A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 6.


In [7v1].ch.10:4, we are talking about Bluebeard, one of the reflections of 'Gilles de Rais' in French history. King Bluebeard had 7 wives whom he killed [330], v.2, p.487. The fact of him having a comparatively large number of wives and that there were seven of them stands out. Considering the parallelism with the Russian history discovered by us, we should draw your attention to the fact that 'Ivan the Terrible' also allegedly had 7 wives. They probably should be distributed between the four czars, combined in the Romanov version under one name of 'Grozny' (the Terrible).
And now let us recall that in the English history there is also a famous character – Bluebeard. This is the King of England Henry VIII [7v1], ch.10. There are no other famous kings with a nickname of Bluebeard in European history.

In [7v1}, ch.3/ we showed that the dynasty of Novgorod khans, the rulers of the Empire of the XIII-XVI cc. reflected in the Western chronicles as the Habsburg dynasty. Furthermore, in [7v1[, ch.4, we showed that the epoch of Oprichnina is dramatically reflected in the history of France and England. Specifically czarina Sophia Paleologue is described as the French Catherine de Medici and the English Elizabeth Tudor, and Elena Voloshanka – as Mary Stuart. But then the English king Henry VIII is the Western-European reflection of the khan-czar of the 'Ivan the Terrible' epoch. This is in fact correct [7v1], ch.12 and [ShEK].

Incidentally Henry VIII as Ivan the Terrible is considered to be a cruel tyrant [304], v.3, p.181. The name HENRY itself could have originated from KHAN+REX, i.e. Khan-Czar or Khan-Rus, i.e. as the sounds of Kh-Sh and S were often interchangeable.

Henry VIII is considered to be a polygamist, he had six wives. At this point it is difficult to say which names exactly Ivan the Terrible's wives are concealed beneath the names of the Englishmen's Henry VIII wives.


We all know the most 'ancient' legend about the destruction of Icarus. He took to the air using artificial wings, but fell down and drowned. His fall is depicted, for example, in the 'ancient' paintings, discovered during the excavation of Herculaneum and Pompeii. Now then, Icarus' famous flight is the flight of the aeronaut Nikita, Trofim's son, under the czar Ivan the Terrible – Nero [RI], ch.2. Besides, the Ancient' Greek legends about the Labyrinth, Minos, Minotaur are the reflections of the dramatic events of the XVI-XVII cc. in the capital of Russia-Horde [6v3], ch.3. Specifically, the story of Esther = Elena Voloshanka, a heretic and Ivan the Terrible's lover. Thus the flight of Daedalus and Icarus precisely during the times of Minos and Minotaur once again date them to the second half of the XVI century.
In Russian history we know Icarus by the name of 'Nikita, the serf, Trofim's son'. He climbed the tall Crucifixion Church in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda and leaped from the belfry flapping a pair of wooden wings. Nikita purportedly even flew over the rampart surrounding the czar's headquarters. We were informed about this detail in the science division of the Alexandrovskya Sloboda museum in October 2006. During the epoch of Oprichnina Sloboda was Ivan the Terrible's capital. It is most likely that Nikita invented something along the lines of a light glider, on which he could remain airborne for a considerable amount of time.

The flight was successful. However after his landing Nikita was allegedly accused by the czar of 'a diabolical act' for which he was executed. This corresponds with the 'ancient' accounts of Icarus, son of Daedalus, who crashed and drowned. Most likely the Western chroniclers like the 'Ancient Greeks' and Suetonius got confused in the details of the notorious event in the capital of Russia-Horde. They knew that Icarus-Nikita ascended into the air and that he perished 'because of the flight'. But they didn't know the flight itself was completed successfully, and the death of the pilot was a result of the czar's wrath. The chroniclers 'glued' these facts together and it resulted in Icarus allegedly rising into the air, but 'falling down and crashing'.

'The ancient' master craftsman Daedalus, the wings inventor, should be searched for in the XVI century, in the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. The search should also cover the epoch of Ivan III, the phantom reflection of Ivan IV and dated to the XV century instead of the XVI century. The search won't take long. We have repeatedly looked to Aristotele Fioravanti – the famous architect and master craftsman, who allegedly lived in the XV century and who did much for Ivan III. It turns out that it was he who was the 'ancient Daedalus' [RI], ch.2.

It is widely thought that 'the teachers of the Russian architects in the subterranean construction were the Italian architects-builders, the creators of the Kremlin and Kitai-Gorod (the walled merchant town - China Town): ARISTOTELE FIORAVANTI, Petrus Antonius Solarius, Aloisio the New, Petrok Maly. Ignatius Stelletskii claimed that both the underground and above-ground Kremlin was built according to the plan of the 'wizard and sorcerer' Aristotele Fioravanti' [815:1], p.9.

And further: 'ALL THE THREE ARCHITECTS COULD NOT LEAVE MOSCOW AND HAD TO LAY THEIR BONES THERE. Is it a fluke? Not in the least!... This idiosyncratic triumvirate of the Moscow Kremlin (Aristotele Fioravanti, Solarius and Aloisio – Author) was the bearer of its innermost secrets… To let even one of this glorious trio back to Europe would have been almost equivalent to making Moscow's innermost secrets the subject of malicious gossip… It is that and only that, it seems, to be raison d'être of the violent death of the creators of the Moscow citadel in its depths', p.106-107.

To recap, the major building and construction of Moscow began not in the XV century under Ivan III as it is thought today, but in the XVI century under Ivan IV [6v2], ch.2. Erecting the capital in the new place could be attributed to the fact that Ivan the Terrible's court for some time lapsed into the heresy of the Judaizers, which caused a rift in the Empire's ruling elite. The czar even left the former capital (Yaroslavl or Suzdal) and decided in favour of a small settlement located at the site of the Battle of Kulikovo. There they began to build the stone Moscow = the Second Jerusalem. However the czar could not invite the local Horde builders as a result of the social rift. The Orthodox Church strongly condemned the heresy of the czar and his immediate entourage [775]. This was the reason for summoning the Italian architects. In that time Italy was one of the provinces of the 'Mongol' Empire and naturally, the Western architects quickly arrived to the metropoly by order of the Emperor. On the completion of building, the chief architects, who knew the scheme of the underground Moscow, could be silenced for ever, so they could tell no one.

It is quite possible, that Icarus-Nikita took flight from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. Perhaps during Ivan the Terrible's reign there were several of such flights depicting the Ascension of Christ. There survive a tradition which directly connects Nikita's flight under Ivan the Terrible with Moscow Kolomenskoye. This tradition hardly originated from nothing. The information about Nikita's flight lived amongst the gliders and pilots [RI], ch.2.

In the Middle Ages in Europe there were popular mysteries, i.e. the religious plays depicting the Gospel events for the public. For example, Christ's arrest, Pilate's trial, the Flagellation of Christ, the Road to Golgotha and the Crucifixion [KAZ]. 'This Liturgical performance which took place not in a church, but in public, is considered to be the oldest religious drama and simultaneously 'the first performance bearing the similar characteristics of theatre' [415:1], p.9, 11. It is not improbable, that in some of the Western mystery plays an 'actor' who was personifying Christ was crucified for real.

Most likely Nikita's flight from the tall cathedral-belfry in the presence of the czar Ivan, courtiers and a multitude of spectators was an element of such a religious mystery play. The ascent of a man into the air on wings symbolised the climax of the play - The Resurrection and The Ascension of Christ. It is likely that Nikita took off exactly from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. The very name of the church suggests that it was exactly from here, in full public view, a man depicting the Ascension of Christ rose up into the sky. The mysteries were illustrating the key moments of Christ's life. It is absolutely clear that the climax – the Ascension – should have been represented in some way. But at this point the directors would be presented with problems. It was not so easy to show Christ ascending. It is most likely that for a long time they were unsuccessful. They had to be satisfied with some conventional scenes symbolising the 'ascent to heaven'. It is possible that the actor was hoisted up with ropes or some other device.

They approached this subject in a more fundamental way. Clearly the capital should have been the place for the most gripping performances dedicated to the Gospel. That is why it must have been this very place where they should have begun to think about how to recreate the Ascension Day. They began to experiment. Soon they realised that it was possible to create 'wings' capable of lifting a person into the air and keep him there. Thus aeronautics was born. It is possible, that Nikita could have been the first or among the pioneers. Supposedly there must have been many rehearsals of the religious show which would culminate with the flight of the actor who was playing Christ. When the directors and gliders decided that enough experience had been accumulated, they announced the performance. A premier, so to speak.

The entire court assembled, numerous guests. It is likely that there were rumours swarming and everyone was expecting something extraordinary. Ivan the Terrible, the great khan himself, was seated in the first row. The actors were nervous. The closer to the end of the performance, the greater the tension. Lo and behold! A man with wings ascends the dome of the Kolomensky Church of the Ascension. The climax of the performance. Nikita breaks away from the dome and soars into the air. The flight was a success. The czar was delighted. It is highly unlikely that Ivan the Terrible was enraged and ordered the execution of the adventurous serf. Contrarily, we should think that Nikita was handsomely rewarded. A different matter is that in the minds of the later chroniclers the two excerpts of this extraordinary performance could have merged together. The first – the execution and death of Christ performed by some other actor. The second plot – is the flight of the glider pilot Nikita, performing the Ascension of Christ. By the way, human sacrifices were no longer carried out in Russia during that epoch. Particularly during the Apostles Christianity which condemned the 'ancient' 'pagan' customs, among which bloody sacrifices indeed existed. That is why it is most likely that in Russia the actor was not actually 'crucified' for real. However, the Western chroniclers were more accustomed to more bloody forms of Christian mystery plays. So they decided that allegedly Nikita was executed by the cruel czar. A myth about a poor Icarus who fell from the sky was born. Ultimately some of the actors-gliders could have in fact easily crashed. As it was a new and dangerous activity. Then again, the very same 'ancient classics' would add that contrary to Icarus, Daedalus successfully landed using his wings. Thus the 'ancient' myth narrates both about the misfortunes and the successes of the aeronautics.

Nikita's flight in Kolomenskoye from the height of the Church of the Ascension feels more genuine than from the Crucifixion Church Belfry in Alexandrovskya Sloboda, though it is worth repeating that there could have been a number of similar flights. As the mystery plays were staged over many years. In some years an actor could have flown into the air from the Crucifixion Church Belfry in Alexandrovskya Sloboda, in the other years – from the Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye. There also must have been other locations from which the Russian=Horde gliders demonstrated their skills in front of the delighted audience.

After some time the religious performances became a thing of the past. But the art of gliding in the air remained and began to develop according to the laws of scientific research. Professional aeronautics was born.


Practically in all the phantom reflections of Ivan The Terrible it is stressed that he was a prolific writer, was interested in literature and was the author of many works. The same account was also given about the Emperor Claudius, allegedly 41-45 years. Suetonius informs us:
'He was neither uncultured nor lacking in eloquence, but on the contrary had constantly devoted himself to the liberal arts … As Emperor he continued work on his history, hosting frequent readings but employing instead a professional reader. He began the work with Julius Caesar's assassination, then he started afresh with later times… He completed only two books of the earlier work, but forty-one of the later times. He also wrote an eight-volume autobiography… and also penned a 'Defense of Cicero against the charges of Asinius Gallus', a work of no little learning. HE ADDED THREE ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF HIS OWN INVENTION TO THE LATIN ALPHABET, maintaining that there was a dire need of them, and after becoming the Emperor was able to initiate their general use…

He gave no less attention to Greek studies… He would often make his Senate reply to Greek envoys with a prepared speech in their own language…


This information is very interesting. It turns out that the Emperor Claudius, i.e. Ivan the Terrible was the author of an immense work consisting of at least SEVENTY NINE BOOKS (as stated: 2 + 41 + 8 + 20 + 8). Among them: 43-volume History of Rome, 20-volume Etruscan History and 8-volume Carthaginian History.

As we already understand, the history of 'Ancient' Rome written by Claudius is the history of Russia-Horde of the XIII-XVI cc.
Et-ruscan history is also the Russian history, and the Carthaginian history is the history of Czar-Grad [5v], [TsRIM]. So it means, that under the Emperor Claudius = Ivan the Terrible there was created an enormous work on the history of Russia-Horde and Czar-Grad. We will repeat: 63 books on the Russian History and 8 books on the history of Czar-Grad.

It is hardly likely that the Emperor Claudius – Ivan the Terrible wrote with his own hand all 79 books he is credited with. As the czar has a lot to do. Most likely he ordered the creation of a detailed history of the 'Mongol' Empire. Scholars, scribes and artists were summoned, who under the Emperor's supervision created such a prodigious body of work.

But we are told that no such immense body of work survives until our time. They say that hundreds and thousands of years have passed… Allegedly everything is lost… However neither Suetonius nor Tacitus say anything about Claudius' books perishing. Which means that they still did exist during their time, i.e. in the XVI-XVII cc.

As Claudius is Ivan the Terrible, than the historical manuscript created on his initiative should have left an indelible mark in Russian history. Is that so? Yes. It is. We know that it is under Ivan the Terrible the multivolume Litsevoi Svod was created. The mammoth historical literary classic encompassing world history from the most ancient times to the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. Incidentally for a very long time Letsevoi Svod was not published at all. It was published for the first time in Moscow by the publishing house 'Akteon' [477:31], amid the extensive public discussions on the New Chronology.

However, according to our results, THE ORIGINAL text of Litsevoi Svod never survived. Most likely in the XVII century under the Romanovs it was edited in the spirit of 'new ideas'. So the version which exists today belongs to a later date. Nevertheless, even in the 'Romanov' way it presents an invaluable monument of the XVII century based on the sources of the XVI century.

So to conclude, under the 'Ancient' Roman Emperor Claudius = Ivan the Terrible Litsevoi Svod was created. According to the Roman accounts, at first it consisted of 71 books. Even re-worked and abridged by the Romanovs this body of work comprised 10 gigantic volumes. That is why the publishing house 'Akteon' divided most of the volumes into two parts. As the result Litsevoi Svod in its new modern facsimile edition takes up 19 voluminous books.

Nothing of its kind has been created ever since! All known Western European, Arabic, Eastern, Chinese and other chronicles known today pale by comparison with the Russian-Horde Litsevoi Svod. None of them are even remotely similar. This is understandable. Litsevoi Svod was created in the capital of the Great Empire in the XVI century, in the age of its progress and might. That is why from the very beginning it was destined to be unique. The best scholars and craftsmen were gathered. Writing of the world history, i.e. the history of the Empire of the XIII-XVI cc. was under the control of Ivan the Terrible = Claudius himself. The executants did their absolute best. Litsevoi Svod is illustrated with magnificent illuminations.

'Ancient' Suetonius spoke respectfully of Litsevoi Svod, calling it a body of work dedicated to the Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history.

Suetonius' accounts of Claudius personally writing the Roman, Etruscan and Carthaginian history corresponds with the opinion of the historians, that Ivan the Terrible was himself editing the text of Litsevoi Svod. It is thought that some notes on some pages were made by Ivan the Terrible [775], p.28-31.

According to Suetonius the Emperor Claudius also wrote 8 books about his own life. I.e. his autobiography. Most likely he didn't write it himself, but dictated it to the scribes, or based it on his own archives. Thus we learn that in the XVI century there was a large account written of Ivan the Terrible's life: 8 volumes! Unfortunately this work didn't survive. It is possible that it seemed to the Romanovs unacceptable. That's why it was destroyed. And but for Suetonius we would have never learnt that Ivan the Terrible (Claudius) wrote his own autobiography.


Apparently the famous 'ancient' Lighthouse of Alexandria, aka Pharos of Alexandria (one of the seven wonders of the ancient world) – is a well-known Bell tower of Ivan the Great in Moscow [RI], ch.6. In the ancient times the Pillar of Ivan the Great was compared to a burning candle. Hence comes the legend of the 'lighthouse'. The divine bronze statues of Pharos of Alexandria are the huge bells of Ivanov Pillar. Incredible as it may be, in the 'ancient' history of Pharos of Alexandria accounts are given of the events from the reign of Peter I (The Great), from the late XVII – early XVIII cc.! See [RI], ch.6.
Besides, the 'Pillar of Ivan the Great' in Moscow was described by the 'ancient classics' as the 'Ancient' Roman military column or as the famous Tower of Babylon [RI].

The historians think that allegedly Pharos (Etruscan) Lighthouse was close to Egyptian African Alexandria. However today there are no traces of it there. Then they unfoundedly professed that allegedly the lighthouse 'of course, is dilapidated', and that it remained there allegedly until the XIV century, after which it 'irretrievably disappeared'. 'The remains of a tall pedestal on which the beautiful tower stood, survive until our time, BUT THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY UNACCESSABLE TO THE ARCHITECTS AND ARCHEOLOGISTS, as they are built into the mediaeval fortress' [572], p.118. Purportedly the remains 'may be still there', but unfortunately it is impossible to see them.

Such lamentations are needless. Pharos Lighthouse exists even now, though in a somewhat reconstructed version. Those who wish to see it should visit the Cathedral Square (Sobornaya Square) of the Moscow Kremlin and see the Et-ruscan Pillar of Ivan the Great.


Apparently, starting with the 'biography' of the emperor Vitellius, Suetonius and Tacitus describe the Time of Troubles in the Horde Empire. Tacitus is speaking about the great revolt in his preface to the 'Histories'. In Tacitus' 'Annals' descriptions are given of the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero and Claudius. I.e. primarily the epoch of Ivan the 'Terrible', the second half of the XVI century [RI], ch.10.

In the 'Histories' Tacitus begins his narration with Galba followed by Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. According to our findings Vitellius is the reflection of the 'False' Dmitry I. Incidentally, Tacitus informs us that he himself is a contemporary of all the above mentioned 'ancient' emperors. Consequently the famous Cornelius Tacitus lived in the epoch of the first half of the XVII century. Or later.

The next emperor of 'Ancient' Rome was Vespasian. And the Russian czar who succeeded the 'False' Dmitry I was Vasili Shuisky. Hence 'ancient' Vespasian could be a phantom reflection of Vasili Shuisky. Our idea holds up very well [RI], ch.10.

Furthermore, Roman emperor Titus is Russian prince Skopin-Shuisky. Titus' siege of Jerusalem is the defence of Moscow in 1610 by Skopin-Shuisky, which Tacitus combined with the liberation of Moscow by Minin and Pozharsky in 1612 [RI], ch.11.


The well-known work of Flavius Josephus 'The Jewish War' describes the civil war in Judaea under the emperor Titus, followed by the siege, military assault and the fall of Jerusalem, the capital of Judaea. It is thought that during that time Judaea used to be a province of the Roman Empire. Therefore all of these events took place in the early XVII century in Russia in the metropoly of the 'Mongol' Empire. In particular, the seizure of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus must be some major and well-known event in the Times of Troubles in Russia. Such an event does exist. It is the defence of Moscow by Skopin-Shuisky in 1610 followed by the final victory over the 'Poles' and the liberation of Moscow in 1612 by Pozharsky and Minin. Jerusalem described by Flavius Josephus is Moscow, the capital of the Empire. The walls of Kitai-gorod (China town), Bely gorod (White Town) and Zemlyanoy Gorod (Earthworks Town) in Moscow are described by Flavius as the three walls surrounding Jerusalem.
To remind you, there were two well-known Jerusalems in ancient history. The first, evangelical – is Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus, Homeric Troy. The second Jerusalem is described in the Old Testament Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was 'reconstructed' during the reign of the kings Artha-Xerox, Cyrus and Darius. Apparently here the subject matter happens to be the construction of Moscow and the Moscow Kremlin in the middle of the XVI century under Ivan the Terrible = Artha-Xerox [6v2], ch.2.

Today we can see only the foreign made old plans of Moscow-Jerusalem. It clearly states that the Russian originals didn't survive (were destroyed?). Surprisingly NONE of the old original plans of Moscow of the XVI century epoch survived! Just the foreign 'copies'. We are being assured that allegedly they more or less accurately follow the 'lost Russian originals'. But is this true?

Most likely it is the result of the editing 'activities' of the epoch of the Reformation. After Russia's occupation by the Western armies followed by the ascent to the throne of the Romanov dynasty, the history of the Great Empire began to undergo distortions. Including removing from the old 'Mongol' maps and city plans various Horde names which became inappropriate in light of the 'Reformation history'. Everything 'incorrect' was crossed out and burnt. After which crocodile tears were shed in front of the future generations for the 'lost originals'.

There are known reports that in Russia under Godunov the 'extensive cartographic activities' have unfolded. It is understandable as it is during Godunov's reign the 'Mongol' capital Moscow (Jerusalem) achieved its highest peak. However, we will repeat, that there are no surviving original plans of Moscow. Everything perished!

But now we can reasonably contemplate what exactly was depicted on the Russian-Horde maps burnt by the Reformers. It is probable that Moscow (Jerusalem) was depicted in the way in which 'Ancient' Rome is drawn today. In particular, the Pillar of Ivan the Great could have been called the Babylon Tower or the Pharos of Alexandria (Lighthouse) or the Roman Milliarium Aureum. I.e. the central pillar of Rome from which the distances into all the ends of the Great Empire were measured. Clearly all such names (which became 'incorrect') were immediately abolished [RI], ch.11.

The 'ancient' book 'The Jewish War' by Flavius Josephus describes the grandiose war encompassing not only the Judaic Kingdom, but the entire Roman Empire comprising Judaea, among others. As we understand, the subject matter is the Times of Troubles in Russia and the wars of the Reformation, spreading all over Europe. Thus the voluminous work of Flavius Josephus was devoted to the events of the XVI-XVII cc. which his contemporaries were deeply passionate about. His book reveals many details of that epoch which were previously unknown [RI], ch.11.

Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus complete their accounts with the Great Strife of the early XVII century, i.e. the fall of the Great Empire. It is exactly during this time the Scaligerian chronology is being created and enforced. It was already used to the utmost by Flavius Josephus for example. Therefore there is every reason to believe that in the works by Flavius Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus there must become apparent the chronological shifts invented by the Scaligerians. Notably, the shift which combines the beginning of the Roman Empire in the XIII century with its ending in the XVII century. In other words, concluding with his narrative about the Times of Troubles of the XVII century, Flavius could 'skip' to the end of XII – the beginning of XIII cc and tell us, albeit briefly, about the events in the gospel Jerusalem = Czar-Grad. We already know that the chroniclers sometimes confused the Gospel Jerusalem with The Old Testament Jerusalem, i.e. Moscow of the XVI century.

Our prognosis comes true. Flavius Josephus does in fact 'leap' from the XVII century into the end of XII century and gives us a summary of the story of Andronicus-Christ. His death followed by the avenging Crusade of Russia-Horde and its allies onto Czar-Grad in order to punish those responsible for the crucifixion. These accounts are vaguely reflected by Flavius Josephus, but it is still quite recognisable [RI], ch.11.