Chapter 4.
THE EPOCH OF THE XII CENTURY
22. THE 'CLASSICAL' ABDUCTION OF SABINE WOMEN.
A famous legend about the abduction of the Sabine women is associated with the founding of 'ancient' Rome. You will recall that after having founded Rome, Romulus soon discovers that there are very few women in Rome. In order to secure future generations, The Romans address the neighbouring people, requesting that the Roman men be allowed to take the foreign women in marriage. They refuse. Then Romulus arranges a feast to which all the neighbours are invited. They, not having suspected anything wrong, arrive to the festival with their wives and children. At a prearranged signal the Romans abduct young Sabine girls and women. The Sabine men flee. Due to the abduction of their women a war soon breaks out between the Sabines and Royal Rome.
The question is: if 'Ancient' Royal Rome is a reflection of the Horde Empire which emerged in the confluence of the rivers Oka and Volga, i.e. is there any mention in the Russian chronicles of the abduction of the Sabines? An event frequently reflected in Western European art. The Horde sources must be referring to a conflict caused by the abduction of Cossack-wives in the capital of Russia-Horde. It turns out there is such a reference and it was a focus of attention for a long time. More than that, the historians have a problem in connection with that, which they persistently 'are trying to solve', albeit unsuccessfully. See the next paragraph.
We discovered that the abduction of the Sabine women in 'Ancient' Rome largely reflects the abduction of the wives by the serfs in Russian Novgorod = Yaroslavl on the Volga River. It's no coincidence that the well-known Kholopii Gorod (the Town of Serfs) was situated near Yaroslavl. It turns out that not only Titus Levy and Plutarch, but Herodotus too tell us about the Novgorodian's War with Serfs on the account of their wives. Furthermore it's reflected in the famous 'Odyssey' by Homer and in works by the 'ancient' historian Pompeius Trogus … Therefore all of them knew the history of Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. quite well. Trojan War of the XIII c. also contributed to the story about the abduction of the Sabines [����] ch.1.
23. THE HISTORIANS' PROBLEM: WHY IS KHOLOPII GOROD (THE TOWN OF SERFS) SITUATED NEAR YAROSLAVL AND NOT NEAR VOLKHOVSKII NOVGOROD ON THE SWAMPLAND?
As the original sources tell us, Kholopii Gorod (Town of Serfs) was founded by the kholops-serfs not far from the chronicles' Velikii Novgorod. However, there is no Kholopii Gorod situated near a rundown Volkhovskii district stockaded town, slyly called by the Romanovs 'that very Velikii Novgorod'. When the Romanovs were moving – on paper – the Yaroslavl events from Volga to the swampy Volkhov, they didn't think of drawing on the map Kholopii Gorod next to it. It's quite understandable – you can't remember everything. They drew 'Novgorod' but ignored the other Volga cities associated with it. Neither did they pay attention to a Novgorodian story in the chronicles about the abduction of wives by the serfs. Here the Romanov historians made a big mistake. They didn't take into account that the story about the Novgorodian wives and the serfs is very well known. Many ancient primary sources tell us about it. So, of course, to make the forgery precise, they should have moved – on paper – Kholopii Gorod following the neighbouring Yaroslavl-Novorod.
Then of course the historians realised the mistake. But it was too late. The 'ancient' chronicles were expurgated and rewritten. The 'ancient' maps were edited and circulated on a large scale. And they didn't want to start a new alternative history. That is why they restricted themselves to small falsifications, having tried to fix the historians' mistake by correcting it post factum. For example they pointed out one of the foggy gnat swamps of Volkhov and unfoundedly declared it to be 'Kholopia gora' (Mount of serfs). Purporting that there is no Kholopii gorod (town) here, but instead here is Kholopia gora (mount) for you. Having thought for a while they called one of small monasteries near Volkhov 'Nogord' KLOPSKII Monastery, i.e. Khlopskii (monastery). They happily started showing 'Khlopskii' to visiting foreigners. Among others they showed it to N.Witsen too. He nodded approvingly and neatly sketched it in his travel notes, to illustrate that it was a famous historical place. It's true that it became wild and desolate, but, as the story goes, 'extremely ancient'. As a result the Romanovs' story acquired 'reputable validation'. You see, the Dutchman drew the 'Klopskii' monastery near Volkhov on a piece of paper. The learned Europeans know best!
So where is on the old maps the real Kholopii Gorod (Town of serfs) marked? AS IT HAPPENS ON VARIOUS OLD MAPS KHOLOPII GOROD IS CLEARLY DEPICTED AND IS SITUATED NEAR VOLGA CLOSE TO YAROSLAVL [����] ch.1. Where it is supposed to be according to the Russian chronicles. It is considered that 'Kholopii gorod stood near the town of Mologa 80 km from Uglitch, (at present it is the bottom of Rybinsk Reservoir') [161], p.331, commentary 509. A significant part of the former territory of the region today is submerged under the Rybinsk Reservoir. So any kind of excavations in the place of Kholopii Gorod are impossible.
Thus, the famous 'classical' legend of the Romans abducting the Sabine women consists of the two layers. The first – the reflection of Trojan war of the XIII century, i.e. the Crusade of 1204. The second – the story of the Kholopia war of the Novgorodians in Russia-Horde 'over the Cossack-wives' in the late XIII - early XIV cc.
24. THE TWO BAPTISMS OF RUSSIA.
The first Baptism of Russia was given in the XII century by Andronicus-Christ himself, aka the apostle Andrei the First-called (Andrei Bogolyubskii). The approximate epoch of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity (the second Baptism of Russia) was under the Emperor Dmitry Donskoy=Costantine I the Great (allegedly in the IV century) we estimate at the turn of the XIV-XV cc. It corresponds beautifully with the date of Christ's Birth as calculated by us to the middle of the XII century [���] Due to a centennial mistake of the chronologists, in various documents the Nativity began to date as a hundred years earlier – in the middle of the XI century. If the adoption of Christianity was circa 1400, then from the middle of the XI century until that time 350 years passed, and from the middle of the XII century – approximately 250 years. Thus dating the adoption of Christianity as circa 1400 corresponds with an established tradition of dating the adoption of Christianity to three hundred years after than Nativity [��].
25. ON THE OLD ICONS ON THE HALO OF JESUS CHRIST THERE IS WRITTEN A DATE DENOTING YEAR 1370 – THE EPOCH OF THE ADOPTION OF THE APOSTLES' CHRISTIANITY.
On the old Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian icons on the Halo around Christ's head there was painted a cross and on it three Church Slavonic letters. On the left end – letter 'OT' (it was spelled as Omega with letter T above it). At the top end of the cross they painted letter 'OH' (ON) with the title (OH=ON (H=N in Russian) was written in the form of Russian letter 'O'), and on the right end – the letters 'IZHE' octuple which corresponds with modern Russian letter '�' (Latin 'E'), but which was spelled as modern Russian letter 'H' (Latin 'N'), see fig.37 [��] ch.2.
On the later icons these letters started to disappear. Sometimes all three letters or some of them remained unchanged. But almost always – and clearly not by chance – the title above 'O' disappeared. We will explain further why it happened.
What did these Russian letters mean: OT, OH (with the title) and IZHE on Christ's Halo? To a person familiar with the Church Slavonic recording of numerals the answer is obvious. It is number 878. Definitely. Firstly, ALL THE THREE LETTERS HAVE A NUMERIC VALUE. We will clarify that not all the letters in the Church Slavonic have this property: there are only 9 of them x 3 = 27. And overall there are 40 letters including yuses ('yus' is a name of a letter originally representing nasal vowels in Old Church Slavonic) in Cyrillic alphabet [155:1], p.17. But all the three letters depicted on Christ's Halo have the numeric value.
Secondly, ALL THE THREE LETTERS ON CHRIST'S NIMBUS ARE CORRECTLY PLACED. To clarify, as there is no zero in the Church Slavonic recording of numerals, various letters are used for the units, tens and hundreds. Thousands, tens of thousands, etc. are denoted with specific signs situated next to the letters. Accordingly, a composite of the three Church Slavonic letters-numerals by no means denotes a number. It is necessary that the first letter was of the hundreds category, the second – from the category of tens, and the third one – from the units category. Otherwise the record will be nonsensical or erroneous. But on Christ's Halo the number is written absolutely correctly, without any mistakes. Specifically, the first letter 'OT' means 800. The second letter 'OH' means 70. And the third letter 'IZHE' octuple, means 8. It results in number 878.
But this is not all. In the Church Slavonic language a number is distinguishable from the rest of the text with a title. Where if a number is a multi-digit, then the title is placed above the letter-numeral second on the right [155:1], p.22. For example, for a three digit numeral the title will be positioned above the middle letter. This is exactly what we see in Christ's Halo.
So, it is a number which is written on Christ's Halo. If some abbreviations of words were meant, then the probability of meeting all the requirements listed above is infinitesimal. THEREFORE ON CHRIST'S HALO THERE IS DEPICTED THE NUMBER 878.
What can it mean? There is no information in ecclesiastical tradition, that number 878 is somehow connected with Christ himself. On the other hand this number strongly resembles a date. As we are talking about the Russian icons, then it is only natural to read it according to the Russian-Byzantine era from Adam. I.e. according to the standard era of the Russian sources. In the ecclesiastic Russian church documents the era of Adam was universally used until the end of the XVII century, and in some cases even later.
But then we have exactly two possible interpretations of this date. It is apparent that the thousands in years are omitted in it, which corresponds with the era in the Russian documents of let's say the XVI-XVIII cc. The millenniums as a rule were skipped [1v], [5v]. Therefore before us is either year 6878 or year 5878 from Adam. The first date when converted to the years AD gives us year 1370 (you have to deduct 5508 from 6878). The second date gives us year 370. All the other possibilities to add the millenniums result either in the dating earlier than BC, or to the time in the future, which is nonsensical.
If there was the year 370 depicted on Christ's Halo, it would bear no sense not only in the new chronology, but not in the Scaligerian chronology either. Besides, the date was discovered by us specifically on the icons of the era of the XV-XVI cc. Which points out the year 1370 as the most plausible date. But it ideally fits the epoch calculated by us of the adoption of the Apostles' Christianity around the year 1380. It is possible that the year 1370 signified some important phase on the way to the adoption of Christianity.
It is interesting to trace – how the attitude towards these letters was changing over the course of time. The old icons turned darker and it was necessary to retouch them, i.e. to paint over anew. Only in the XIX century they learnt to 'uncover' icons, i.e. to remove the upper layers and to reveal the earlier ones. That is why we ought to understand that today we often see not the original, but the uncovered layer, which could have been partially lost and retouched by art restorers. If they didn't understand something or something seemed wrong to them, they could 'improve' the original. If we turn to the surviving icons with the letters on Christ's Halo, we will see, that on the overwhelming majority of the icons the title above the letter O is missing. But if we refer to the old icons, then sometimes there still remain traces of the title.
The matter is as follows. The three letters – OT, OH with the title, IZHE octuple – to anyone familiar with the Church Slavonic alphabet, will immediately suggest that there is a numeral written there. Specifically 878. And it not written just anywhere in a corner of an icon, but on Christ's Halo. But then a question arises – what did it mean? In the XVII-XIX cc. the specialists no longer had answers to this. We would highlight the fact that in the XVIII-XIX cc. it was compulsory to study the Church Slavonic language at school. Even those who graduated only after three classes of the parochial school knew the Church Slavonic language. That is why practically anyone of that time having read on Christ's Halo the Church Slavonic number 878 would immediately ask a question: what does it mean? But there was no answer.
That is why it was decided to omit the title above O in the new icons altogether, and when uncovering the old icons they tried not to repaint it. And in some cases they would even wipe it out to be sure.
So, Dmitry Donskoy = Constantine the Great enthrones in the year 6870 from Adam, i.e. in the year 1362. He defeats khan Mamai = Ivan Velyaminov = Emperor Maxentius or Maximinus seven years later in 1369 or 1370, after which in 1370 the Empire adopts Christianity. That is why it is specifically the year 1370 depicted on Christ's Halo. Recorded according to the era from Adam, i.e. by the date of (6)878. Therefore The Battle of Kulikovo took place most likely not in 1380, as it is generally thought today, but approximately in 1370.
However, dating it by the year 1380 is probably a reference to the victory of Constantine over Licinius, i.e. to the final victory over the enemies. According to the Lutheran Chronicle, Licinius was executed 17 years later after the beginning of Dmitry Donskoy's reign in 1363. This gives us year 1380 – precisely the date of the Battle of Kulikovo.
26. 'THE APPEARANCE OF THE CROSS' WHICH BROUGHT VICTORY TO CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND DMITRY DONSKOY'S VICTORY 'WITH THE AID OF THE CROSS'. CANNONS ARE 'THE SCHEMAS WITH CROSSES' IN THE ARMY OF DMITRY DONSKOY.
In the Battle of Kulikovo Dmitry Donskoy's army used cannons [4v1], ch.6. It seems that in the army of Mamai there were either no cannons or there were significantly less of them. On some of the old Russian icons a range of cannons were depicted in Dmitry's army firing at Khan Mamai's troops, fig.38. Each cannon is depicted here as a stretched forward arm with a nimbus enshrouded with smoke. As we show in [��] one of the symbols of the fire arm was Constantine's Labarum. It is thought that cannons appeared in the battle fields precisely in the middle of the XIV century. This is the time when gunpowder was invented.
There were no cannons in the army of Mamai depicted in the icon. It is probable, that it is due to the advantage in the artillery Dmitry was able to defeat Mamai. Mind you, Mamai's army was a professional one, and Dmitry's troops were more like a people's militia [4v1], ch.6. It is feasible that cannons were used for the first time on such a large scale in the Battle of Kulikovo [���] [��] ch.3.
Before the battle Sergiy Radonezhsky blessed Dmitry and handed over some 'secret weapon', which in the later sources was called 'THE SIGN OF THE SCHEMA CROSS' (a special embassy cross paramand - part of monastic robes – schema – translator's note). It is said: 'Sergiy presented him with a sign of the Schema cross and said: 'HERE IS THE WEAPON IMPERISHABLE! LET IT SERVE YOU INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS!' [362], v.5, ch.1, column 36.
Nikonovskaya Letopis' (Chronicle) informs us : "The Venerable Sergiy commanded them (Peresvet and Oslyabya – Author's note) to prepare for an imminent battle … HE GAVE THEM WEAPONS ("Behold a weapon which faileth never!", CHRIST'S CROSS SOWN ONTO SCHEMA (VESTMENTS), and commanded them INSTEAD OF THE HELMETS to put those on their heads' [586:1], v/11, p.53.
So, Sergiy Radonezhsky handed Peresvet and Oslyabya some new weapon – SCHEMA, instead of conventional armour – helmets, etc.
Commentators assure us that allegedly under the word SCHEMA or SCHEME was meant a head-dress made of fabric with a cross sown onto it. However, it is quite possible that behind the editorial term SCHEMA or SCHEME is concealed the word MUSKET (MASQUET) or MUSHKA (MUZZLE-SIGHT or BEAD in Russian) read backwards, as in Arabic: MUSHKA = MSHK --> SHKM = SHKM = SKHIMA (SCHEMA), when SH turns into --> S. See [6v1], ch.4:9.
Why is a word MUSKET usually derived from the word MUKHA (a fly – in Russian)? A direct link between a Latin MUSCA and Slavonic MOSHKA (midge in Russian) is noted by Max Vasmer [866], v.2, p.667. The word musca = mukha ('fly' in Russian) most likely entered Latin from the Russian language. Then everything falls into place. As the Russian word MUSHKA means not only a fly, but also a RIFLE SIGHT! It is not surprising that in Russia, where there are so many midges, the aiming device was compared to a midge (a fly) which came in sight). So they called the aiming sight MUSHKA (A FLY). That is why a new weapon with an aiming device (mushka) was called MUSKET in Russian. The invented aim caught the imagination of the warriors and gave name to the whole gun itself. Incidentally the Russian writers of the XVIII century called the musketeers MUSHKATERY, clearly deriving it from the word MUSHKA [866], v.3, p.20.
The parchment passed on by Sergiy Radonnezhsky to Dmitry Donskoy said: 'Help us with this HOLY WEAPON to bring down our foe'. See the details in [��] ch.3, p.20. Let us turn to the 'Ancient' Roman history now. There is a famous event in it – the vision of the Cross to the Emperor Constantine the Great on the eve of his battle with Maxentius. Constantine wins with the help of the CROSS. The 'Ancient Roman' story is a reflection of Dmitry's victory over Mamai. Also 'with the help of the Cross'. Dmitry Donskoy is described by the 'Ancient classics' as Constantine I the Great, and khan Mamai – as Maxentius, Constantine's co-ruler.
What is said about Constantine's victory over Maxentius with the help of the Cross? Though the essence of the event was described by the different authors similarly, however, there prevailed a strange variety of opinions in the question of what was exactly 'The Cross of Constantine'. At first Constantine beheld a gleaming apparition in the sky, various authors are saying different things about its shape. Constantine ordered to make 'labarum', on which he placed the sign he saw in the sky. The labarum with Chi Rho (the sign of the Cross) helped him to achieve victory. Once again however, there are various opinions on the question of what labarum was made of and what was depicted on it – and whether it was a banner in the sense of a flag at all or it was something else.
The story of Eusebius about Constantine reminds of the famous Biblical story of Moses who made 'a serpent of brass' and PUT IT ON THE POLE, by doing so he saved his people from 'the venomous serpents' (Numbers 2:1, 8-9).
What else is said about the serpents in the Bible? It turns out, 'in Numbers 21:6 the venomous snakes refers to the 'serpents' attacking (those who fight for God) = the Israelites in the desert – Author's note) are called in Hebrew SERAPHIM (NEKHUSTAN), THE FIERY ONE [845], commentaries to 4 Kingdoms 18:1-8. And the Biblical Encyclopaedia translates a word SERAPHIM, in particular as FLAME, FIRE. In [6v1], ch.4:10-11, we showed that here in the Bible we are given a description of the firing cannons. There is an old Ataman (Ottoman) banner of huge dimensions which survives today, on which there is depicted a cannon firing cannon balls, fig.39. This banner is kept in a museum in Vienna. It is not impossible, that this Ataman (Ottoman) banner is made following the design of the famous banner of Moses and labarum of Constantine. It is possible that on Moses' and Constantine's old banners there was depicted a cannon in the form of a 'cross'.
27. WHY THE CHRONICLES MISTOOK A CANNON FOR A CROSS.
It is likely, that the first cannons invented by Sergiy Radonezhsky were wooden and not metallic. The production of metallic cannons requires complex procedures. On the other hand the inventors of the first gunpowder hardly waited for the cannons' casting method to be invented. Most likely they tried to make use of the new invention for military purposes straight away. For that a solid pipe closed-ended on one side was needed. Then it is stuffed with gun powder and a closing plug applied and then filled with stones. That's it, the weapon is ready.
But it was not easy to make such a pipe. Oak, being an exceptionally strong type of wood, has a wonderful quality. Its core approximately 10 centimetres in diameter under certain conditions can separate itself from the rest of the trunk. Several wooden layers surrounding the core rot and turn into dust. The rest of the wood remains hard and whole. The core begins to dangle around inside of the developed wooden pipe, and it is not difficult to remove it with a long chisel. Or to split and scorch it out. You will get a strong oak pipe. If you bind it with iron rods like a barrel, an oak mortar cannon like this can withstand several shots. Particularly that the first gun-powder was far less powerful than later on. Only with the refinement of the gun-powder it was necessary to switch to the cast metallic cannons.
Direct indications survive that in the XV century in Russia they indeed used the wooden cannons [��]. It is interesting that they were used until comparatively recent time. Such a cannon is exhibited for example in the Nuremburg museum [����] ch.4.
How would the people perceive such new weapon when they beheld the terrible 'firing logs' on the battle field for the first time? Besides knowing that they were invented by the Christians. The wooden cannons could have been described for example like this: 'Christian trees which brought victory to the Christian Czar'. But the Christian cross is also often called 'a tree'. In the canonical sources the expression 'tree of cross' means a cross on which Christ was crucified.
That is why it is not surprising that the 'Christian tree which brought victory to the Czar Constantine could have turned under chroniclers' quill into 'the Christian tree of cross which brought victory to the Czar Constantine'. I.e. to the Russian Prince Dmitry.
The first Russian wooden cannons which provided Russia-Horde the undeniable advantage in the epoch of the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIV century, soon gave way to the metallic ones. However, the wooden cannons had one important quality, which ensured their long standing inclusion in the armament. The simplicity in their manufacture was very appealing. Besides, it was not obligatory to carry them during the campaign. It was sufficient to bring just the gun-powder. Having arrived at the battle place they would find the oak trees and quickly make the cannons and fire buckshot from them. Of course, you cannot fire a lot of shots from wooden cannon. But it is not necessary. If needed, they could always make new ones. The main thing was to have gun-powder. After the victory they left the wooden cannons on the battlefield and moved on. It is clear why they almost entirely didn't stand the test of time. After being thrown away they rotted. That is why in the museums you can see only some rare examples which have survived.
While the cannons were a new weapon, never-before-seen by most, the effect of this gun on the enemy was overwhelming. The 'Christian tree' spitting fire and bringing death, inspired panic and fear. The cannons were reflected in various 'ancient' myths and legends. Later, when the concept of a cannon was adopted by many, there began a competition in precision and range. The wooden artillery gave way to a metallic one.
28. THE OUTSTANDING CZAR-KHAN CONSTANTINE I = DMITRY IVANOVICH.
In the 'ancient' biography of Constantine-Dmitry there is included another reflection of the Battle of Kulikoivo. It is Constantine's second famous battle, this time with his co-ruler Licinius. Instead of adversaries, Constantine – Maxentius, here it concerns the pair of Constantine – Licinius. Constantine's battles with Maxentius and Licinius are considered to be the two main military combats in his biography.
Constantine's final victory over his co-rulers and opponents – is the execution of Licinius. He was decapitated. In the Russian chronicles it is the execution of Ivan Velyaminov, the son of tysiatsky (dux, Heerzog, captain of the thousand - a military leader in Ancient Rus, who commanded a people's volunteer army called 'tysyacha', or a thousand – Translator's note) by Dmitry's order. The tysiatskies were effectively the co-rulers of Grand Princes. Having abolished this post, Dmitry became the mogul. But to achieve this he had to dispose of the son of the last tysiatsky – Ivan Velyaminov. On the whole it is the same picture as under Constantine the Great. According to the old law there were several co-rulers reigning in the Empire. In Rome there were several august figures and Caesars ruling simultaneously. In Russia there was a Grand Prince and tysiatskies. And then one of the co-rulers removes the others, becomes the sole czar and changes the political system. From that moment the Czardom is controlled autocratically and the reign is passed on to the son of a deceased czar. Prior to that it was different. In both Rome and Russia. In the Roman history before Constantine becoming the emperor was not hereditary, and only after Constantine the succession to the throne from father to son was established.
The primary sources unanimously stress the role of victory of Constantine = khan Dmitry over 'paganism'. It indeed concerned an enormous event – the adoption of the Apostolic Christianity throughout the entire 'Mongol' Empire. The words by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History on Constantine's victory are imbued with a new meaning now.
'His enemy Licinius lay there prostrate, the mighty victor Constantine… won back their own Eastern provinces and COMBINED THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO A SINGLE WHOLE, as in former days. BRINGING IT ALL UNDER THEIR PEACEFUL RULE, FROM THE RISING SUN TO THE FARTHEST DUSK, IN A WIDE CIRCLE FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. People now lost all fear of their former oppressors'. Quotation from [140], p.120-121.
In honour of this event there were erected the monumental constructions, paintings were created and literary works were written. Some of them have survived. For example, Constantine Arch in Italian Rome. To remind you, Vatican (Batu-Khan) was the Western-European mission of the Catholic 'Mongol' church in Italy. To this day the Vatican memorialises the stormy religious events of the late XIV century. For example, the frescos in the Hall of Constantine in Vatican. The famous Raphael was appointed to paint them.
29. THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL.
The transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire to New Rome is an event of the late XIV century. The emperor Constantine I, aka Russian-Horde czar-khan Dmitry Donskoy after the victory in the Kulikovo Battle in 1380 arrived to Czar-Grad and proclaimed it the second capital of the Empire. It became the second metropoly after the main one in Vladimir and Suzdal Rus'. Having made the Apostolic Christianity the religion of the entire Empire, Constantine = Dmitry most likely decided to place the spiritual and religious centre into the old Czar-Grad = evangelical Yoros=Jerusalem, where in 1185 Christ was crucified. Thus, not far from Yoros, a little to the South, Constantinople emerged. The military and administrative centre of Empire Constantine kept in Russia-Horde = Israel. i.e. in the biblical Assyria-Syria (in Egypt).
Hence you can see that the chroniclers could confuse OLD ROME and NEW ROME. As is shown in [1v], the confusion reflected in several versions of transfer of the Roman Empire capital. In some versions it was transferred from Old Rome into New Rome. And other claim the opposite – transfer from New Rome to the Old one.
The comparison of the locations of Yoros-Jerusalem and Istanbul-Constantinople, situated close to it, shows that Constantinople is a later capital. Why didn't Constantine = Dmitry transfer his capital unchanged to the holy city of Yoros, but founded a new centre on the other side of Bosporus 30 kilometres from Yoros? This is our hypothesis.
Constantinople's location itself indicates that the city was built quite late, when people have already invented the cannons capable of firing long distances and learnt to build large ships with the deep draught for open sea navigation. Istanbul is located in the Bosporus' wide point, by the Sea of Marmara. Being in such a location the absence of cannons would have made it impossible to control the Bosporus and to prevent foreign water crafts pass through into the Black Sea and back. That is why in the earlier times when there were no cannons it would have been much better to position the city in the Bosporus' narrow point, which would provide full control over the strait. THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE YOROS WAS LOCATED.
A big advantage of the location of Istanbul-Constantinople was The Golden Horn – harbour-cleft, capable of receiving large naval vessels with a deep draught at its cliffy shores. But in the epoch if the XII-XIII cc. there were yet no such ships. That is why there was no need for such a harbour. Small ships of that time navigated along the coast and had comparatively shallow draught. It was quite possible to keep them immediately in the Bosporus, in the harbour between Yoros and Beykoz. The sea storms do not penetrate there. For the epoch of the XII-XII cc. it was a fairly ample harbour.
So the location of the Yoros fortification – evangelical Jerusalem was ideal for the capital of the XII-XIII cc., but in the end of the XIV century it no longer satisfied the requirements of that time. That is why Constantine = Dmitry founded New Rome, Constantinople – not in the place of Jerusalem, but approximately 30 kilometres from it. However – not very far. It is likely that he none the less wanted to establish the capital as close as possible to holy Jerusalem.
