A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy
(Istanbul in the light of New Chronology)

with an appendix with Description of the court of sultans from "Scythian history" of �.I.Lyzlov


In the present book we rest on the new chronology, established in our books based on the mathematical methods [1]-[14]. According to the new chronology and based on it suppositional reconstruction of the universal history, the city of Istanbul (which is Constantinople) is placed in close proximity to Troy from chronicles – it is also evangelic Jerusalem. Here the biggest events of the universal history took place. Here in 1185 Christ was crucified. Jerusalem –Troy, a city, placed not far from Istanbul and named today "fortress Eros", according to our reconstruction was the capital of the ancient Romean tsardom. This city governed the world right until the Great conquest of the XIV century, which evoked a sudden widening of the borders of Empire. And the capital of the Empire moved to the North to the Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. But after this for a long time Jerusalem didn't lose its importance of a holy city, initial "main Jerusalem ". It was forgotten and lost by historians only in the XVI-XVII centuries, during a breakdown of the Great Empire. Then it "was found", but in a very different place, see chapter 3.

Istanbul takes an exceptional place in the Scaligerian version of history – as the capital of medieval Byzantium and then the Osman Porta. From the point of new chronology the historical importance of Istanbul only grows.

In the present book, as a rule, we don't give a comprehensive reasoning of our point of view, giving just separate examples. An interested reader may refer to our books [1]-[14], where one can find a full description and a comprehensive bibliography on this issue. It is shown there, in particular, that IN HISTORICAL SCIENCE UNTIL RECENTLY THERE IS NO RELIABLE REASONING OF THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED (SCALIGERIAN) VERSION OF CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY. Moreover, as we state with full responsibility, there is simply no such reasoning, AS THIS VERSION IS WRONG. That's why the history of the antiquity – no matter, if historians want this or not, - should be restored and written once again.

The proposed by us in [1]-[14] suppositional reconstruction of the universal history, based on the new chronology, considerably differs from the usual today version of Scaliger-Petavius [107], [106]. There is a sense to explain shortly – what is the Scaligerian historical-chronological version and how it appeared (refer to [1]-[14] for details). It is worth saying that a general picture of the circumstances, in which the Scaligerian version was created and implemented, finally became clear only during our last studies on the new chronology. Now many things came to their places.

Historical primary sources

The most accessible in our time historical primary sources, - which are published, available in the open book storages etc, - were created (or falsified) at the same time with the Scaligerian version with the purpose of its "confirmation". Many of them were received from the really old texts by means of distortion and intentional editing. After this the old texts, as a rule, were destroyed. All this happened in the XVII-XVIII centuries during an international European program of creation of the Ancient and medieval history and chronology. Who and what for needed this - see. [1]-[14]. A program of replacement of the history had a strong governmental support both in the European countries and in Romanovs? Russia. Later, in the XVIII-XIX centuries the Scaligerian version of history was implemented in Asia and in China. Based on it the Asian and Chinese "ancient" chronologies were created.

At the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries nearly all the published today editions of the works of the "antique" Greek and Roman authors, medieval chronicles, memories etc. were intentionally created with the purpose of support of the implemented Scaligerian historical version

The authentic sources during nearly two hundred years were thoroughly searched and destroyed (or put out of circulation). Such activity continued yet in the XIX century. In lead to the fact that such old, remained authentic texts were taken as something curious, not deserving serious study. On them it became very easy to accuse in a rough falsification or, in best case, in full ignorance of the author of the text.

Such texts, as a rule, are not published, not studied by historical-academic society. Although from time to time they still appear even today. Each of them gives just a small piece of already forgotten history, that's why unable to change anything in our minds. Itself, out of the whole picture, it is just incomprehensible. And nobody from the serious historians is engaged in comparison and study of such "curiosities".

It is important to understand that today during publication of the primary sources – intentionally or not – a hard censorship of their correspondence with the Scaligerian version is done. "Worth attention" are accepted only those primary sources, fitting in the usual picture of the past. Until now ONLY THOSE TEXTS, WHICH PASSED AN INTENTIONAL EDITING IN THE XVII-XVIII CENTURIES, ARE PUT INTO CIRCULATION. As a result we have to learn about the ancientry and the Middle Ages only from the sources, proposed by the Scaligerian historical school. Exactly they are being multiplied on a printing machine. That's why a wrong impression appears that only such sources existed.

From what time the history becomes wrong

There is a clear border in the history – the epoch of the first half of the XVII century. What happened after it, we know rather well, at least everything related to datings. And we badly know what happened before it. Our studies show that this border appeared artificially. It is not a result of natural forgetting of information. It appeared only during the creation in the XVII-XVIII centuries of the generally accepted today version of history. This is the border between the correct and wrong history.

What modern historians know well

Modern historians of the Scaligerian school, - there is simply no other school of the history of the ancientry and the Middle Ages, - are usually specialists IN THE FAKE SCALIGERIAN VERSION AND ONLY IN IT. It is wrongly taken as an axiom that the Scaligerian version of history and the real history – it is the same thing. As we today understand, this is absolutely wrong. In other words, modern historians, thinking that they study the "ancient" and medieval history, actually analyze not real history – through the remained from the ancientry documents, but AN ARTIFICIAL WORLD, FAIRY TALE PHANTOM, created by historians and editors of the XVII century. Today historians use the distorted and edited in the XVII-XVIII centuries texts, by mistake considering them to be "authentic ancient primary sources". Modern historians are fully sunk in the artificial world; spend all their professional life in it. They don't suspect that a "virtual reality" was INVENTED by their recent predecessors, the Scaligerian historians of the XVII-XVIII centuries. One can say that modern historians are specialists in a fairy tale, invented world.

An artificial world of the Scaligerian history became rather difficult, ramified and at first glance provides an impression of something rather solid and in general "obviously correct". This is not so. An impartial outside look, resting on objective methods of dating, rather quickly discovers in the fabulous temple the unreal features. Further analysis leads to destruction of the entire Scaligerian edifice.

First printed editions

The following should be told about THE FIRST PRINTED EDITIONS of the XV-XVI centuries. The books, on which there were years of issue of the XV-XVI centuries, often turn out to be fakes of the XVII-XVIII centuries with hindsight issue date. A mass publication of such books allegedly of the XV-XVI centuries in the XVII-XVIII centuries was an important part of the activity on "reasoning" of the Scaligerian version of history. But authentic books of the XV-XVI centuries were persecuted and destroyed as well as manuscripts. That's why printed books don't differ from manuscripts in their reliability, when we want to get an authentic history of the XV-XVI centuries from them. It appeared that among printed books there are also a lot of fakes of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

Church-Slavonic, Greek and Latin languages

Many authentic official documents of the Western Europe of the XVI century, coming from the name of tsar (imperator) and surrounding him people, were written, as it appeared, on the Church-Slavonic language. And many books, printed in the Western Europe in the XV-XVII centuries were SLAVONIC, see. [1], volume 6, [2]. By the way, the fact of the widespread printing of the Slavonic books in the Western Europe of the XVI century is known to the specialists. According to our reconstruction, a language of international communication in the Western Europe at that epoch most likely was the Church-Slavonic language.

A transition FROM SLAVONIC TO LATIN as a language of international communication in the Western Europe happened only after the fall of the Great Empire in the XIV-XVI centuries, which is at the end of the XVI - XVII century. See details in [1]-[14]. Most likely Latin in its developed "antique" form appeared only in the XVI-XVII centuries. That's why all the "antique" Latin texts – these are, in best case, translations, made at the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries into the appointed as "antique" language Latin. The Scaligerian chronological edition was immediately put into these translations.

The same could be told about the "ancient"-Greek. It was also created together with the "ancient"-Greek literature at the epoch of the XVI-XVII centuries. The authentic old Greek texts were translated into it and edited. Only after this they got the usual for us form of "antique Greek primary sources". A real ancient Greek language is probably Minor-Greek, Byzantine. Not in vain it absolutely doesn't remind the modern Greek language, compared to the "ancient"-Greek, which was VERY CLOSE TO MODERN GREEK. So, the "antique Greek" literature – these are seriously edited in the XVI-XVII centuries translations of the old texts into recently invented "antique" language.

Breakdown of the Great medieval Empire at the beginning of the XVII century.

According to our reconstruction a creation of the Scaligerian version of history was a consequence of the biggest political rebuilding of the world at the end of XVI – beginning of XVII century. After the fall of the Great Empire, which created our civilization and captured by that time nearly all the world, the new independent small states appeared. First they were afraid of return of the old order, which would mean for them a loss of independence and fullness of power. That's why they with all the efforts tried to create in the historical past an illusion of their origin from allegedly initially independent governors. The main purpose of the created by their order (at that time, but usual today) historical version of Scaliger and Petavius was to distort in the necessary direction the history of the nearest past of the XIV-XVI centuries. THIS HISTORY WAS INTENTIONALLY DISTORTED.

As for the earlier epochs, their phantom contents in the Scaligerian version is mainly a result of unintended chronological mistakes.

Only now we start to understand the scale of the global program of the XVII century on creation of the fake history of the past. One shouldn't be surprised with the concurrence of actions on falsification of the history in different countries. According to our suppositional reconstruction until the end of the XVI century nearly all the European and Asian countries were included into the united Empire. That's why all their governors were from the same circle of the Empire civil servant. The links between the former provinces of the Empire first time after its split were still strong.

See a consistent statement of our reconstruction in [1]-[14].

The New Era and the Era from Christ – these are different things

In the new chronology, speaking about ones or other dates of the old events, we use the accepted today count of years "by the new era". But we take it as a PURELY CONVENTIONAL SCALE, not connected with any known to us historical event. From the epoch of two thousand years ago, where the beginning of the "new era" was put, probably, no information reached us. In particular, it is wrong to call the generally accepted era as "the era from Christmas", as it is usually done today. Christmas, according to our reconstruction, happened around one thousand years later, in the XII century of the "new era".
It was one of the most important events of the history of mankind. See. [10].

Psychological notes

1) In the mind of a modern person the word "ancientry" is usually associated with the events of, for example, EARLIER THE FIFTH CENTURY A.D. or events BEFORE CHRIST. "Deep ancientry" – this is, let's say, earlier THE TENS CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST. "Deepest ancientry" – this is already out of the borders of THE SECOND MILLENIUM BEFORE CHRIST. A widespread today habit for exactly such time scales is one of the serious psychological obstructions on the way of perception of new SHORTER chronology. But such, usual today, psychological sense of the word "ancientry" appeared not on its own. And not long ago. This is a result of artificial implementation to our minds during the last 300 years of a very much spread time scale. Probably, itself the idea of "very long written history" lies down on the prepared basis of natural human respect to the memory of the generation, to own family tree. One can understand the feelings of a person, trying to look into far past of his ancestry. As far he sees, as it seems him, so higher is the level of his personal self-respect.

The new chronology imposes a different psychological picture of perception of the ancientry. Now the word "ancientry" should be connected with the XV-XVII century, that is with the events, standing about 500 years far from us. An expression "deep ancientry" now should be related to the XIII-XIV centuries. And the words "deepest ancientry" – these are already the XI-XII centuries. EARLIER THE X-XI CENTURIES COMES AN EPOCH OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS. It seems that NO any written evidences – on paper, parchment, papyrus, stones REACHED US from those times. So, the words "ancientry", "deep ancientry" and "deepest ancientry" remain in our lexicon, but they are filled with an absolutely different content. These epochs move considerably closer to us, and the time scale of historical chronology seriously shortens. One should come to terms with the fact that based on the written sources; we can look not so far into the past, as we thought yesterday. But everything we saw yesterday is seen also today. But closer.

2) An analysis of the chronology and history opened an astonishing circumstance. Based on the applied by us mathematical methods it is shown that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore the Scaligerian history of the "ancientry" and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that the history right until the end of the XVI century was intentionally falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries. The falsification of history in the XVII-XVIII centuries was accompanied with search and destruction of the documents, telling the truth about the past. First of all, this touched the recent XV-XVI centuries, a memory about which was destroyed especially thoroughly. Such activity continued with a relentless force for nearly two hundred years. This is a considerable period for destruction of all the BIG texts, which could tell us about the authentic past. That's why today we can't hope that any detailed correct chronicle, written by an eyewitness of the events of the XVI century will come into our hands. And that it would tell the truth – what happened in reality. So, we pay special attention to those "minutiaes", those not cleared remains of the truth, which occasionally remained and avoided clearance. It appeared to be a lot of them. And all together they let to restore the truth. A study of the Scaligerian history could be compared with the work of an investigator, condemning a criminal, who of course invented a believable legend, cared about his alibi. That's why an authentic picture should be first searched in MINUTIAES, escaped from the attention of a person, covering up the traces. As creating a false version, it is difficult to take into account all the minutiaes. And an experienced investigator "digs them out". Catching the evidences, he gradually unwinds all the circumstances of the crime.


As an appendix we provide an old Russian translation of one of the most interesting primary sources on Istanbul - "Description of the court of Caesar of Turkey" (that is the Turkish sultan) of an author of the XVII century Polish priest Simon Starovskiy. Initially the work of Starovskiy was published in Polish in Krakow in 1649 in the imperator?s publishing house and contained the following foreword of a censor, which we provide in translation of �.I.Lyzlov, just having a bit renewed the old Russian language of translation:

"Ksendz Yaskov Ustenskiy, a teacher of the Holy Scripture and the charters, a viewer of the books, brought to the printing office, having watched the book under the name "The court of Caesar of Turkey", from the Roman Catholic priest Simon Starovskiy, Cantor Tarkovskiy, collected of the Italian novels and books, approved its printing, as it agreed with the famous warranted novels and stories" [65], p.279.

In 40 years, in 1688, the work of Starkovskiy was translated into Russian by Moscow nobleman stolnik Andrey Ivanovich Lyzlov [65], p.342. Lyzlov included it in his handwritten "Scythian history", devoted to the history of the Kazan stardom and the Osman Porta.

The book of Lyzlov was rather famous in its time. But, as it is considered, it was not published during the life of the author and for a long time remained in the lists [65]. In the present time 32 its lists are known [65], p.345. It is considered that "The Scythian history" was for the first time published only in nearly 100 years after it was written. This is an edition of N.I.Novikov in St. Petersburg in 1776 [65], p.351.The first edition was not full. Fully the book of Lyzlov was published by the same N.I.Novikov in Moscow in 1787 [65], p.351. One should pay attention that both first editions of "Scythian history" were issued soon after the crushing of "Pugachev" in 1774. That is – after the defeat of Moscow Tartaria [11]. That's why it is rather probable that the initial authentic text of the book was a bit different. Most likely it was subject to editing in the light of the final victory of Romanovs under the remainders of the old Russian Horde. But even in such form the book of �.I.Lyzlov is extremely interesting.

The third and the last re-edition of "The Scythian history" was done by the publishing house "Nauka" in 1990 [65]. But the circulation of this edition was so small that it nearly didn't appear in sale.


The present edition of the book "Istanbul in the light of New Chronology" is considerably supplemented and renewed. It includes the results, received by us in the very last time. A new chapter "Lost by historians and found by us Jerusalem" was added into the book.

In the present edition the received by us in 2004 final dating of Christmas with 1152 A.D. is taken into account (see details in our book "Tsar of the Slavs", issued in 2004). The coming out of the new dating changes in general didn't touch the contents of the present book and mainly were in replacement of the figure XI for the figure XII in those few places, where the issue was about the century, when, according to the new chronology, Christ had been born.

A.T.FOMENKO, G.V.Nosovskiy
June 2006.
Moscow, Lomonosov Moscow State University