Chapter 3.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY
1. THE MIGHTY TROJAN WAR AS A REVENGE FOR CHRIST. RUSSIA-HORDE LAUNCHES CRUSADES TO CZAR-GRAD, AND WITHIN A SHORT TIME THE CENTRE OF THE EMPIRE IS TRANSFERRED TO VLADIMIR-SUZDAL RUSSIA.
In 1185 on the Beykoz mountain near Yoros the Emperor Andronicus-Christ was crucified. The outraged provinces, led by the Russia-Horde, started a war the goal of which was vengeance and 'the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre', i.e. capture of Czar-Grad = Jerusalem, the Empire's capital. This was the Trojan War also reflected in various documents under the names of: the Tarquinian War in 'ancient' Rome (allegedly in the VI century BC), the Gothic War in Italy (allegedly of the VI century), the Nika revolt in Czar-Grad (allegedly of the VI century), etc. See [2v].
The Trojan War was one of the biggest events in the history of Europe and Asia. The war was described by Homer, Herodotus and other 'ancient' classical authors, as well as by the Mediaeval Dare, Dictys, etc. 'Ancient' Titus Livy describes it under the name of 'Tarquinian War. While Prokopi Caesarian uses the names 'War with the Goths' and 'the Nika revolt', for example.
The same war is well known under the collective name of the Crusades of the XIII century, seizure of Czar-Grad in 1204, and then the fall of Czar-Grad in 1261. The Trojan War was essentially represented in a series of bloody battles. And as such it was described by 'ancient' Homer who lived in the epoch of the XV-XVI cc. Today in place of 'ancient' Czar-Grad = Troy there survive the ruins of the Yoros fortress on the Bosphorus, where the strait enters the Black Sea, 35 kilometres from Istanbul [��].
Czar-Grad was captured in 1204 during the Crusade which today is erroneously called the Fourth. The city was ransacked and burnt by the Horde-Cossacks crusaders and their allies. They are the same 'ancient' Achaeans-Greeks described by Homer in 'The Iliad'. The Achaeans were led by 'ancient' Achilles, aka Russian-Horde prince Svyatoslav [���]. Those responsible for Andronicus-Christ's crucifixion were captured by the Hordians and were brutally executed. The fall of Czar-Grad was reflected in many chronicles as the fall of 'ancient' Troy allegedly in the XIII century BC; also as the seizure of the biblical Jerusalem by the Roman army allegedly in the I century; and as the seizure of 'most ancient' Babylon, etc.
Modern history attaches a great importance to the Crusades. In our reconstruction their role will grow in significance. The Trojan War of the XIII century was the FIRST WORLD WAR OF THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES. Its outcome predetermined several centuries of the course of world history.
2. THE CRUSADES ADVANCED ON TO JERUSALEM = CZAR-GRAD NOT FROM THE WEST, AS WE ARE BEING TOLD TODAY, BUT FROM THE EAST.
In [���] we quote the Church-Slavonic book 'The Passion of the Christ'. As it happens, according to church tradition in order to capture Jerusalem the armies marched not from the WEST, but from the EAST. In other words, from Russia-Horde. Also the fact, that the great = 'Mongolian' conquest started shortly after, supports this view. The Scaligerian history later began to claim that The Crusades allegedly advanced to the Holy Land from the West. This is just another distortion of the true history and geography. In [v1] and [v2] there are given many examples when the ancient maps were turned upside down, i.e. North was drawn in the bottom and South - on the top. Consequently East and West were changed places. It is quite possible that on account of this confusion Eastern crusades 'turned into' Western ones and vice versa.
3. HELEN OF TROY AND MARY MOTHER OF GOD.
Everyone knows the legend of Helen of Troy, wife of Menelaus. She is one of the main characters in the Trojan War. Between the three 'ancient' goddesses a dispute breaks out – which of them is most beautiful. Each of them praises herself [851], p.71. This seemingly innocent dispute gives rise to the vicious Trojan War. The chronicles tell us that in the forest of Mount Ida (the forest of Judaean mountains?) the famous Judgement of Paris took place. Paris, a son of a Trojan King, judges the contest of 'beauty' between three goddesses presenting a prize of an 'golden apple' to Aphrodite, the goddess of love, who promised him the hand in marriage of the world's most beautiful woman Helen of Sparta [851], p.93. A war breaks out. We would like to point out that the Bible often identifies 'wives' with different types of RELIGIONS [544], v.1. It is possible that the legend of the Judgement of Paris describes a dispute between several religions, which were nominally called 'women-goddesses'. The Trojans chose a Bacchic 'ancient' religion. From three wives-religions they chose the religion of love, Aphrodite.
So here 'ancient' Paris is possibly medieval Paris (Paris, francs, France) and choses for himself the most 'pleasant' goddess-religion Aphrodite. It's worth remembering the erotic cult of the Western European Bacchic Christianity, which blossomed particularly in France in the XII-XV cc. This adoration of the 'Christian Aphrodite' was depictured in various erotic sculptures and drawings which adorned Christian French temples [2v1], ch.1.
Something similar to the "religious choice' of Paris is also known to us from the history of the Ancient Russia. Prince Vladimir who baptised Russia also listened to the representatives of several religions and chose Orthodox Christianity to be the state religion of Russia. Was this choice of Vladimir not reflected in the 'ancient myth' of the choice of Paris, in other words ‘Prus’ (which means P-russian) ? Possibly it's not a coincidence that it concerns Aphrodite, whose unvowelled name FRDT or TRDT could have originated from the word Tartars, Tartar.
The following famous storylines are the phantom-duplicates. 1) "Ancient' Greek Paris and Helen or Venus. 2) Biblical Adam and Eve (and the sly serpent). 3) 'Ancient' Perseus and Andromeda (and the sly serpent /sea monster). 4) 'Ancient' Jason and Medea (and the sly serpent (sleepless dragon) 5) Medieval St. George and the Princess (and the serpent/dragon of the sea).
At the same time, the Trojan War and all its duplicates (Tarquinian War, Gothic War…) are described as the 'wars to avenge the dishonouring of a woman' [2v]. But is it possible, that because of a woman, even one as distinguished and beautiful as this, that such a vicious war could break out? Here quite naturally occurs a thought which puts many things in their place. As there existed a medieval tradition to nominally call different religions 'wives', i.e. women, then the cause of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic war could have been a RELIGIOUS DISPUTE: whose religion or 'wife', was better. The grounds to war was the offence to a religion or 'wife'. There survive sculptural depictions of Religion in the form of a woman, and also Christian Faith is represented in the female form [2v1], ch.5.
Our reconstruction corresponds well to the essence of the Crusades, which primarily and officially, were RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED ACTIONS – TO AVENGE THE OFFENCE GIVEN TO THE RELIGION. In other words – revenge for insulting the Mother of God – for the execution of her Son Jesus Christ. Then the Trojan myth acquires a natural explanation – it tells us about an important religious Cross bearing war.
So, the central narrative of the Trojan War is a legend about the offence given to some distinguished woman, which resulted in either a war, or a state coup. The Trojan version tells us about the abduction of the Greek Helen of Sparta, the Tarquinian version of Titus Livy – about the rape of the Roman Lucretia, the Gothic version – about the murder of the Gothic queen Amalasunta. An equivalent story we find in the description of events allegedly of the VI century B.C. told by 'ancient' Herodotus. King Candaules, tyrant of Sardes, 'argues' with Gyges claiming that his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. A conflict erupts.
On account of Herodotus' [163] famous 'Story' we say the following: this work, as the works by other 'ancient' authors, is by no means a falsification. Herodotus describes the real events of the XII-XVI cc. He himself lived in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. Then the later chroniclers erroneously cast him and his writing many centuries back. However, Herodotus' writing was 'carefully edited' according to the recently introduced Scaligerian history. The same was done with the other 'classics'.
4. THE TROJAN HORSE.
A famous legend about The Trojan Horse is associated with the Trojan War. For the seizure of Troy the Greeks used 'something resembling a grey horse' [851], p.76. Different chronicles describe the 'horse' in different ways. For example: 'The magi proclaimed that it is impossible to seize Troy in a battle, but to conquer it only with subterfuge. So the Greeks constructed a wooden horse (?–Author) of UNPRECEDENTED SIZE and hid brave warriors in its womb… The Trojans decided to 'DRAG THE HORSE INTO THE CITY (?-Author). Having dragged the horse in, they indulged in a joyous feast… and then fell asleep… Meanwhile the warriors, hidden inside the horse, quietly crept out and set fire to the Trojans' houses… Countless myriads of Greek forces flooded through the gates which had been open by their comrades who were already inside Troy…. Thus fell strong-towered Troy. [851], p.76.' So:
1) For the seizure of Troy the Greeks used a GREY LIKENESS OF A HORSE. 2) The gigantic size of this 'horse likeness' is mentioned. 3) Inside a few hundred soldiers could have been placed. 4) The 'horse' stands on enormous legs, on wheels and it's been wheeled. 5) According to some chroniclers the 'horse' is wooden; the others think it was made of brass. Alternatively it was made of glass, wax, etc. [2v]. There is clearly an obvious variety of opinions here. 6) The 'horse' somehow 'entered the city'.
The chroniclers of the Gothic war, allegedly of the VI century, make no mention of a horse. They inform us about the following: during the military assault of the New City (Naples, duplicate of New Rome = Czar-Grad) the general Belisarius used a cunning strategy indeed [196], v.1. Naples' thick walls were penetrated from outside by an old half destroyed AQUEDUCT, i.e. an enormous stone pipe. At some point the aqueduct delivered water to Naples. An opening of the mouth of this water-pipe was sealed off with a stone plug at the walls' level. The aqueduct was inactive for a long time [196], v.1.
A Greek-Romans squadron of several hundred soldiers secretly infiltrates the enormous pipe from outside of the city. Having walked through it up to the wall the Greeks unseal the plug and make their way at night into the New City = Naples. Early the next morning the Greeks emerge from the aqueduct, signal to the main body of the troops outside and open the gates from the inside. Belisarius' troops burst into Naples. A massacre ensues. Half-sleeping defenders don't have enough time to even reach for their weapons. This is how Naples = the New City falls.
It is possible that the half-destroyed aqueduct 'entering' Czar-Grad was poetically perceived as a 'huge animal'. The famous Trojan Horse is a poetic image of an enormous construction of stone – aqueduct-water pipe, successfully used by the Greeks for the seizure of the New City.
Besides, in Latin the word 'horse', 'mare' is spelled EQUA (equae). And the word 'water' is spelled AQUA (aquae) [2v1], ch.5. In other words WATER and HORSE are spelled practically the same! That is why, WATER-PIPE – AQUEDUCT (aquae-duct = channelling water, aquae-ductio) could have turned into HORSE by the later authors who could have mixed up one vowel. That could have become the birth of a bouquet of legends of an 'enormous likeness of a GREY horse'. Its grey colour could have been explained by the colour of an aqueduct covered in dust.
Or it could be that the question at hand concerned a portable siege tower on wheels covered with wet skins to render it inflammable from the fire missiles launched by the besieged. Such medieval wooden towers were indeed mounted on wheels and pushed towards the walls of the town under the siege. It is for a reason the horse was often depicted standing on wheels and was referred to as wooden. It was called a 'horse' because the tower was moving. It is quite possible that such a siege construction was first used in the XIII century and contributed to whole host of legends about the Trojan Horse [���] ch.1.
Here it is relevant to mention the ruins of a poor medieval fortification (approximately 120 by 120 metres) on the mound at Hissarlik in Turkey, which Heinrich Schliemann mistakenly declared to be the 'remains of Homeric Troy'. The truth is that 'having lost' 'ancient Greece' in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. the historians started to look for it all over again [2v1], ch.5.
Why did they start searching for 'Homeric Troy' in that exact area? The matter is, as it seems, that there still remains a vague memory of Troy situated somewhere 'near the Bosphorus'. But the historians of the XVIII century could no longer point New Rome out directly in Bosphorus, i.e. Czar-Grad, as it was safely forgotten that Czar-Grad was exactly 'ancient' Troy. In fact the Scaligerian history as early as in the XVII century altogether 'forbade' even thinking of Czar-Grad as 'Homeric Troy'. However there remained all kinds of medieval records which have luckily escaped destruction, and persistently suggested that 'ancient' Troy is situated 'somewhere near the Bosphorus'. That is why the historians and enthusiasts started searching for the 'lost Troy' near Istanbul.
Turkey is awash with ruins of medieval settlements, military fortifications, etc. It was not difficult to 'pick out appropriate ruins'. The ruins on the mound at Hissarlik were also considered as one of the possible candidates. But both historians and archaeologists alike understood very well that it was necessary to dig up some kind of 'proof' that it was indeed 'Homeric Troy'. This task was 'successfully fulfilled' by H.Schliemann. He started excavation on the mound at Hissarlik.
The ruins that were unearthed showed that there indeed used to be some kind of settlement [2v1], ch.5:11. There was nothing "Homeric' of any kind here of course. Such ruins in Turkey can be seen at every step of the way. It is most likely that here used to be a small Ottoman fortification. Presumably, Mr.Schliemann understood that something outstanding was required to draw the public's attention towards these scant remains. So in May 1873 he 'unexpectedly finds' a cache of gold, which he immediately publicly declares to be 'Priam's ancient treasure. Purportedly 'the very same' Homer speaks of.
# However, Schliemann did not specify the place, the date and the circumstances of the 'discovery of Priam's treasure', bringing a peculiar ambiguity into this matter. Schliemann never presented any conclusive, proof of his discovery of 'Homeric Troy'.
# There are grounds to suspect that Schliemann simply ordered Parisian jewellers to fabricate 'ancient golden jewellery'. Schliemann was an extremely wealthy man.
# It is quite possible that after that Schliemann secretly brought the jewels to Turkey and announced that he 'found' them in the ruins in the mound at Hissarlik. In other words, exactly in the place where a little earlier some enthusiasts 'had located ancient Troy'. Schliemann didn't even trouble himself with searching for Troy. Backed up by his gold he simply 'substantiate' a hypothesis previously put forward by Choiseul-Gouffier and Frank Calvert.
# Many skeptics as early as in the XIX century didn't believe a word he was saying. But the Scaligerian historians remained satisfied overall. At last, they said in discordant chorus, we have found legendary Troy.
# The historians decided to deal with 'Priam's treasure' the following way: to affirm that it was indeed the treasures of Homeric Priam would have been careless. As a retort the sceptics immediately asked: 'But, how do they know?' They had no answer. Everyone concerned with 'Schliemann's Troy' understood that very well. On reflection, they found an elegant way out. They said this, without any proof: True, it is not Priam's treasure. But it is much more ancient than Schliemann himself had previously thought.
# But what if Schliemann didn't deceive us and in fact did find at Hissarlik some ancient golden jewels? It still remains completely unclear why this treasure should be considered proof of 'ancient Troy' and be situated exactly in this spot? As the golden objects 'found' by Schliemann do not bare ANY LETTERS OR SYMBOLLS [2v1], ch.5:11.
# After some time when the sceptics got tired of pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in the 'discovery of Troy', eventually an 'orderly scientific stage' began. Serious scientific journals 'about Troy' started to appear and were regularly published. Numerous articles and dissertations sprang up. However nothing from 'Homeric Troy' on the mound at Hissarlik was ever found to this day of course.
6. EXODUS OF TROJANS FROM TROY = CZAR-GRAD.
With the fall of Jerusalem = Troy and downfall of the Romaic Empire, the exodus-flight of various groups of people from the capital began. The diagram of Romaic femas are nominally shown in fig.3. In hot pursuit of the fugitives follow the avenging Horde-Crusaders seizing and colonizing new territories. They settle in different countries of Europe and Asia. This picture is well-known from the Scaligerian 'ancient' history of 'transmigration of peoples'. The fugitives from Romea are called Trojans, i.e. descendants from Troy = Czar-Grad. They were also confused with the Argonauts (i.e. cossacks-Hordians), who, according to the 'ancient' Greek myths, after the Trojan War embark on a voyage, seizing and colonizing various lands.
