5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 11-16th CENTURIES.
5.15. William I the Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066 A.D. The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.
5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine Empire have the same origin.
Because luck of space, we have listed above only a few "identification of events" between English and Byzantine history. But it is impossible to finish the paper without mentioning one more interesting parallel (identification):
the English war of William I the Conqueror (about 1066 A.D. in traditional chronology) is the reflection of the 4th Byzantine crusade (supposedly about 1204 A.D.).
We describe this parallel very briefly and hope that statisticians and historians can continue this work. As we saw above in the Fig.1b (representing the dynastic parallel between English and Byzantine history), the epoch of 4th crusade supposedly 1204 A.D. is statistically identified exactly with epoch of William I.
5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story.
Briefly speaking, the classical history of William (in traditional version) is as follows (see, for example, [7],p.343). His full name is : duke William I of Normandy, the Bastard, Conqueror. See ([2],p.197; or [7]). Edward "The Confessor" died supposedly in 1066 A.D. without sons. One of his dukes Harold II "Godwinson", king of Norway, king of English; (see [2],p.196,197), was extremely powerful, took the kingdom and nobody objected (all others were agreed to see Harold as new king). But after some time appeared William the Bastard, duke of Normandy and started to claim the throne. William said that Edward fixed him as his successor (suggested the throne). William addressed to Roman pope and succeeded in attraction of the pope on his side. Then William sent ambassadors in Germany and France asking for a help and support. As a result, William collected "a great army consisting of adventurers who came from France, Flandria, Bretan, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Apulia, Sicily... They collected for the robbery of England" ([7],p.343). William (Wilhelm) organized the large fleet for invasion into England. It is interesting that in Baye there exists the large ancient carpet (70 meters long and 50 centimeters wide) of 11th century, representing the fleet of William Conqueror. This carpet contains about 1255 images of different persons and objects. While William waited the fair wind, the Norwegians landed in the mouth of Humber river under leadership of Tostig (brother of Harold). Harold went to the enemies and defeated Tostig near York. But at the same day on a free coast the huge army of Normans was landed (near Pevensey). In spite of his wounds, Harold turned fast his army in back direction. He hurried to started the battle without waiting the reinforcement. The violent battle was happened near Hastings. Harold army was defeated and he was killed. "This victory was one of the most important in the history. The whole England was conquered by duke of Normandy (William - Auth.) who was crowned in London" ([7],p.344). The church anointment transformed William into real and legitimate king. He begins the terror, many people were declared as traitors, the landed property was confiscated. The reaction was immediate - revolts. But William suppressed all riots with extreme cruelty. His rule is considered today as very important for English history, this is "turning point", many pages of chronicles are devoted to William (see, for example, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). William starts the Norman dynasty (dynasty from Normandy) in England. The dynasty lasts until 1154 A.D. and then is replaced by new Anjou dynasty.
5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's Conquest.
Let us recall now the traditional version of this important event following, for example, to [11]. The 4th crusade supposedly 1202-1204 A.D. was started with the call of Roman pope Innocent II. The campaign was finished by the conquest of Constantinople and complete change of ruling dynasty in Byzantine empire. The forth crusade is considered today as one of the most important events in European history. There are many survived documents and literary sources about this crusade, which were written, allegedly, by the direct participants of crusade (see below). Crusaders asked Venice to give them the fleet. And very soon the huge fleet with army came to the Constantinople. "The ground was the appeal of Byzantine prince Alexey to the pope and to the German emperor with asking the help. Alexey was the son of the Byzantine emperor Isaac II the Angelus, who was dethroned in 1195 A.D." ([11],p.209). Crusaders were supported by feudals of France and German empire. Roman pope also helped to crusaders. From the other hand he "forbid" them (but only verbal) to harm the Christian regions. "Thus, all powerful political parties of the medieval Europe pushed the crusaders to the conquest of Byzantine empire" ([11],p.209). It was created the special Council consisting of several noble leaders. The formal leader of crusade was Boniface Monferratio. But the head of the Council of crusade was well-known marshal Geoffroy de Villehardouin. He was "distinguished and well-known politician of crusade, he took part in all important diplomatic actions" ([15],p.125). When today somebody speaks about 4th crusade, then the first person which is immediately mentioned, is Villehardouin. He is supposed today as the author of well-known chronicle "La Conqueste de Constantinople" [26] (see details in [25]). The conjecture is that he dictated these chronicle in the end of his life. Crusaders besieged the Constantinople in 1204 A.D. and restored on the throne the emperor Isaac II the Angelus. But cannot pay them the whole amount of money which he promised for their support. Enraged crusaders captured the capital in 1204 A.D. and violently plundered the town. The large part of the city was burned, the famous temple of Saint Sofia was also plundered and its great treasures were disappeared (according to legend were transported somewhere). Crusaders founded in Constantinople the new state - Latin empire (1204-1261). Thus, the last period of Byzantine history began in 1204 A.D. This epoch was named above as Byzantine empire No. 3. The new Greek (Byzantine) dynasty starts from Theodore I Lascaris (1204-1222). His coming to the power is a direct result of 4th crusade, of the war and conquest of Constantinople.
5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from Byzantine and English chronicles
England (about 1066 A.D.) Byzantine empire (about 1204 A.D.)
__________________________________________________________________
1. Big war in England, which was 1. Well-known war - 4th crusade
the "turning point" in the whole of 1202-1204 A.D. One of the most
English history (1066 A.D.) important events in Byzantine
history
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In 1066 A.D. begins the 2. In 1204 begins the new Latin
Normans invasion into Anglia, empire (in the part of Byzantine
which lasts until 1154 A.D. empire), and also begins the
new Nicaea empire
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Normandian dynasty ends in 3. Latin empire ends in 1261 A.D.,
1154 A.D., i.e., lasts about 88 i.e., lasts about 60 years
years
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear from the Fig.1b, that both dynasty (and corresponding
empires) are "very similar" and become "parallel" under rigid
chronological 100 (or 120)-year shift. This shift "identifies"
the Byzantine epoch of 1204-1453 A.D. and Anglia epoch of 1066--
-1327 A.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The center of these events - 4. The center of these events -
the English capital = London Constantinople = the capital of
and its neighborhoods Byzantine empire
------------------------------------------------------------------
The identification of London of 10-12th cc. with Constantinople was
obtained above. Consequently, we see that these two cities again
appear simultaneously inside a new chronological parallel.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Harold II - English king - 5. Isaac II Angelus - Byzantine
rules as legitimate heir. Harold emperor. He rules as legitimate
is considered as Anglo-Saxon king of the empire
king ([11],p.244)
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. He ruled about 9 months (no 6. He ruled about 1 year: 1203-
more that 1 year). This is - -1204 A.D. This is his second rule
"the Second Harold". "The First on emperor throne. The first time
Harold" (Harefoot) ruled before: it was in 1185-1195 A.D. As we
1036-1039. The periods of rule noted above, his first rule was
for Harold II and Isaac II possible reflected in English
(about 1 year) coincide history as the rule of Harold I
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Number II in the title 7. Number II in the title of
of Harold II Isaac II
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. "Anglo-Saxon" = Angelus SX 8. "Angelus Isaac" = Angelus SC
(Sax) or Angelus SC (SK)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Practically the same titles included in the complete name. About
the name Harold we will speak later
------------------------------------------------------------------
9. William I (1066-1087) - 9. Theodore (Tudor ?) I Lascaris
English king, beginning the new (1204-1222) - Byzantine emperor.
dynasty. He ruled 21 years. Both He ruled 18 years and he also
rulers has the same number I in started a new dynasty. Sometimes
their dynastic streams as the 1st year of his rule is
considered 1208 A.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is likely that English name Tudor (royal family that ruled
England 1485-1603) is the variant of Byzantine name Theodore.
William accedes to the English throne as a result of the
war. The story of Theodore Lascaris is similar - he accedes the
Byzantine throne during the violent epoch of 4th crusade. It
turns out that in the beginning of written political biography of
William I were also inserted the facts from the life of
Villehardouin - the well-known person of crusade's epoch, who
acts in the beginning of the political biography of Theodore
Lascaris.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William the Conqueror - as 10. Villehardouin - the head of
enemy of Harold - begins the crusaders Council - the enemy of
campaign against Harold to take Isaac II Angelus. Villehardouin
the power and throne. He invaded is, of course, the Conqueror, who
into England from outside as the invades from outside in Byzantine
"enemy force" with great army empire with a great army (with
others leaders of crusaders)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us comment the possible similarity and identification of the names of these historical personages. It is quite clear that impossible to expect and to find here the EXACT identity of the names. (In the case of exact identity, the traditional historians certainly can identify the corresponding events). But here, in our case, we compare two groups of chronicles, which were written about the same event, but in different languages, inside different historical schools, and, possible, in different geographical regions. It is likely, that the authors of both versions (created in 16-17th cc.) were not the eyewitnesses of this war. Each of them was based on some old documents surviving from the 13th century. These documents were written in a brief manner, without vowels, in primitive old language and it was extremely complicated to understand their sense and meaning. The later chroniclers of 16-17th cc. tried to reconstruct the real picture of ancient events basing on these old texts. During this restoration the individual fragments of the ancient names sometimes were mixed, sometimes go from one name to another an so on.
In our case we have: William the Conqueror and Anglo-Sax (Saxon) Harold II from one side, and Villehardouin and Angelus Isaac II, from another side (in Byzantine version). It is clear, that William is similar to Ville, and Harold - to Hardouin. As`a result, we obtain the following table:
| William --- Villi Conqueror --- Conqueror Normandy --- Roman (?) Harold --- Hardouin number II --- number II Anglo-Sax --- Angel Isaac. |
It is hard to doubt that here we see the reflection and duplication of the same real ancient names, but distorted after filtration through the language of different chroniclers (of different historical schools). Of course, these "linguistic parallels" cannot serve as serious arguments. Nevertheless, the simultaneous appearance of extremely similar names in the left and in the right columns of the table points out on some important effect, because (let us recall) we compare two historical streams using the rigid chronological shift, and the discovered parallel lasts already several hundreds years!
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The war begins from the 11. Crusaders arrived in Byzantine
invasion of large military fleet empire on the fleet and landed
and from the landing of the army on the coast of empire
on the coast of the country
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Roman pope supported the 12. Roman pope agreed with crusade
invasion (but wordly, "asked to spare" the
Christian relics
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Appeal of William to the 13. Appeal of Villehardouin to
kings of Europe for the help. As the ambassadors of different
a result, his army was collected European countries ([25],p.160).
from the people of different 4th crusade was an "international
nations (see above) and is action": the army was consisted
characterized as "the crowd of of French, Germans, Italians and
adventurers" many others
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary. By the way, the medieval sources of 4th crusade constantly repeat that it was "march on the Babylon" ([25],p.161) (!). But, according to conjecture of traditional historians (belonging to the Scaliger's chronological school), the Babylon was completely destroyed many hundreds years ago and was not restored after this fall. Contradiction! The modern commentators try to find "the solution" (of this unpleasant problem) in the following way: "Here is meant (by the name of Babylon - Auth.) the Egyptian town Cairo, which was called in the West as Babylon" ([25],p.161). From the other hand, as we already know, Cairo - Cair = CR (without vowels) means simply "city", "town" in Britts language and is the evident variation of the name "King Town" = "Tzar Town" = "ZR Town" = "CR Town", i.e. CONSTANTINOPLE, which was called (it is well known !) also as Tzar-Grad = Tzar-Town = CR-Town. But it is exactly the goal of crusaders - to capture Constantinople. Thus, we see that medieval chronicles called Constantinople also as Babylon! The another confirmation of this identification see in [1].
-----------------------------------------------------------------
14. Death of Harold II in this 14. Death of Isaac II the Angelus
war during the war ([15],p.164)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the end of our analysis, let us note one interesting identification. Morozov in [19] obtained an astronomical dating for the horoscope described in the well-known biblical book Revelation (Apocalypse). See details in [19] or [24]. He suggested three astronomical solutions: 395 A.D., 1249 A.D. and 1486 A.D. But he rejected the solutions 1249 and 1486 as "too late". Our analysis shows that the solution 1486 A.D. is really the best, and is the unique correct astronomical solution on the whole historical time-axis. It is supposed today that this book predicts the Doomsday, Day of Judgment, and is based on the old text which was written by John - the pupil of Jesus Christ - somewhere in Roman Empire. This book effected the great impression among the population of empire. Now let us note that the difference between the date 1486 A.D. and the end of 11th century A.D. is about 400 years, which is equal to one of the chronological shifts discovered in "Scaliger's historical textbook".
Consequently, it is natural to expect that in old English chronicles, which (as we see) reflect the events from Byzantine/Mongolian empire, will be mentioned some "book about Doomsday, Day of Judgment", possible, in the epoch of William I. It is remarkable, that this our prediction is confirmed in a very clear form. In any textbook in English history of this epoch you can find the separate chapter or section with the title something like: "The Book of Doomsday". For example, the chapter with exactly this title exists in the textbook [11]. In the monograph [7] you also can see the section with the title "Domesday Book". Of course, today historians try to assure us that this is not the Apocalypse Book, but quite different, another book - the general land-book which registered the land property in the medieval England of this time and was created as a result of general census in supposedly 1086 A.D. But nevertheless, the same historians indicate the parallel between this "Domesday Book" and Apocalypse = "Doomsday Book". They tell us the following: "All people have in Domesday Book an open account, as in the Great Doomsbook, the Great Book of Day of Judgment" ([7],p.345). Under chronological 400-year shift the astronomical date of creating the biblical Doomsday Book = Apocalypse is transported from 1486 A.D. approximately in 1086 A.D. - to the date of "Domesday census of people in England". Thus, we can add one more item in our table of historical parallels.
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Domesday Book in England 15. Apocalypse = Doomsday Book in
in 1086 A.D. 1486 A.D. (Rome, Byzantine empire)
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end of our analysis we can say, that written history of island Anglia = England (we mean here documents which survived to our time) starts in reality not from the brief and dim records about some small tribes (as it was supposed in traditional history), but from the fundamental events in the life of great nations of medieval world on the territory of Byzantine-Russian-Horde empire, Europe and Asia. In particular, the old English chronicles tell us not about some unknown kings , but about great rulers and emperors of large empires, which sometimes were at violent wars and enriched each others in a peaceful time.
5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to Galats and who they were?
The following important corollary follows from these results. Now we need to look in a different way on the role of medieval Russia in the history of Europe and Asia. After chronological transport of events described in the old English chronicles from the "deep antiquity" into the medieval epoch of 11-16th cc. A.D., we see with some surprise that these chronicle very often speak about medieval Russia, about Scyths, about wars with Russian armies and so on. A lot of new information is added to the history of medieval Russia. Before this moment these data were artificially referred to another epochs, to another nations, to another geographical regions.
The reader who is acquainted with the paper of A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovskij "Chronology and general concept of Russian history" (see also [37]), should realize that our analysis of English history adds many new arguments to the ideas developed in this our work.
Let us recall briefly, that the basic our idea is as follows. In traditional history the so called Mongolian-Tatarian invasion is considered as the period when the Russia was conquered by foreign Mongols-Tatars (who came from the East and Asia to Russia). In our opinion "Mongolian-Tatarian epoch" (or "Mongols-Tatars-yoke") was simply specific period in the history of Russian state without any foreign invasion, when several different Russian regions were united (sometimes with wars) under the rule of one Russian dynasty (which was later called as Mongols-Tatars dynasty and was wrongly declared as "foreign dynasty of invaders"). In this specific epoch the country was ruled by Russian-Horde dynasty. In the base of this rule was military Horde - the professional Cossacks army, which guarded the state and controlled the order inside the country. Besides the military Horde, there was also the civil administration (princes, dukes). They leaned on Horde as on the military force to protect the order. The name "Mongolia" is in reality a little distorted Greek word "Megalion" which means "great" ("Great empire", "Great state"). Among the population of empire were, of course, Tatars (as it is today).
Then, in the epoch of great disturbance and civil war of 16th century, the old Horde-Mongolian dynasty ("great dynasty") was defeated by new pretenders on the throne. As a result, the new Romanovs' dynasty was appeared on Russian throne. Their rule was based on quite another political principles. Then the previous Russian history was distorted by historians of Romanovs' epoch. The goal was clear - to ground and justify the non-legitimate usurpation of the throne by Romanovs. In particular, the epoch of Russian-"Megalion"-Horde dynasty was declared as the "epoch of bad foreign invasion", when, allegedly, the power was taken by "bad Mongol-Tatars".
The details of this concept see in the work of Fomenko and Nosovskij [37].
From this new point of view, we can conclude, that the reports of many Western chroniclers speaking about Mongols-Tatars are in reality the reports about medieval Megalion-Russian state and about its Megalion-Russian army which sometimes was at war with western neighbors.
As we have noted, Russia often appeared in old English (and many others) chronicles as Ruthenia, or Rutenia, or Rusia (see above and [10]). "The interest to Russia in Anglia (England) was also induced by the event which deeply shocked the medieval Europe - by the invasion of Mongolian-Tatarian hordes... These records about the appearance of some unknown, terrible, violent and godless nation induced to the medieval chroniclers the idea about God's punishment for the human sins. The name of this nation interpreted as "the people from Tartar" "([10],p.10).
It is supposed today that "the Mongolian-Tatarian yoke cutted Russia from another European nations for many years. And only in 16th century the relations between Russia and Anglia was restored again and these country "discovered each other" afresh...Practically all records about Russia, which were collected in English documentary sources before the end of 13th century, were forgotten... In geographical chronicle of Rodger Barlou (written about 1540-1541 A.D.), the location of Russia is described extremely dim and unclear, somewhere near "Sarmatian mountains" and "Gircania mountains" "([10],p.12).
In our opinion, this "the wall of silence" can be at least partially explained by the deep difference between European principles of organization of the states and Russian structure of Megalion-Horde state at this epoch. This difference determined also the military confrontation between Russia and the West. Besides this, there are arguments showing that all these stories of English chronicles about "bad Mongols-Tatars who invaded in Russia and threaten to the West", are of very late origin and are dated, most likely, by 16-17th centuries. At this time the distorted version of Russian history was already established and was appeared "the theory" which declared the epoch of Russian Megalion-Horde dynasty as "foreign yoke".
Let us take the medieval English chronicles and read them. What they tell us about Russia = Ruthenia? For example, Bartholomaeus Anglicus writes as follows (our translation):
Ruthia, or Ruthena is the province of Moesia (Mesiae) and is located on the boundary of Asia Minor, then it is bounded by Roman area in the East, by Gothia in the North, by Pannonia in the West, and by Greece in the South. The land is huge, and the language is the same as for Bohemians and Slavs. One part of this land is called Galacia (Galatia) and its people were called in the past as Galats (Galaths). One speaks that Apostle Paul sent to them his message ([28]; see also [10],p.85).
Here the original Latin text:
"Ruthia, sive Ruthena, quae et Mesiae est provincia, in Minoris Asiae confinio constituta Romanorum terminos est habens ab oriente, Gothiam a septentrione, Pannoniam ab occidente, Graeciam vero a meridie. Terra quidem est maxima concordans cum Bohemis et Sclavis in ideomate et lingua. Haec autem quadam parte sui Galacia est vocata et eius incolae quandam Galathae vocabantur, quibus dicitur Paulus Apostolus direxisse epistolam. Quaere supra Galacia." ([28]; also [10],p.77).
This well-known medieval texts was commented by many scientists. It is supposed today that Mesia - Moesia is the medieval Germany ([10],p.93), and that Ruthia - Ruthena is the Russia (see above). Besides this, it is known that "under the name Galacia (Gallacia) Bartholomaeus Anglicus means Galicko-Volynsko-Russia" ([10],p.91). But, the report of this old chronicle about the message Apostle Paul to these Russian Galats living in the Galicko-Volynsko-Russia (Galaths), immediately induces the explosion of a fair indignation of the modern historian. And it is quite clear! About one thousand years (according to traditional Scaliger's chronology) separates the evangelic Apostle Paul from these medieval events (described by Bartholomaeus Anglicus). As the strong verdict (without any hesitations) sounds the following formula-sentence:
"New Testament really contains the "Message to the Galatians" of Apostle Paul, but of course this message has no relation with Galicko-Volynsko-Russia" ([10],p.93).
In our short statistical chronology this situation becomes very natural. The epoch of Jesus Christ is 11th century A.D.. Consequently, the Galatians of the New Testament, i.e., the addressees of Apostle Paul, certainly can be the inhabitant of Galicko-Volynsko-Russia.
The next record of 13th century in the Annales Melrosenses (South Scotland) is considered today as most earlier (in English sources) report about "Mongols-Tatars-invasion":
"Now at first time the rumor appeared in our Land, that the godless horde of Tartari many countries ruined..." ([29]; see also [10],p.98-99).
Here is the original Latin text: "Hic primo auditur in terra nostra, quod nefandus exercitus Tartareorum multas terras vastavit..." ([29]; also [10],p.98-99).
By the way, we see again, that some English chronicles of 13th century (for example, the Chronica Monasterii Sancti Edmundi) are sure that Russia is an ISLAND: "The godless tribe, which is called Tartarins, and which was rushed up from an ISLANDS, filled the whole surface of the earth, ruined Hungary with neighboring areas" ([30]; see also [10],p.101).
Here is the original Latin text: "Gens nafanda dicta Tartarins que nuper de insulis ebulliens superficiem terre impleuerat Hungariam cum adiacentibus regionibus deuastat" ([30]; also [10],p.101).
But we discussed above the idea that most likely the chronicles mean here simply Asia-Land. This name certainly can be applied to the Russia (from the point of view of western chroniclers). By the way, the name ASIA is possibly the variant of the name Jesus = Isa. In this case Asia-Land means simply Jesus-Land = Isa-Land.
What we can think about the following records in English and European chronicles, devoted to well-known Mongolian ruler - Chingiz-Khan: "Under the name Chirkam (in Latin text - Cliyrcam...) ... was mentioned Chingiz-Khan, called in Russian chronicles as Chanogiz and Chigizakon, and in another European sources called also as Gurgatan, Cecarcarus, Zingiton, Ingischam, Tharsis, DAVID, PRESBYTER IOHANNES and so on ([10],p.185).
This is the commentary to the English chronicle: Annales de Burton (supposedly 13th century A.D.).
We hope that our reader will think about this really strange (in the frame of traditional chronology) fact that old chronicles named famous Chingiz-Khan as DAVID and PRESBYTER IOANNES !
It is impossible to quote here all fragments from many old English chronicles speaking about menacing danger which arose over the Europe from the side of Mongols-Tatars-Horde [10].
Let us restrict ourselves by the following final fragment. Aethicus = Ethicus Istricus, who lived in 3rd c.A.D. (according to conjecture of modern historians), "tells us about the godless nation which was originated by Gog and Magog. And Alexander the Great Macedonian fight ed with Gog and Magog. "This nation, - continues Aethicus, - will produce a great destruction in the epoch of Antichrist and will call him as the god of the gods" " ([10],p.221). Aethicus stated that this nation "was locked behind the Caspian gates".
Let us now the reader: Thus, when lived Ethicus Istricus? Is it really 3rd century A.D.? And also, the second question: When lived Alexander the Great Macedonian if he fights with Gog and Magog, i.e. - with Mongols, Goths and Tatars?
