A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy


Chapter 6.



This is what the biblical Book of Judith tells us.

# The Assyrian King Nebuchadnezzar who rules in Nineveh marches against the King Arfaxad and defeates him. It resembles a civil war.

# Nebuchadnezzar gets angry with his WESTERN allies who no longer fear him and display signs of independence.

# Nebuchadnezzar plans a massive military campaign to the West in order to curb the arrogance of the Western Kings and win back their lands held under the Assyrian power.

# The general Holofernes is appointed head of the Assyrian army. At first it is planned to conquer the country and the city of Bethulia. The Assyrians invade the land of the city of Bethulia.

# A wealthy widow, Jewess Judith decides to save her country from the invasion of the enemy. She infiltrates Holofernes' camp, cunningly gains his trust and enchants Holofernes. Left alone with him she kills him by decapitating him with a sword.

# The Assyrian army is demoralised and flees. The Israelites attack the Assyrians, drive them out and chase them to Damascus, destroy, plunder and enrich themselves.

Given that these events take place under the Assyrian King Nebuchadnezzar it occurs that the Book of Judith describes the Russian and European history of the XVI century. This logical conclusion can be explained [6v1], ch.8. It turns out that here is given an account of the events of the epoch of Ivan III = Ivan IV the Terrible. We have already identified him with the Assyrian Nebuchadnezzar. The story of Judith clearly shows the traces of the story of Esther already familiar to us. A foreigner, a Jewess, infiltrates the court of the 'Persian' king, becomes his wife or an 'intimate person'. As a result a son or a close relative of the king – the king's co-ruler, tragically dies. It is followed by the massacre of the 'Persians' by the Jews. It is no coincidence that in the modern biblical canon the Book of Judith is placed next to the Book of Esther.

Previously Russia and Turkey were a part of the same Empire. Up until the XVII century the relations between them were quite amicable. Only after the break of the Empire in the XVII Turkey and Russia began to grow apart.

In the epoch of the oprichnina and the unrest of the late XVI century Western Europe gradually gains independence. Osmania = Judaea estranges itself from the seething Russia-Horde = Israel and makes an attempt to once again conquer the rebellion in Western Europe. But it cannot succeed in this single-handedly.



Vasiliy II Ivanovich also had the following names: Ivan, Varlaam, Gavriil [161], p.68, and also [145], p.173. He ruled in 1505-1533 according to [362], or in 1507-1534 according to [36], [145]. On the pages of the Western chronicles he is reflected as Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodian, 'Maximilian I' 1493-1519 according to [76].

It was a peaceful rule. The major event was the division of Western European and possibly African 'Novgorodian lands', which were affected by the Ataman conquest. The lands were divided between the new governors from the Russian-Hordian nobility. However there was so much land, that there was not enough of the elite and it was necessary to attract the 'best serfs'. The land parcelling was under control of the special authority called Novgorodskaya Izba (Novgorodian Hut) [6v1], ch.5:10.

On the pages of history Vasiliy III is also known by the name Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, where he is erroneously dated to XII century.


Revolt: Elena Glinskaya + Ivan Ovchina 1533-1538 according to [775]. It is followed by Semiboyarshina (the government formed of 7 boyars - court nobility), i.e. board of trustees in 1538-1547 according to [775]. To clarify: after Vasiliy III Ivanivich's death there began an inter-dynastic war, followed by the reign of the Boyars Duma = Semiboyarshina, lasting up until the accession to the throne in 1547 of Vasiliy III's son - Ivan IV Vasiliyevich 'The Terrible', who reached maturity.

The Western chronicles did not register this strife in the history of the Habsburgs = Novgorodians. It seems that viewed from Europe the turbulent events in the Moscow court surrounding the throne occupied by the juvenile Ivan, were not visible. That is why in the Western chronicles immediately after 'Maximilian I' = Vasiliy III the power passes to 'Charles V' = Ivan IV. Technically that was what happened. However in Russian history the others were ruling for Ivan minor – at first – the boyars, and then Elena Glinskaya and Ivan Ovchina (Sheepskin) [776], p.11-15. Later there was Semiboyarshina. And only in 1547 Ivan IV the 'Terrible' finally took the power into his own hands and ascended to the throne [362], v.8, column 56-57.

The 'Mongol' Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. reflected in the Old Testament as the Kingdoms of Israel and Judaea.

Vasiliy married Elena Glinskaya in the beginning of 1526 [578], Book 2, p.262. This event was described by the Western chronicles as 'Charles V' Habsburg's marriage to JEZEBEL, the daughter of the King of Portugal. In the Bible this marriage is reflected in the history of the Kingdom of Israel as the marriage between King Ahab and JEZEBEL (3 Kingdoms 16:31). Thus the infamous Jezebel is the reflection of Elena Glinskaya, the wife of Vasiliy III. In the Fourth Book of Kings of the Bible the Russian-Hordian czar-khan Vasiliy III is reflected under the name of the Old Testament King Ahab. Partially he is also 'Charles V of Habsburg'.

Elena Glinskaya dies young. It is thought that she was poisoned [362], v.8, column 29. Vasiliy Shuisky accedes to power. He executes Prince Ivan Ovchina Telepnev. The name Shuisky originates from the word Shuja or Shui. In the Third and Fourth Books of the Bible Vasiliy Shuisky, i.e. King Shui reflected as the legendary Old Testament commander-czar Jehu.


The epoch of Ivan IV Vasilievich 'The Terrible' (born 1526, see above) 1533-1584 according to [775]. In 1547 he acceded to the throne [362], v.8, column 56-57. On the pages of the Western Chronicles Ivan IV is described under the name of Habsburg, i.e. Novgorodets, 'Charles V' 1519-1556 according to [304], v.3, p.27 or 1519-1558 according to [76]. In the Bible Ivan 'The Terrible' is described as the legendary czar of Assyria and Babylon Nebuchadnezzar. Ivan 'The Terrible' is a 'combination', a Hybrid of four different czars-khans. In the history of 'Ancient' Rome it is reflected as a 'foursome' of famous emperors: Tiberius + Caligula + Claudius + Nero. He is also the very same Henry IV: allegedly 1053-1106. He is also the very same Ivan III the Terrible: allegedly 1462-1505. He is also the very same Frederick III: allegedly 1440-1493 [6v1], ch.5.

It is thought that the time of 'Ivan the Terrible' is well documented and studied. It is not so. There are virtually no authentic documents left from 'Ivan the Terrible'. His time is one of the most dark and intriguing in Russian history. It separates two completely different epochs: Russian-Hordian and the Romanovs'.

Under Ivan IV Veliky Novgorod was conquered and defeated. It was one of the most notorious crimes of the Oprichnina [776], p.145-160. In the bible the massacre of Novgorod = Yaroslavl is reflected as the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Assyria and Babylon [6v1], ch.5.

In the Western chronicles the same events were described as the struggle between Charles V and the Protestants. One of the central events is Charles V defeating the protestant city of Magdeburg on Elbe River allegedly in 1550-1552 [304], v.3, p.107. It is feasible that here on the pages of the European chronicles, were reflected the distant events in Russia-Horde, when Ivan IV 'The Terrible' defeated Veliky Novgorod, i.e. Yaroslavl on Volga river.

At the end of his life 'Ivan IV' withdrew to a monastery, virtually forsaking all power and responsibility. Then in 1553 he falls seriously ill and turns into a holy fool [4v1], ch.8:5 and [6v1], ch.5. He becomes Vasiliy (or Ivan) the Blessed. I.e. the famous holy fool of the XVI century.


Ivan IV Vasilievich = Vasiliy the Blessed or Ivan the Blessed, Moscow miracle worker, 1547-1553. Ivan IV began to rule together with his brother Georgiy Vasilievich and his cousin Vladimir Andreevich. The main event of the young czar Ivan IV's reign was the conquest of Kazan in 1552.

During Ivan IV's reign a major rebellion ignites in the Empire under the banner of the religious separation from the metropoly = Veliky Novgorod. The government decides to crush the rebellion. The first step was the siege and conquest of Kazan in 1552. The next stage was planned as the military campaign to Germany, which was in the grip of a rebellion-Reformation. This is 'The Livonian war'.

In 1553 Ivan IV was taken seriously ill and became deranged. He was called Vasiliy the Blessed Moscow Miracle worker, and also – Ivan the Blessed Moscow Miracle worker. Several years later he died. In the end of XVI century in Moscow in the Red Square St. Basil's Cathedral was built = Pokrovsky Cathedral, where, most likely, the remains of Ivan IV were re-interred. However under Ivan IV the czar's quarters are still situated in Suzdal, and the administrative centre of the Empire, the court of the governors was in Yaroslavl. The Moscow Kremlin had yet to be built.

Ivan IV is also known in history under the name of Vsevolod, except erroneously dated to the XII century. The biblical king Nebuchadnezzar who lost his mind is the very same Blessed Vasiliy as one of Ivan IV the Terrible's periods of reign.


Dmitry Ivanovich, 1553-1563. An infant, the son of Ivan IV Vasilievich. Selected Council Izbrannaia Rada (the circle of persons close to the czar, a legislative body - Translator's note) – a board of trustees headed by Adashev, ruled on behalf of Dmitry Ivanovich. During the rule of Izbrannaia Rada the Livonian War was started in order to bring Germany to submission, seized by the rebellion of the Reformation. By the end of Dmitry's reign a major military invasion into Western Europe was prepared. However the dynastic revolt in the Empire prevented it. In 1563 an adolescent Dmitry perishes in an accident. As a result of the distortion of Russian history this death was dated several years later and was depicted as the murder of czarevitch (Prince) Dmitry by 'Boris Godunov' in Uglich.

He is also known under the name of Iziaslav, except erroneously dated to the XII century.


Ivan V Ivanovich 1563-1572. In the Western chronicles reflected as Habsburg = Novgorodets 'Ferdinand I' 1558-1564 according to [76].

Following the tragic death of the adolescent czar Dmitry Ivanovich, his younger brother, infant Ivan V Ivanovich acceded to the throne. From his enthronement the Zakharyins-Romanovs regain power and begin the terror. The Livonian war is brought to an end. The climax of the terror is the establishment of the oprichnina, the defeat of the Old Russian capital – Yaroslavl (Yaroslavovo Dvorishe (Yaroslav Court) of Velikiy Novgorod), the execution of Vladimir Andreyevich Staritsky, the member of the Royal House, the co-ruler.

On the pages of history Ivan V Ivanovich and his uncle Georgiy Vasilievich, who was ruling under him during his time are also depicted as: a) Yury Dolgorukiy (Yury The Long-Armed), erroneously dated to the XII century; b) the biblical Artaxerxes Macrocheir ('Longimanus'), erroneously dated to the VI century BC.

Only after 1564 the infamous terror attributed to Ivan 'The Terrible' began. The Terror had started indeed. But it was unleashed by the Zakharyins, who were butchering their enemies. And as we know, their opposition included, PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE OLD BOYARS NOBILITY. I.e. the Russian-'Mongol' nobility of the Horde dynasty. The struggle between the supporters of the Empire and the faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs, eager to seize power, ignited. The Zakharyins-Romanovs evinced pro-Western interests. Civil war flared up. This is the actual beginning of the Great Strife in Russia-Horde.

During this time the first attempt of the revision of Russian history was made.

It is clear that political objectives were being pursued, which, strictly speaking, were not concealed. 'The concern regarding the disclosed revolt of the boyars which in 1563-1564 impelled the monarch to embark upon the AMMENDMENT OF THE HISTORY of his reign' [775], p.172. And further: 'The blossoming of the Moscow official chronicle writing in 1550 – early 1560 and ITS COMPLETE CESSATION after 1568 … The fate of the clerks in charge of the chronicle writing… The print worker Ivan Viskovati was executed… FEAR PREVENTED ANY ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE THE WRITING OF THE CHRONICLES IN ZEMSHCHINA (the basic part of the territory of the Russian state with its centre in Moscow not included by Ivan IV in the special appanage of the sovereign, the oprichnina. It included the cities of the Perm' and Viatka regions and Riazan', Starodub, Velikie Luki, and other cities. - Translator's note). [775], p.22.

Thus the people who were writing the history of Russia were annihilated. Besides, we are shown a 'dangerous place for chronicle writing' – the pogrom of Novgorod. This is the moment where the name of 'Veliky Novgorod' was stripped from Yaroslavl and then transferred to the Pskov region. The motives were purely political. The new people came to power – the Zakharyins (the Skharievtsy), the future Romanovs. They had their domain in Polotsk, in the Western Russian region and gravitated towards Pskov and Hanseatic League (a commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and their market towns that dominated trade along the coast of Northern Europe – Translator's note.) They wished to distort the Russian history in such a way that the origins of the old Horde dynasty from Yaroslavl were concealed. They created the impression that the Russian dynasty allegedly originated from North-Western Russia, Pskov region, where the Zakharyins themselves came from. Changing the geography of the events and their dates, the Romanovs-Zakharyins underpinned their new dynasty with the 'historical foundation'.

In 1564 the oprichnina was established. "The boyar V.M. YURIEV-ZAHARYIN became one of the main initiators of the oprichnina and it was the Zakharyins around whom the RULING CIRCLE OF THE OPRICHNINA has grouped around "[775], p. 225.

We are not going to dwell on the details of the terror of the Oprichnina. They are very well-known. We would only like to emphasise that the entire terror of Ivan 'The Terrible' fits within the period from 1563 to 1572. I.e. precisely during the reign of the juvenile Ivan Ivanovich on whose behalf the Zakharyins-Romanovs ruled.

The main stages of the terror: the establishment of the Oprichnina in 1564, the Kazan deportation in 1565, the conspiracy of the equerry Fedorov-Chelyadnin, THE CRUSHING DEFEAT OF NOVGOROD in 1569-1570, the murder of the Metropolitan Philip and the Archbishop of Kazan Gherman, the murder of the czar's cousin Vladimir Andreyevich, THE MASS EXECUTIONS of the boyars in 1568 [775], p.338.

The crushing defeat of Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl is the turning point of the oprichnina. The city was completely destroyed and the entire population was banished. The pogrom was followed by the execution of the member of the royal dynasty – Prince Vladimir of Staritsa. The civil war breaks out.

A new faction of the Zakharyins-Romanovs decided to eradicate the Russian-Horde dynasty, the old capital and the pillar of which was Veliky Novgorod = Yaroslavl. The Moscow oprichniks' army of the Zakhariyns-Romanovs destroyed Yaroslavl and executed Vladimir Andreyevich, who could have claimed the throne from the side of the Horde dynasty.

The Horde = Rat' (Army) puts up an armed resistance. In the Miller-Romanovs' version of history it is presented as the invasion of the Crimean Khan. In 1571 the 'Crimeans', i.e. the Horde, approached Moscow. Moscow is captured and destroyed. The Czar Ivan 'abandoned his army and fled to Rostov'[776], p.162. Shortly before then in 1569 the czar requested asylum in England, presumably anticipating a dangerous turn of events. The Horde prevailed. The famous 'Moscow affair' begins. The Horde, which by then had gained strength, crushes the party of the Zakharyins-Romanovs. The leaders of the previous oprichnina, the 'Romanovs' oprichnina, are executed. During this time the famous … Malyuta Skuratov-Belskiy and Vasily Griaznoy are in operation. It is thought that they didn't participate in the first 'Zakharyin's-Romanov's terror'. Their activities began only after the Novgorod pogrom [776], p.169. Thus they act as the HORDIANS (ORDYNTSY) who severely punished the usurpative Zakhariyns-Romanovs clique. 'Skuratov helped Ivan the Terrible to dispose of the old guard oprichniks' [776], p.175. I.e.the Zakhariyns' guard.

Thus the Hordian Malyuta Skuratov rooted out the representatives of the Zakharyins Oprichniny (Oprichny) terror. It was for this that he was later declared to be 'evil'. We can see who was the author of today's formally recognized version of Russian history. It is the Zakharyins-Romanovs and their descendants.

The Horde-Rat' (Army) is victorious. The Zakharyins' Oprichnina Duma is defeated. Basmanov, its leader is executed. The new Duma is created consisting of 'the nobility of the highest possible rank… Almost all these figures or their relatives were subjected to persecution under Basmanov' [776], p.174-175. Directly following this, 'the English ambassador' was informed about the cessation of the secret talks regarding the granting of the asylum to the Czar's family in England' [776], p.189.

To summarize, the first attempt of the Zakharyins (Skharievtsy) to seize the throne of the Empire failed. The 'Mongol' Horde reaffirmed its status. In fact the capital for some time was transferred to Novgorod. 'The czar soundly settled in his new residence (in Novgorod – Author's note)… ON THE YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE (Yaroslav Court) 'by the czar's palace a new bell was hung up' [775], p.374. Even the czar's treasury was transferred from Moscow to Novgorod [776], p.181. Incidentally 'the treasure which was brought to Novgorod was stored in the church cellars in THE YAROSLAVOVO DVORISHE (Yaroslav Court) [776], p.189. Today it is thought that the city in question is referring to Volkhovsky Novgorod on the swamps, in fact it is Novgorod-YAROSLAVL. Which is quite natural: Yaroslavl is the old capital of the Horde Empire. And the YAROSLAVOV DVORISHE (YAROSLAV COURT) is simply a Court in Yaroslavl.

To sum up. The version of the historians for the period of 1563-1572 is as follows. The actual power belongs to the boyars Zakharyins-Romanovs, 'who concentrated the control over Zemschina in their hands and who were ruling at court of the successor czarevitch Ivan, their relative on his mother's side' [776], p.165. The court of the YOUNG CZAREVITCH IVAN was the control centre. The Zakharyins rule on his behalf.

Here is our point of view. As a matter of fact here we say exactly the same. The power belongs to the Zakharyins-Romanovs who rule the country on behalf of the young CZAR Ivan. The difference being only that the historians 'proceed' here with the invented 'Terrible czar' with 50 years of reigning, where as we claim that Ivan IV is no more. The young Ivan Ivanovich is the czar.


Simeon-Ivan Beckbulatovitch 1572-1584. In the Western chronicles he is reflected as the Habsburg 'Maximillian II' 1564-1576 according to [76].

Following the crushing defeat of the oprichnina czarevich Ivan was forced to abdicate. Simeon, the head of Zemschina, a member of the Royal house becomes the czar. He adopts the royal name of Ivan and attempts to continue the Livonian war. But Russia's strength is exhausted by strife and terror. Simeon-Ivan enjoyed only regional success in the war. The campaign against Germany was postponed. But it never happened.

Simeon is also known under the name of Mstislav, notably he was erroneously dated to the XII century.

Our reconstruction. After the Civil war 1571-1572 the party of the Zakharyins-Romanovs suffers defeat. The executions of the leaders of the Oprichnina in Moscow have begun. The historians call all of this 'Moscow massacre' or 'Moscow affair' [775], p.163. At the head of the new oprichnina stand the most noble families, which prior to this were being wiped out. The army-Horde once again comes into power. The Yaroslavtsy-Novgorodtsy stand at the head of the country. The old documents confirm our version: 'The oprichnina army received the biggest reinforcement in its entire history; more than 500 Novgorodian noblemen joint its ranks... The Czar tried to create a force represented by the Novgorodian oprichniki' [776], p.169.

The capital was even transferred to Novgorod for a while. The government was headed by the Tatar khan Simeon Beckbulatovitch, most likely the youngest son of Ivan III, i.e. the uncle of the deceased Ivan IV. In 1575 the young czar Ivan Ivanovich was forced to abdicate. Then Simeon-Ivan was magnificently crowned czar in 1576. It was customary to change the name when crowned to reign in Russia at that time, as the example with Vasily III shows. Simeon is of course a rather elderly man. He is around 70 years old by then.

During this period Moscow virtually ceased being the capital. At first there was an attempt to transfer the capital to Novgorod, where they have already begun, but didn't complete the building of the Royal Court and a mighty fort [776], p.169. But then due to some reasons the czar moved to Tver: 'Having left Moscow, Simeon moved for his 'great reign' in Tver'[776], p.205. The historians enclose the words 'great reign' in quotes because they dislike that the chronicle informs us about the 'great' reign of Simeon'. What about 'Ivan the Terrible?' - they say. It cannot be that some Simeon was a Grand Prince when the czar and the Grand Prince 'Ivan the Terrible' was still alive! But 'Ivan the Terrible', as we are told, in the last years of his reign also turns out to be in Staritsa under Tver with his entire family [776], p.228. Everything is clear. 'Ivan the Terrible' in his later years and khan Simeon is one and the same person.

To sum up. The version of the historians of the period of 1572-1584 is as follows. Tatar Simeon is absurdly vested with overall authority by The 'Terrible czar Ivan' who then leaves himself at a loose end.

Our view. Following the return of the Horde dynasty to power, in 1572 the head of the Zemskaya State Duma khan Simeon becomes the sovereign ruler. In 1575 the 22 year old czar Ivan Ivanovich, who had already been stripped of power, was forced to abdicate in favour of Simeon. This is the famous abdication of Ivan the Terrible in 1575 [776], p.195. The Hordian Khan Simeon acceded to the throne and reigned until 1584.

We know that 'Ivan the Terrible' prior to his death was already old and senile. However, Ivan IV was born allegedly in 1530 (in fact in 1526) and at the time of the death of 'Ivan the Terrible' in 1584 he would have been 54-58 years old. The historians explain such decrepitude by citing mental disorder. Simeon, the son of Ivan III in 1584 should have been approximately 80 years old. Indeed, Ivan III died in 1505, i.e. 79 years before 1584. Ivan III had several children and it is only Simeon we know nothing about. This is why the notion that Simeon 'Beckbulatovich' is the son of Ivan III seems entirely natural.

In truth, the Great Strife of the XVI-XVII cc. was a longstanding civil war. As a result the state system of Russia radically changed at its core. The old Russian-Horde dynasty was destroyed. The coup d'etat was carried out by the representatives of the Western Russian, Pskovian faction of the Romanovs. The coup was supported by the Reformation revolt in the Western Europe. A brand new period in the history of Russia and the world has begun [6v2], ch.1.

The main thing that the Romanovs did was to declare the preceding Russian-Horde dynasty to be 'unlawful'. The entire Great epoch which lasted nearly three hundred years was denounced as a period of the 'cruel foreign yoke' in Russia. They declared their predecessors, the Russia Horde khans, savage barbarians from distant Eastern countries, who had usurped the power of the first 'Rurikovichs'. The former life of the country under the 'Mongol conquerors' was depicted as the epoch of grim violence. On the other hand the Romanovs presented themselves as the 'restorers of the truly Russian national identity', which had at last replaced the bloodthirsty 'foreigners'- Tatars. The Tartar Godunov was declared to be 'evil'. They said he had butchered a boy.

You have to hand it to them, the Romanovs were smart. In fact they hardly manipulated the historical facts. They simply presented them in a different light. As a result the Russian history of the 'Mongol' period was hugely distorted. The remains of the Cossack army Horde = Rat' scattered during the war and partially pushed aside from the centre to the borders of the Empire, were declared by the Romanovs to be the fugitive surfs. Or 'the bad folk' banished for some kind of wrong-doings. The Romanovs' historians wrote a new history of the 'evil Horde' in the light of the social commission dictated by the new masters. The result was perfectly plausible at first glance. However, they didn't succeed in plastering over everything. That is why today we can restore our true history.

But besides the main strategic task the Romanovs also pursued other aims, smaller, but by no means unimportant to them. Namely:

- To conceal the fact that the Great Strife began not in the XVII century, but in the middle of the XVI century as early as under 'Ivan the Terrible'. And that the Romanovs were among its main organisers and instigators.

- To prove the legitimacy of their claim to the throne. To do so they presented themselves as the relatives of the last legitimate czar.

- To conceal their participation in the oprichnina and the internecine fighting, dumping all the bloody sins onto 'the Terrible Czar'. They cover up their involvement in the religious heresy of the Judaizers.

- To trace their ancestry from a kind of ONLY LEGITIMATE WIFE OF THE 'TERRIBLE CZAR' – Anastasia ROMANOVA.

It is possible that specifically for this purpose the Romanovs' historians combined the four czars into one, falsely presenting their wives as the wives of the same person. We would like to remind you that according to the canonical law, after the fourth marriage all wedlock was considered to be unlawful. Thus the marriages of the last of these four czars were wrong, and the children born within them had no rights to the throne, as it were. Then the czar Feodor Ivanovich was declared childless. This was not true. His son, i.e. Boris Fyodorovich 'Godunov' the Romanovs declared to be unlawful czar, who did not inherit the throne. This is also not true.


Feodor Ivanovich 1584-1598 according to [362]. He is the son of Simeon-Ivan. A peaceful reign without any internal disturbances. The military actions in the Livonian war were stopped, however the separation of the West from the Empire as a result of the Reformation revolt was not recognized as lawful at the court of the Great Khan. In the West they understood that when Russia consolidated its strength the Livonian war would resume.

The wife of Feodor Ivanovich is Irina Godunova. The family of the Godunovs operates at court in the XIV-XVI cc. Its representatives occupied high posts. The son and the heir of Feodor Ivanovich is Boris Fyodorovich Godunov. In the 'Romanovs'' version he was falsely presented as IRINA'S BROTHER i.e. as a person who did not have the inherent right to the throne.


In [6v2], ch.2 we have shown that the transferal of the capital of Russia-Horde to Moscow in the end of the XVI century and the construction of Moscow Kremlin were described in the Bible as the reconstruction of Jerusalem. The Old Testament Book of 'Nehemiah' is entirely dedicated to this important event.

In fact there are TWO JERUSALEMS described in the Bible. The first one is the Jerusalem of the New Testament. We call it The New Testament Jerusalem. It is Czar-Grad (Yoros) on the Bosphorus. It is the very same 'ancient' Troy. Jesus Christ lived here and was crucified (on the Beykoz mountain) in the XII century.

The Second Jerusalem is the Jerusalem of the epoch of the so called reconstruction of the temple described in the Bible. This is Moscow of the XVI century. The Books of the Old Testament which describe the 'second Jerusalem' are the latter books of the Bible. Though today they are on the contrary considered to be the most ancient. In fact they were written in the XVI century and were edited up until the middle of the XVII century.

The numerous parallels between the descriptions of the Old Testament Jerusalem in the Book of Nehemiah and the Moscow Kremlin, which we have discovered, do not leave any doubts about the fact that at this point the Bible gives an account specifically of the construction of Moscow and the Kremlin in particular. This amazing correspondence comes down to the last detail. While in the modern Palestinian Jerusalem (its original name, as we know, El Quds) there is nothing even faintly reminiscent of the Biblical description of Jerusalem.

Thus, the Old Testament Book of Nehemiah, when speaking of the second reconstruction-building of Jerusalem in the 20th year of Arta-Xerexes, in fact narrates about the construction of Moscow and the Moscow Kremlin in the XVI century circa 1567. Whereas the six Biblical fortress gates of the 'reconstructed' Jerusalem are the six old gates of the Moscow Kremlin. Namely:

# The cattle, Sheep gate of the Old Testament Jerusalem is the Spasskiy (Saviour) Gate of the Moscow Kremlin. The Jerusalem Gate in Jerusalem is also the Spasskiy Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.

# The Fish Gate of the Old Covenant Jerusalem is the Timofeev Gate of the Moscow Kremlin.

# The Fortress Old Gate of Jerusalem is the Nikolsky or Old Nikolsky Gate of the Kremlin.

# The Dung Gate, the Dirty, Sordid garrison gate of the Old Covenant Jerusalem is Kremlin Troitsky Gate.

# The biblical garrison Valley Gate in Jerusalem is the Kremlin Borovitsky Gate.

# The biblical Fountain Gate in Jerusalem is the Kremlin Tainitsky Gate.

# Further, the fortified walls of the tower of the 'reconstructed' Old Covenant Jerusalem are the Moscow Kremlin towers. In particular the biblical towers Meah and Hananel are the Kremlin Nabatnaya and Tzarskaya towers.

# The biblical Tower of the Furnaces is the Kremlin Arsenal (Arsenalnaya) Tower.

# The Old Covenant Dragon Spring in front of the Valley Gate in Jerusalem is the Chertoryk river opposite the Kremlin Borovitsky Gate.

# The Biblical Garden of the King and the City of David within the Jerusalem walls are the embankment Czar Garden (Tsarsky Sad) and Czar Palace (Tsarsky Dvorets) in the Kremlin. The very same garden was described in the 'ancient sources' as the famous 'Hanging Gardens of Babylon' ('Semiramida Gardens').

# The Biblical 'Wall of the Pool of Shelah' within the Jerusalem fortress is Furrier's Chamber of the Czar's State Courtyard (Monarchic Court) in the Kremlin.

# The Old Testament Sepulchers of David inside the Jerusalem wall are the Czar's Burial Chambers Tombs in the Kremlin Cathedral of the Archangel (Arkhangelsky Sobor).

# The Biblical 'House of the Mighty' and Rybaritsa the Pool inside the Jerusalem wall are the Hobro Courtyard, The Armoury Chamber and the Timofeevskaya Tower = the Fish Tower in the Moscow Kremlin.

# The Old Testament 'Armory at the Angle of the wall' of the Jerusalem fortress is the Arsenal in the corner of the Kremlin, in the Corner Tower.

# The Biblical 'the House of the High Priest (Eliashib)' inside the Jerusalem fortress is the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin.

# The Old Testament House Royal and the 'High Pillar' ('great projecting tower') next to it within the Jerusalem fortress are the Czar's Palace and the Ivan the Great Bell-tower in the Kremlin.

# The Biblical Horse Gate inside the Jerusalem Fortress is the Czar's Argamac Horse Stable at the Borovitskii corner of the Kremlin.

# The Old Testament Judgement Gate of Jerusalem is the Administrative Order by the Moscow Kremlin Troitsky Gate.

In the XVI century the Empire reaches the height of its power. Moscow becomes its new capital after Yaroslavl = Veliky Novgorod upon the Volga river. In the XVI century the massive construction works begin in the place of the small settlement which used to be situated here (in 1380 the Battle of Kulikovo took place there), where the best architects, summoned from various different countries, work. The new capital of the World Empire is being built. At first using a cut-and-cover method, in a ditch for foundation, a large underground town is built. Then a roof is laid' over it, then it is covered with soil and on top of it and above ground a city is built - Moscow. This gigantic building and construction work greatly impressed contemporaries and was described in many 'ancient' sources of the XVI-XVII cc. In the Bible it is reflected as 'the restoration of Jerusalem' which was called the Second Jerusalem, i.e. following the First – Jerusalem of the Gospels = Czar-Grad. Speaking of the erection of the Second Jerusalem under Ezra, the Bible primarily refers to the building of the magnificent Moscow Kremlin.

In the Book of 'Genesis' the Bible once again allegorically alludes to the construction of imperial Moscow in the XVI century. This is the erection of the Tower of Babel. The Graeco-Roman 'classicists', notably Heradotus, describe Moscow as the 'Egyptian labyrinth'. Primarily they refer to the mysterious underground Moscow which truly resembles a labyrinth. This underground city was created as a powerful defensive fortification enabling the safe storage of the treasury, armaments, and provisions, the secret manoeuvres of military troops and their unexpected appearance at a besieging enemy's rear. Moscow of the XVI century, the last capital of the 'Mongol Empire', was designed and built as an impregnable city.

To conclude, Moscow of the XVI century gave rise to the 'classical' legends about the Tower of Babel and the Labyrinth. We discovered the ancient paintings where the Biblical Tower of Babel is depicted either in the centre of the Labyrinth or next to it [GRK], ch.4. We can see that the ancient authors actually combined the Tower of Babel and the Labyrinth and considered them as parts of the same construction.

The founder of Moscow the Grand Prince Yuri Dolgorukiy (literally Yuri the Long-Armed'- Translator's note) with the 400 year shift rises exactly to the epoch of Ivan IV the Terrible. The corrected years of Yuri Dolgorukiy's reign are as follows: 1563-1572. Instead of the erroneous scaligerian-Romanovs': 1148-1157. The years between 1563-1572 is the exact epoch of the oprichnina. It perfectly corresponds with the construction of the Moscow Kremlin in the XVI century.

So it appears that the Russian chronicles on the whole truly say that it was Yuri Dolgorukyi who founded Moscow. It is only necessary to amend the erroneous chronology. In the Bible the Prince Yuri DOLGORUKIY is present as the Arta-Xerxes Longimanus = Long Armed, the King of Assyria and Babylon. Meaning Arta-'XERXES' Long-Armed or Horde-Georgii the Long-Armed.

A settlement called Moscow was founded in the place of the Battle of Kulikovo at the end of the XIV century. The old centre was situated near Staro-Simonov (Old Simon) Monastery. It is quite possible that it used to be the capital of a small appanage principality. In the late XVI century in the times of the strife and the oprichnina – the epoch of the Biblical Esther – the czar arrives here from Suzdal = Biblical Susa and founds a new capital. He builds the Moscow Kremlin. To accomplish that he sends for the Italian masters. He either could not or would not call the domestic ones as the country was split into two antagonistic factions: the oprichnina with the czar as its head, surrounding himself with the heretics Judaizes, and Zemschina to which the old capitals of Vladimir and Suzdal Russia belong to. This building of Moscow and the whole situation in general, the historians dated a hundred years earlier, in the epoch of Ivan III. They also generated some other duplicates-reflections in the Russian history. Namely the story of Yuri Dolgorukiy allegedly of the XII century. Hence a false impression emerged, that allegedly Moscow was founded a number of times. Purportedly in the XII century or maybe even earlier. The first city on Neglinnaya, allegedly in the IX century.

Under the name of the Biblical prophet Nehemiah leading the reconstruction of Jerusalem, the Old Testament described the famous Kuzma Minin. The liberation of Jerusalem is the Biblical account of the liberation of Moscow by Kuzma Minin and the Prince Dmitry Pozharsky's militia in the early XVII century. In the Bible Books 1,2 of Ezra and Nehemiah alongside the name of the prophet Nehemiah the name Zerubbabel is constantly mentioned as one of the main participants of the reconstruction of Jerusalem. Under the name of Zerubbabel was partially described the same Kuzma Minin.

Dmitry Pozharsky, who alongside Minin entered the annals of Russian History, is also reflected on the pages of the Bible. Most likely it is the Bibical Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah (1 Ezra 1:7-8, 1:11). It was Sheshbazzar, who received the vessels of the house of the LORD from the hands of Mithredath, the treasurer (1 Ezra 1:8).

So, the famous monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Red Square is the monument to the Old Testament Horde heroes Nehemiah and Sheshbazzar.

Biblical Nehemiah, i.e. Kozma Minin, was buried in Nizhnii Novgorod in the Kremlin's Our Saviour Transfiguration Cathedral. The sepulcher of the Prince Pozharsky = Biblical Sheshbazzar was situated in the chapel of the Spaso-Euthymius Monastery [6v2], ch.2:7.


So, the Old Testament reconstruction of Jerusalem has no relevance to 'Jerusalem' in modern Palestine. When and how did the concept emerge of the Biblical Jerusalem as situated on the Eastern bank of the Mediterranean Sea, in the remotest part of Palestine?

Most likely this 'Jerusalem' emerged on the world map (including the 'ancient' ones, compiled and reproduced in Europe) in the epoch of the XVII century, at this point as a mere dot on a piece of paper. Someone, sitting in Europe marked a place on the map and said: 'Biblical Jerusalem must be situated here'. Why was this done?

Following the split of the Great Empire and enthronement of the pro-Western Romanovs in Russia, Atamania remained the only serious threat for Europe. That is why all the efforts were concentrated into fighting it. The European state with the participation of the Romanovs planned the Crusade into Turkey. These plans resulted in the lengthy Russian-Turkish wars in the late XVII – XX cc.

The idea of the Crusade was easy to connect with the 'liberation of Jerusalem'. All the more so as there was a Jerusalem in Turkey. It is Czar-Grad (Yoros), Jerusalem of the Gospels, the holy city, where Christ was crucified. The city which at some point was known to the entire Great Empire. But the ideologists-reformers of the XVII century didn't want to name Istanbul, the capital of Turkey as the goal of their campaign. As the religious split had taken place relatively recently – in the XVI - XVII cc., and many still remembered something about the former religious unity of the 'Mongol' Empire. That is why the fact that holy Jerusalem is the capital of the Turkish sultan, could mean for many that the sultan is the embodiment of the much truer faith than the French king, for instance. And therefore maybe the Sultan should be the one to submit to, so on the whole the emerging situation was quite slippery.

It would be much more intelligent to say that Jerusalem is, of course, under the power of the Turks, but they, being heretics, turned it into a pit in the middle of nowhere, not showing the due respect for the holy place. Besides, it is useful to set the 'holy goal' at the rear of the Turks. So that in order to conquer it, it would be necessary to conquer the whole of Turkey. That was the main purpose of the idea.

This immediately implies though that holy Jerusalem should be identified on the territory of Turkey, but not in its capital. It should be somewhere far out, in the middle of nowhere. Of course they were trying to find a place more or less corresponding to the universally acknowledged biblical description of Jerusalem and its vicinity as the Promised Land, flowing with milk and honey, lush with blossoming gardens and generally reminiscent of paradise on earth. But the Western Europeans were not allowed into Turkey for a long time. That is why it was difficult to know exactly where the rivers were flowing with milk and honey there and where they were not. From general consideration it was presumably decided that the East coast of the Mediterranean Sea was suitable enough. The magnificent sea, the wonderful climate… But to mark the 'Jerusalem dot' on the very coastal line of the Mediterranean Sea was not right. As the Gospels and the Bible in general do not describe Jerusalem as a sea port or a coastal city. It is described as a city situated far from a big sea, though a lake is mentioned close by. Although there should be river Jordan flowing nearby. The real Jerusalem – Czar-Grad (Yoros) - is in fact a long distance away from the wide open sea and is situated on the long Bosphorus, which as well as the Marmara Sea, was depicted on many Mediaeval maps as a wide long river. It was considered to be Jordan.

That is why the 'Jerusalem dot' on the map was put at some distance from the Mediterranean coast. Just around fifty kilometres away from it. How were it's authors to know, that in those places the fertile lands stretched only a narrow line along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and that fifty kilometers away from it there is mainly stony desert.

So, the dot was marked. And the name of Jerusalem was written on the map. One of the main ideological goals of the planned crusade was thus decided – the sacred frontier which they should aspire to reach, was now indicated and was at the very rear quarters of the Turks. But in order to acquire it the whole of Turkey must be conquered.

The wars began. They lasted for a long time and were bloody. Only in the very end of the XVIII century, i.e. almost two hundred years later, the Europeans were eventually able to launch an assault behind enemy lines, in Egypt. Close to the sacred mark – the 'suffering Jerusalem' in Palestine. It was Napoleon's famous Egyptian campaign which began in 1798. It was only in 1799 that Gaza in Palestine was seized. The Europeans were at last within a stone's throw of the Palestinian 'Jerusalem's mark'. Then on the 3rd April 1799 Sur was seized followed by the victory in Nazareth on the 8th April, [6v2], ch.2. Which means that at last they had 'reached Jerusalem'.

It is possible to imagine that when the Western Europeans arrived in Jerusalem they found there the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Although rebuilt numerous times, but nevertheless standing proudly in the village of Al-Quds in the middle of the stony desert. 'Proving' that it is not just any common village, but ancient Biblical Jerusalem. That very sacred goal pursued for so long by the Western 'Crusaders' of the XVII-XVIII cc.

However it turns out that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was 'newly built' in 1810 or even later. The alcoves for the crosses exist only in the stone veneer of 1888. It is not possible to see the Holy Sepulchre itself. It is possible that it could be there, but it would be underground. However search and excavation is not permitted [6v2].

But if we are told that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was rebuilt in 1810, than doesn't it follow herein, that prior to the XIX century there was simply no church there at all? Later, in the XIX-XX cc. this site was declared, without foundation, to be 'holy'. Pilgrimages began to be made here.

The history of the Western Europeans knowledge of the 'holy places' of modern Palestine is very insightful. It began only after Napoleon. Even up until the end of the XIX century the Europeans were in a muddle in regards to how to situate the Biblical holy places on such unsuitable territory. Where, for instance, could they 'find' the walls of Biblical Jerusalem, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, etc. But then they were 'painted' and 'manufactured' [6v2], ch.2.

As far as we know, none of the Russian Emperors has ever appeared in the 'Holy Land' in modern Palestine. It is probably no coincidence. Chances are they understood very well, that all the 'Palestine relics' were first drawn on paper, and then manufactured on the location quite recently.