus - the contemporary of Julius Caesar. As we saw, this conjecture is supported by ancient documents, although they do not call directly Brutus as friend or enemy of Caesar. Indeed, all chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was conquered by Julius Caesar. Some interesting details are reported. Namely, Caesar arrived in Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted of about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of the land became a complicated problem and soon Caesar returned in Britain with the fleet consisting of 600 (!) ships. After the battle the local army of natives were defeated and Romans founded the new kingdom. Moreover, Nennius claims that Julius Caesar WAS THE FIRST ROMAN who arrived on the island Britain and conquered the kingdom and Britts ([8],p.176). Thus, if Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, and if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, then BRUTUS and JULIUS CAESAR are simply CONTEMPORARIES and brothers-in-arms. This conclusion evidently follows from old English chronicles. Let us resume these corollaries in the form of some table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brutus - the first king of Britts Julius Caesar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The first Roman arrived on 1. The first Roman arrived on
the island, conquered the land the island, conquered the
and founded the kingdom country and also founded the
kingdom
2. Arrived in Britain with great 2. Was the head of great military
military fleet fleet which invaded into the land
3. "Accidentally" killed his 3. His contemporary - Roman Brutus,
farther by arrow Caesar's friend, traitorously
killed Caesar (= "his farther-
-protector")
4. The murder of Brutus' father 4. Well-known story: the murder
by his son was predicted in of Julius Caesar was predicted
advance by prophet (see Nennius, by Roman prophet (see, for
[8],p.173) example, Plutarch
5. Afterwards Brutus was expelled 5. Romans expelled Brutus as great
from his native land (as the men traitor, because he killed Julius
who committed the murder) Caesar
6. Roman consul Brutus starts 6. Julius Caesar lived (according
the history of Britain traditional chronology) in 1st c.
B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, from the position of common sense we immediately date the epoch of the first Brutus' conquest of Britain (with his contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st century A.D. Let us note, that this our statement is not new in reality. All experts know that Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D. All experts know that Brutus was the first who conquered Britain. We simply combine these two facts and formulate the evident conclusion:
"Ancient" Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts, the first king of Britain, the "starting person" of the whole English history - is a contemporary on Julius Caesar, i.e., well-known in classical Roman history consul Brutus.
The reader qualified in ancient history can, of course recall here also the second known Brutus in Roman history, who acted allegedly about 6th c.B.C. in Rome. He expelled the Roman kings from the capital and founded the Roman republic. But this historical epoch is in reality another chronological duplicate (copy), reflection of the epoch of Julius Caesar. It was discovered in [1],[24]. Consequently, the attempt to identify the Brutus = the first king of Britts - with "another Brutus" - fails. We again come to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st century A.D. according to traditional chronology). Let us recall here, that according to chronological results, obtained in [1],[24], the epoch of Julius Caesar is in reality the duplicate (reflection) of the epoch of 12-13th cc.A.D. The reader can ask us: why we discuss in such details such evident question (the identification of Brutus - the first king of Britts - with Brutus of Caesar's epoch)? Our answer is as follows. This our statement is mortally dangerous to the traditional chronology of England (and not only England). This is the explanation why the traditional historians try to avoid any serious discussion about the assertion of English chronicles, that Brutus was Roman consul and that Britts are the descendants of Romans. In particular, the modern commentators of Nennius and Galfridus (A.S.Bobovich and M.A.Bobovich) irritatedly write: "The (medieval - Auth.) idea to deduce the origin of Britts from Romans and Trojans is not so original: already in 6th century A.D. the Frank's rulers deduced their origin from Trojans (and, in our opinion, they were right, see the discussion about this subject in [1],[24] - Auth.)" ([9],p.270). And then commentators add carefully: "There are several Brutus in Roman history". They do not continue and do not discuss this remark, and now we realize - why. If you start to analyse the "Brutus' problem", you (as we demonstrated above) will make the inevitable (and catastrophic for traditional chronology) conclusion that "English Brutus" was the contemporary of Julius Caesar. BUT WHY THIS CONCLUSION US SO DANGEROUS? At first, because in this case the so called "ancient legendary British history" is immediately moved upwards by approximately 1000-year shift in the epoch of 1-13th cc. A.D. and moreover, in 11-16th cc.A.D. Such corollary, of course, is completely unacceptable (and totally fantastic) to any modern traditional historian. But there are some another, sufficiently more dangerous corollaries. About this - our next section.
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles.
The "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis is strung on the pivot of biblical history. This means that sometimes, when speaking about the events of British history, Galfridus inserts the phrases similar to this: In Judea the prophet Samuel ruled at this time ([9],p.20). These rare phrases are scattered along the chronicle and form the rough (and very brief) skeleton of biblical history of prophets and biblical kings, which is closely interwoven with the stream of British history. But, by the way, Galfridus does not give any absolute dates. His chronology is completely relative, i.e., he tells only - in the time of which biblical kings (or prophets) were occurred some of British events. Thus, when analyzing the English chronology in a unprejudiced way, we meet the necessity to start the analysis of biblical chronology also. Let us do it and we will see what we will obtain. The evident identification of "English Brutus" with well-known Brutus from the epoch of Julius Caesar, is impossible for traditional historian because in this case the whole biblical chronology is automatically moved from its traditional place (in time) upwards by about at least 1000-year shift ! In reality this shift will be sufficiently more: about 1800 years! See [1],[24]. Indeed, if "English Brutus" (the forefather of Britts) is placed in 1st century B.C., then, according to the "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis, ALL BASIC EVENTS OF BIBLICAL HISTORY should be distributed on time axis from 11 century A.D. until 17th century A.D. (see [34],[35],[36],[37]). Here we mean: the history of all biblical prophets, the history of the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel et cetera. On the face of it, such conclusion is completely impossible! Traditionally, biblical history is dated from 11th century B.C. until 1st century A.D. But if we will wait a little and will try nevertheless to place ancient biblical history on the interval from 11 century A.D. until 17th century A.D. - what we obtain? It turns out that this procedure does not lead to the contradiction with ancient evidences of ancient texts. We suggest to the reader to take the books of Fomenko [1],[24],[34],[35], where you can find the details. Here we demonstrate only one, but remarkable example.
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way? Problem of vowels restoration.
In the attempt to read and date the most of the ancient manuscripts (ancient Egyptian, ancient Slavonic, biblical et cetera) certain basic problems are frequently encountered. As soon as J.Sunderland started investigating the original language of the Old Testament, he, in his words, "...faced the fact of enormous and even startling importance. The thing is that the Jewish written language originally had neither vowels nor signs replacing them. The books of the Old Testament were written only with consonants" ([16], p. 155). This is also typical for other languages. For example, an ancient Slavonic text was a chain of only consonants, too; sometimes even without signs replacing the vowels, or without division into words. Old Egyptian texts were also written in consonants only. According to well-known chronologist E.Bickerman, "...the names of Egyptian kings are given in contemporary literature schematically, in a quite arbitrary, so-called scholastic manner adopted in school textbooks. These forms are often greatly different from each other; it is impossible to order them somehow, due to their arbitrary reading (! - Authors.) which became traditional" ([17], p.176). Probably, the rarity and high cost of writing materials in ancient times made the scribes save them, and omit the vowels, thereby essentially shortening the text. J.Sunderland continues: "However, if we take the Jewish Bible or a manuscript today, we shall find in them the skeleton of vowels filled with dots and other signs denoting the missing vowels. These signs did not belong to the old Jewish Bible. The books were read by consonants, and the intervals were filled with vowels according to one's skill and the apparent requirements of the context and oral legends" ([16], p. 155). Imagine how exact the meaning of a word written in consonants can be if, for example, CLN can mean clean, clan, colon, and so forth. According to T.Curtis, even for the priests, the content of manuscripts remained extremely doubtful and could be understood only by means of the authority of the legend ([16], p. 155). It is assumed that this serious short-coming of the Jewish Bible had been eliminated not earlier that the 7th or 8th century A.D., when the Massoretes revised the Bible and added signs replacing the vowels; but they had no manuals, except their own reason, and a very imperfect legendary tradition ([16], p. 156-157). Well-known expert S.Driver adds that, since the times of the Massoretes in the 7th-8th century A.D., the Jews have taken to keeping their sacred books with extraordinary care, but then it was too late to repair the damage already done. The result of such attentiveness was just the immortalization of the distortions, which were then placed on exactly the same level of authority with the original text ([16], p.157). J.Sunderland: "The opinion reigning earlier was that the vowels had been introduced into the Jewish text by Ezra in the 5th century A.D. But in the 16th and 17th century, E.Levita and J.Capellus in France refuted this opinion and proved that th vowels had been introduced only by the Massoretes. The discovery created a sensation in the whole of Protestant Europe. Many people believed that the new theory would lead to disproving the religion completely. If the vowels were not a matter of Divine Revelation, but only a human invention, besides, a much later one, then how could we rely on the text of the Scripture? This discussion was one of the hottest in the history of the new biblical criticism and proceeded for more than a century, stopping only when the validity of the new point of view was acknowledged by everyone" ([16], p. 157-158).
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events.
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical localizations.
Even if the vowels of common words are not that important (you can easily reconstruct a well-known word from the context), the situation changes completely when combination of consonants meaning a city, country, the name of a king, etc., appears in an ancient text. Tens and hundreds of different variants of vowels for one term (word) may be found, stating the "identifications" of the biblical vowel-free names of cities, countries, and others, made by traditional historians proceeding from the chronological (and geographical) version of J.Scaliger and the localization referring the biblical events to the Near East. As the archaeologist M.Burrows notes, the archaeological job generally leads to the undoubtedly strongest creed in the reliability of biblical information (cit.from [18], p. 16). F.Kenyon of the British Museum insists as much categorically on archaeology refuting the "destructive skepticism of the second half of the 19th century" [18]. But here is unexpected information reported by the well-known archaeologist G.Wright, who, by the way, is a staunch partisan of the correctness of orthodox localization and of traditional dating biblical events. He wrote, "A great many findings do not prove or disprove anything; they fill the background and only serve as historical artifacts. Unfortunately, the desire "to prove" the Bible permeates many works available to the average reader. Historical evidences may be used in an incorrect manner, whereas the conclusions dawn are often erroneous and only half correct" ([18], p. 17). If we attentively examine the fundamental facts about the Bible discovered by N.A.Morozov [19], then we shall see that none of the books of the Old Testament contain any solid archaeological confirmation of their traditional geographical and time localization. As I.A.Kryvelev noted, the whole "Mesopotamian" biblical theory will be questioned. The traditional localization of the events described in the New Testament is no better. I.A.Kryvelev many years studied the biblical geography and chronology. He wrote, "The reader interested in biblical archaeology may be bewildered by the hundreds of pages speaking of excavations, landscapes, or artifacts, historical and biblical background. And, in the conclusion, when it comes to the results of the whole job, there are only a number of indistinct and imprecise statements about the problem not having been completely solved, but that there is still hope for the future, and so forth. We may be absolutely sure that none of the stories of the New Testament contains any somewhat convincing archaeological confirmation (in terms of the traditional localizations - Authors). This is perfectly true, in particular, if applied to the figure and biography of Jesus Christ. Not a single spot traditionally regarded as the arena of a particular event occurring in the New Testament can be indicated with the slightest degree of confidence" ([18], p. 200-201). The natural question arises: where the events of Old and New Testaments were geographically located in reality?
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
In reality, considerable difficulties accompany the attempts of geographical localization of many of the ancient events and cities (not only from the Bible). For example, one of the accepted today traditional localizations of the famous city of Troy is near the Hellespont (= the sea of Helen). It is for this particular reason that Schliemann ascribed the famous name of Troy (described by Homer) to the rests of a small ancient village he excavated near the Hellespont. It is well known that today we have not any proofs of this "identification". It is assumed today, that according to traditional chronology, Troy was completely destroyed in the 12-13th century B.C. and after this was never reconstructed [17]. But, it turns out, that in the Middle Ages, Italian city Troy, which still exists today [1],[24], enjoyed widespread fame. This is celebrated medieval city which played an important role in many medieval wars; especially, in the well-known war of the 13th century. Many Byzantine historians also speak of Homer's Troy as of an existing medieval city, namely, Choniates Nicetas and Gregoras Nicephoras ([20], v. 6, p. 126). T.Livy indicates the spot named Troy and the Trojan region in Italy (Book.1). Certain medieval historians identified Troy with Jerusalem (see, for example, [21],p.88,235,162,207), which embarrasses the modern commentators: "The book of Homer somewhat suddenly turned (in the medieval chronicle, while describing Alexander's expedition to Troy - Authors)... into the book on the destruction of Jerusalem" ([21], p. 162). Let us recall that the second (well-known) name of Troy is Ilion, whereas the second name of Jerusalem is Aelia Capitolina ([19], v. 7). It is absolutely clear that in the names of these cities there is a similarity: Aelia = Ilion.
The books [1] and [2] contains the data and arguments which allow to assume that Homer's Troy is the Czar-Grad (Constantinople = New Rome), and that the Trojan War is the reflection of crusades which started from 13th c.A.D. The Constantinople was captured during crusades. Besides this, some part of the legend on Trojan War is the reflection of a real medieval war from the middle of 13th c.A.D. in Italy. The Italian city Troy was also involved in this war (see [1]). The identification of the Great Troy with Constantinople follows also from the texts of crusades epoch. The chronicler Rober de Clari told that the Great Troy was located near the entrance into the "branchium Sancti Georgii" ([25],p.210). It is supposed today that this is the Dardanelles. From the other hand it is also known that another famous chronicler of the 4th crusade - Villehardouin - calls as "branchium Sancti Georgii" not only the Dardanelles but also the Bosporus! M.A.Zaborov (modern historian) notes: "Villehardouin applies the name "branchium Sancti Georgii" to the Dardanelles and to the Bosporus" ([25],p.238). Thus, the Great Troy can located also near the entrance into the Bosporus. But here we see the Constantinople! Consequently, it was completely unnecessary to search the "rests" of the Troy on a desert hills as Schliemann done. Our conjecture: the Trojan War is the reflection of the one or several crusades on the Constantinople or on Italian Troy. The well-known medieval "Novel on the Troy" of Benoit de Sainte-Maure ("Roman de Troie") was finished allegedly between 1155 and 1160 A.D. "The source of this novel is the "History of Troy destruction" written by some Dares, who was allegedly the eyewitness of Trojan War (possibly, he was one of the crusaders - Auth.). Benoit looks in the antiquity through the prism of his epoch and his reality... In his basis is the ancient Greek epos, but its personages and heroes are transformed into noble knights and beautiful ladies, and the Trojan War itself is transformed into the sequence of knight's duels... Ancient Medea is represented in his chronicle as courtier lady, whose clothing is exactly the same as the clothing of the lady of her social level in medieval France of the middle of 12th century"([10],p.235). We suggest to read the old chronicles "in direct way", without some special complex interpretations; we need to read "what is written" and not "what should be written". In this case we are forced to agree that Benoit de Sainte-Maure describes the Trojan War as the event from medieval epoch.
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
Let us return to the Bible. Many strange phenomena occur in an unprejudiced analysis of biblical geography (see also detailed Morozov's analysis in [19]). That many biblical texts describe volcanic activity has been stressed in history long ago. Let us take the Bible. The Lord said to Moses, "I am now coming to you in a thick cloud... But when the ram's horn sounds (when the cloud leaves Mount Sinai - Authors), they may go up the mountain'... there were peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, a dense cloud on the mountain and a loud trumpet blast... Mount Sinai was all smoking because the Lord had come down upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln... and the sound of the trumpet grew ever louder" (Ex. 19:9, 13, 16, 18). And then: All the people saw how it thundered and the lightning flashed, when they heard the trumpet sound and saw the mountain smoking..." (Ex.20:18). "You stood... at Horeb... THe mountain was ablaze with fire to the very skies: there was darkness, cloud, and thick mist. And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire " (Dt. 4:10-12). The destruction of biblical cities Sodom and Gomorrah has long been regarded in history to have been due to a volcanic eruption. For example: "And then the Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah... He saw thick smoke rising high from the earth like the smoke of a like-kiln" (Gn.19:24,28). And so on. The complete list of all apparent volcanic eruptions mentioned in the Bible was compiled by V.P.Fomenko and T.G.Fomenko (see [1],[24]). To associate (as is done traditionally) all these descriptions with Mn. Sinai = Mn. Horeb (and Jerusalem in traditional Palestine) seems doubtful; it is generally known that it has never been a volcano. Where did the events occur then? It suffices to study the geological map of the Mediterranean area to obtain immediately the unique answer. There are no acting volcanoes in the Sinai peninsula, Syria, or Palestine; there are only zones of tertiary and quaternary volcanism, as, for example, near Paris. In the above-mentioned regions, where the biblical events are traditionally located, no volcanic activity has been discovered in historical epoch since the birth of Christ. Besides, Egypt and North Africa have no volcanoes. The only powerful, and by the way, acting volcanic zone, is Italy together with Sicily. Thus, according to the Bible, we have to find
1) a powerful volcano active in the historical era; 2) a destroyed capital (see the book of the Prophet Jeremiah) near the volcano; 3) two other cities destroyed by the volcano, namely, Sodom and Gomorrah.
There exists such a volcano in the Mediterranean, and it is unique, namely the famous Vesuvius, one of the most powerful volcanoes in history. Famed Pompeii (biblical "capital"?) and two destroyed cities Stabiae (Sodom?) and Herculaneum (Gomorrah?) are located nearby. We cannot but mention a certain similarity in the names of these Italian and biblical towns. It is possible that the name of Sinai for Vesuvius originates from the Latin Sino (sinus), and biblical Horeb from the Latin horribilis (horrible). The following analytic study worth mentioning, which permits to read the vowel-free text of the Bible, was performed by Morozov in [19]. It took into account placing Mt.Sinai=Horeb=Sion in Italy. We illustrate by several examples.
The Bible speaks: "The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and said, "You have stayed on this mountain long enough; go now, make for all KNN (Canaan)..." (Dt.1:6-7). The theologians supply the Hebrew KNN with vowels Canaan and place it in the desert on the Dead Sea coast, but another solution is also possible, namely, KNN = GENUA (Italian Genoa).
The Bible continues: "All KNN (Canaan) and the LBN (Lebanon)..." (Dt. 1:7). The theologians restore the Hebrew LBN with vowels as Lebanon; however lebanon means "white", i.e., the same as Mont Blanc, or White Mountain. Famous mountain in Europe.
"As far as the great river, the PRT" (Dt. 1:7). The theologians restore PRT with vowels and decipher is as Euphrates; but, there is the large tributary of the Danube, the Prut, located in central Europe, as beyond Mont Blanc.
"Then we set out from Horeb... and marched through that vast and terrible wilderness" (Dt. 1:19). In fact, the famous Phlegraei, vast and burnt-out spaces filled with small volcanoes, fumaroles, and solidified lava streams are located near Vesuvius=Horeb.
"And so we came to KDS-BRN" (Dt. 1:19). KDS-BRN is traditionally supplied with vowels as Kadesh-Barnea, which is, from the other hand, possibly, a town on the Rhone ([19], v. 2, p. 166). It is also possible that modern Geneva was meant as "town on the Rhone".
"And we spent many days marching round the hill-country of Seir" (Dt. 2:1). Mount Seir was left here without translation; however, if it is translated, we obtain Devil's Mountain(s). And there is such a mountain near Lake Geneva, namely Le Diableret ("Devil's Mountain").
Then, the "Children of Lot" (Dt. 2:9) met on the way can be evidently identified with the Latins ( = LT).
"And cross the gorge of the Arnon" (Dt. 2:24). In the canonical translation we see Arnon (RNN). But,this is the Italian river Arno existing up to now!
"Next we... advances... to Bashan" (Dt. 3:1). The town Bashan (Bassan) is often mentioned in the Bible. It is surprising that town Bassano still exists in Lombardy.
"King of Bashan... came out against us at Edrei" (Dt.3:1). Adria is still here, on the Po delta; the Po, by the way, has often been mentioned by ancient Latin authors (e.g., Procopius) and called the Jordan (in Procopius' Eridanus), which is very consistent with the biblical spelling of the Jordan, namely hay-yarden (JRDN) ([19], v. 2, p. 167).
"And we captured all his cities... sixty cities..."(Dt. 3:3-4). Indeed, in the Middle Ages, there were many big cities in the region: Verona, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and others.
"From the gorge of the Arnon to Mount Hermon (HRMN)" (Dt. 3:8). But it is obvious that MNT HRMN can be supplied with vowels to be translated as the "German mountains".
"Only the Og king of Bashan remained... His sarcophagus of iron may still be seen in the... city of Rabbah" (Dt. 3:11). Here is mentioned not only Ravenna (=Rabbah), but also the famous tomb of Theodoric (493-526 A.D.) of the Ostrogoths (Og = Goths?). It is clear that biblical OG means possible GOTH.
There follows TBRN (Taberiah in traditional biblical translation), which is naturally identified with the Tiber in Italy; ZN is Siena, southeast of Livorno. The slopes of Monte Viso are called Jebus (Jgs. 19:10-11) in the Bible, and Rome is called Ramah (Jgs. 19:14).
And so on. As we see, the shift of some biblical events from "the deep antiquity" in the medieval epoch does not contradict with the ancient text of the Bible (without vowels). Thus, now we can continue our analysis of English history.
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and England were located on islands?
The fact that modern England is located on the island, does not surprise us. But Russia!? There are no geographical reasons to think that Russia is the island! But nevertheless, for example the well-known chronicler Benoit de Sainte-Maure in his "Chronicle of the dukes of Normandy" [22] speaks, that "There exists an ISLAND called Cansie (or Canzie), and I think that this is Rosie (in another copy of the manuscript - Russie - Auth.), which is surrounded by the great salty sea. And they (the people of Russie - Auth.) fly out as great swarm of bees, and their number is thousands; and they... can attack the great kingdoms and take the great procurement and they can win and conquer". Here the original text: "Une isle i a par non Cancie (Canzie in manuscript B - see [10],p.240), e si crei bien que c'est Rosie (Russie in manuscript B, see [10],p.240), qui est de la grant mer salee de totes parz avironnee. Dunc autresi com les euetes de lor diverses maisonnetes gitent essains granz e pleners, ou moct a nombres e millers, ou com de ceus qui sunt irie' sunt en estor glaive sachie', tost e isnel d'ire esbrasez, trestot eissi e plus assez seuct icil poples fors eissir por les granz rennes envair e por faire les granz ocises, les granz gaaiz e les conquises."
Russia is called here Rosie or Russie. If we look in the table of medieval names, titles and their duplicates (see above), we will see that here the chronicler really speaks about Russia. V.I.Matuzova (who included this text in her book "English Medieval Texts") comments this fragment as follows: "Rosie is Russia. The report that Russia is an ISLAND is similar to another such reports..."([10],p.244). And then Matuzova quotes another medieval authors who were confident that Russia is an ISLAND (in particular, some Arabian and Persian chroniclers; but, by the way, it is not so clear - where they lived in reality, may be in Spain?). It is supposed sometimes today that Cancie is Scandinavia. But Scandinavia also is not an island! By the way, the "Chronicle of Monastery of Saint Edmund" (supposedly 13th c. A.D.) is also convinced that Russia is located on an island, because reports that Tartars rushed on Hungary FROM ISLANDS ([30], and also [10],p.100-101). How we can explain it? The simplest way - to accuse the authors of supposedly 12th century that they were completely ignorant (this is the standard explanation in modern historical textbooks and this idea allows to the modern historians simply to "close the problem"). But another explanation is also possible. English word island means today the piece of land surrounded by a sea. But may be in the medieval epoch this word had also another meaning? Our conjecture: it was Asia-Land, i.e., the Land located in Asia. Without vowels we have: asialand = SLND, and island = SLND. This is the same word! Then all things immediately fit in their "correct places". Russia really can be considered (from the Western point of view) as far Asian Land = island. Large part of Russia belongs to the Asia. Consequently, medieval chroniclers were quite right when we talked about Island Russia. They were not so ignorant as it is supposed today. Let us repeat once more our conjecture: the word island had two meanings in the past: piece of land surrounded by a sea, and Asia-Land. But in this case the natural question arises (as the flash). If the ancient English authors speaking about island Russia, assumed that they speak about Asia-Land Russia, then we do not see any obstacles to assume that when they told bout island Anglia, they also speak about Asia-Land Anglia. And only after this, in a new epoch, the word island Anglia become to be considered only as island Anglia in a modern sense (piece of land surrounded by sea). We saw the remarkable parallel between English history and Byzantine/Russian (Horde) history. But Byzantine/Mongolian Empire really was Asia-Land for Western chroniclers. And only in the next epoch (when Byzantine/Mongolian chronicles were transported in England and were inserted into "old" English history) the Asia-Land Anglia was transformed into Island Anglia. Thus, were was located the land Anglia-Britain in 11-13th cc. A.D.? This is complicated question. To get the answer we have unique way - to take the old English chronicles. Our answer will be as follows: Anglia-Britain of 11-13th cc.A.D. was Byzantine/Mongolian Empire.
------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
On the face of it, the answer on this absurd question is completely evident: on the same place where England-Britain is located today. But let us not to hurry. Let us recall after "accidental murder of his father", Brutus was expelled from Italy. He went to the Greece ([9],p.7). Here Brutus fixed the ancient relationship and he was staying among Trojans ([9],p.7). The period of wars in Greece started at this time. These wars are described by Galfridus in many details. Then Brutus organized the army and fleet and after this started the campaign-cruise. It is supposed today that his fleet went in Atlantic ocean and then arrived in modern England. Is it true? May be the chronicles describe in reality the military operations inside Mediterranean sea and on the territory of Greece and Byzantine Empire? For example, Brutus' army arrived in Sparatin. Modern commentary: "Location is unknown" ([9],p.230). Of course, you cannot find Sparatin if you assume that Brutus travel far from Mediterranean sea. But if these events occurred in Greece, then you do not need to search Sparatin, because this is well-known Sparta. Then Galfridus describes the path of Brutus' fleet which is considered today as a "proof" that Brutus really went in Atlantic and then arrived in modern England. But we see suddenly from modern comments that it turns out that Galfridus "repeat the mistake containing in his source - namely, in "Historia Brittonum" of Nennius, who made the mistake because of erroneous reading of Orosius' chronicle..."([9],p.231). Moreover, then it turns out that "following to Nennius, Galfridus ERRONEOUSLY placed Tyrrhenian Sea BEHIND Gibraltar. We recall that Tyrrhenian Sea is BEFORE Gibraltar because is a part of Mediterranean Sea near Western coast of Italy" ([9],p.231). But we are sure that here - no mistake! Galfridus was right because he describes in reality some complicated military movements INSIDE Mediterranean Sea, in particular, near Italy, where you can see Tyrrhenian Sea. Brutus' fleet did not pass in the Atlantic Ocean! Modern historians try to accuse Galfridus (and other chroniclers) in some "mistakes" only because historians try to adjust their modern "traditional" chronological and geographical concepts with real evidences of real medieval texts. Of course, a lot of contradictions appear. All these contradictions are considered today as "the fault of medieval authors". Then Galfridus describes the battle between Brutus' army and Greeks on the Akalon (Acalon) river ([9],p.8). The modern commentary is as follows: "This name is, possibly, the fantasy of Galfridus... E.Pharal is his book formulated the idea that this description of Greek's defeat during the battle with Trojans near Acalon river, was taken by Galfridus from the story of Etien de Blua about the defeat of TURKS during the battle with CRUSADERS near "Moscolo" river at March 1098 A.D." ([9],p.230). Consequently, here we can penetrate through the thick cover of traditional plaster into the real contents of the Galfridus chronicle. He describes in reality (following to some old documents) the epoch of the First Crusade in the end of 11th c.A.D. in Byzantine Empire. Thus, we can assume that Brutus' campaign = Julius Caesar's campaign is the reflection of well-known crusade in the end of supposedly 11th c.A.D. The conquest of Britain is shifted from the 1st c.B.C. into the supposedly 11th c.A.D. (about 1000-year shift !). This fact confirms the discovered parallel ("identification") between Roman-Byzantine-Mongolian history of 11-16th cc.A.D. and old English history starting, allegedly, in 1st c.B.C. See above.
After some time they (Brutus' fleet) arrived to "the island which was called Albion" ([9],p.17). Modern commentary: Albion = Al'bania - one of the early (old) names of Britain or the part of it, which was appeared in ancient sources" ([9],p.232). When speaking about Britain, Galfridus very often uses its second equivalent name: Al'bania ([9],p.19). Thus, Britain = Al'bania. Let us refuse now to follow the traditional historical version which identifies persistently the Anglia of 11-13th cc. A.D. with the modern island. Then we immediately recognize the modern name Albania (located on the territory of medieval Byzantine Empire) in this Galfridus' term Al'bania. Thus, Galfridus places the medieval Britain on the territory of medieval Byzantine Empire. The name Albania or Al'bania was slightly transformed into Albion later (occasionally or, possible, deliberately), when somebody decided to erase the evident traces of Byzantine origin of the old English chronicles.
