A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 6.


The Biography of Emperor Domitian concludes the works by Seutonius and Tacitus. It turns out that the 'ancient biography' of Domitian narrates about False Dmitry and Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov. Then there is a jump into the beginning of the Empire, and the last part of the 'biography' of Domitian gives an account of King Herod and Emperor Andronicus-Christ. Thus at this point Suetonius and Tacitus 'skip' back in time from the XVII century into the XII century, from the end of the Great Empire into its very beginning. As a result 'ancient' Domitian is a 'bonding' of the following four genuine historical figures: False Dmitry II + Czar Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, then King Herod + Emperor Andronicus-Christ. The first two are from the first half of the XVII century, and other two are from the late XII century.

In his book Suetonius clearly states that his youth fell within Domitian's reign [760], p.216. Therefore the 'ancient' Suetonius was born in the early XVII century, in the epoch of Times of Troubles. He wrote his book in his adulthood. Hence in the middle of the XVII century or even later.


We all know a story of Susanin who saved the young czar Mikhail Romanov from Polish captivity having paid for that it with his life. This story was popular in Romanov Russia. In particular, the composer M.I.Glinka wrote a famous opera called 'Life for the Czar' (it is sometimes called 'Ivan Susanin').
The story of Susanin still touches people. In order to satisfy interest in this subject the historians make somewhat odd 'discoveries'. For example, in January 2007 yet again a statement appeared that allegedly several years earlier Susanin's remains were found in Kostromskaya district. Though, as noted, 'for many years the place of the hero's death was unknown'. The remains were 'examined in the Russian centre of forensic investigation under the supervision of the professor Victor Zvyagin. Vladimir Filippov was assigned to reconstruct Susanin's appearance based on the skullbones' (Journal 'Arguments and Facts', issues 1-2, 10-16 January 2007, p.13). As far as we know there are no scientific publications which would tell us in detail on what grounds the found bones were declared to be 'Susanin's remains'. That is why our attitude towards this 'finding' is rather sceptical, as it is towards the 'discovery of the remains of Andrey Bogolyubsky and Yuri Dolgoruky ' , widely advertised in its time, which were also unsupported by any scientific data.
Let us get back to more reliable accounts kept by the ancient authors. It turns out that the 'most ancient' Suetonius and Tacitus tell us about the story of Susanin. Allegedly more than two thousand years before Mikhail Romanov, prior to the event taking place [RI], ch.12.
As Susanin saved young Mikhail Fedorovich, and he agreed to accept the Imperial crown, according to the Romanov version, The Times of Troubles declined. The new Emperor emerged in Russia. This event is considered to be a turning point in the bloody Strife of the early XVII century. In Romanov interpretation it was Susanin's heroic deed which saved the country from further civil wars: 'Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov's election as Czar of Russia put an end to the strife' [578], book.2, p.1002.
We can find in 'ancient' Tacitus' accounts a perfectly analogous presentation of a story about Sabinus (it turns out that it is Susanin). He straightforwardly claims that according to many Romans it was Sabinus' death which saved Rome from the new civil wars and upheavals [RI], ch.12.
Let us draw our attention to the psychological difference in the descriptions of Susanin by 'ancient' Suetonius and the Romanov sources. The 'ancient' version is more exalted as opposed to the Romanov's version, slightly more grounded. For example, the Romanov historians have a 'burning barn', and Suetonius and Tacitus – a 'burning temple' (or even Capitol). According to the Romanov historians, frightened Mikhail was hidden in the barn, burying him in the hay. According to Suetonius and Tacitus, the trembling Domitian is hidden in the sacred temple. Possibly, someone wished to turn (on paper) a prosaic shed (and barn) into a poetic temple (and Capitol). It may be that on the contrary the Romanov historians purposefully lessened the scale of the events, belittling them. It could possibly be that the ancient text was describing a temple-cathedral, and the Romanov editors turned it into a 'barn' and 'farm shed'. Thus by doing so they moved the events from the Imperial capital to a small village, tenaciously destroying any traces of 'Ancient' Rome in the Russian sources.


It is said that Domitian (i.e. Andronicus-Christ) was buried 'like a gladiator' [726:1], p.135. The ancient authors paid particular attention to this aspect. We repeatedly came across the 'ancient classics' start talking about the 'emperor-gladiator' when describing some of the phantom reflection of Andronicus-Christ. What is it all about?
The common explanation of a word Gladiator is: 'Term 'gladiator' originates from a word 'gladius' – a sword, which was used by Roman legionaries and various types of gladiators' [589:1], p.8. This is quite possible. Latin GLADIUS = SWORD could have been a slightly distorted Slavic word KHOLODNY (COLD), i.e. 'cold' weapon. Besides in Russia a word 'KLADENETS' (steel sword) was used to describe a SWORD (was called 'KLADENETS'). So 'GLADIATOR' is a man armed with a COLD WEAPON or KLADENETS. But we will note a following peculiarity in the Scaligerian version. Not only gladiators, but also regular soldiers of the Roman army, were armed with swords (gladius). But they were not called gladiators! Only the participants of the special combat-performances were thus called. A suspicion arises that a word 'gladiator' could possibly have had a different origin.
It is possible, that the Latin word GLADIATOR, in relation to Domitian-Christ, originated in the process of distortion of the word-combination KOLYADA+TORIU when K turned into ---> G. To remind you, sometimes Christ was called KOLYADA [TsRS]. And the word TORIT' is Russian, meaning 'to clear a path', 'to carry'. Hence, the words 'tract', 'roadway', etc. [7v2]. Hence originated a name with a meaning 'carrying Christ' (KHRISTA TORIU). It becomes clear why the name Christopher in Greek meant 'bearing Christ' [533], v.2, p.604. That is why Saint Christopher was often depicted carrying young Christ on his shoulders [RI], ch.12. So in Domitian's biography the word GLADIATOR could have originally meant CHRISTOPHER, i.e. denoting Christ. If KOLYADA is CHRIST, than the expression KOLYADA=TORIU could have literally meant the same as CHRISTOPHER (CHRIST TORIU). Then later, KOLYADA-TOR could have turned into GLADIATOR. It appears that two ideas got intertwined in the term 'gladiator': 'cold weapon' (kladenets) and 'Christ Toryu' – carrying Christ).
The famous gladiatorial contests in Ancient Rome probably originated to commemorate the execution of Christ-Kolyada in 1185 and the Trojan War = Russia-Horde Crusade. To begin with the Gladiatorial Games were the religious performance, a mystery play, enacting the Passion of Christ and vengeance catching up with his enemies. The masses of believers and spectators would gather in the church-circus. In particular, Andronicus-Christ murder by the Roman soldiers was re-enacted. Perhaps a man personifying Christ was called KOLYADA-TORIU, i.e. CHRISTOPHER, 'Christ bearer', a man who symbolically carried the image of the suffering Christ. Later the original meaning of the mystery-plays was forgotten and they continued to exist just as the bloody performances, where a gladiator (Kolyada-tor) died under the strikes of the soldiers representing the Czar-Gradians of the late XII century. Then the battle of the two groups of warriors would commence. One of them represented the Jews who crucified Christ, and the other – the crusaders (gladiators) avenging him. When in time the meaning of the religious performance became vague, the 'main gladiator-Christ' was forgotten.
It becomes clear why the 'ancient' gladiator contests were so ruthless and often resulted in the gladiators' death. Allegedly in the III century approximately every other combat would result in the death of a gladiator [589:1], p.167.
The spectators often participated in judging and could either pardon a wounded soldier, or condemn him to death. Then he would be slaughtered in the arena accompanied by the roar of the crowd. Today it is 'explained' to us that such was the bloodthirsty nature of the Romans. Of course, many enjoyed watching battles and death. However, most likely, the violent performances were based on the real events – the execution of Andronicus-Christ, followed by a war and punishment of his murderers. That is why at first the 'actors' were killed on the arena for real. The memory of the recent events was still fresh. And only while the heart of matter was gradually forgotten, some of the participants of the show were left alive.
A similar idea also came from the religious performances dedicated to god Mithra, i.e. once again Christ. Here the performers represented on the stage of a circus-church the death of Christ in the shape of a bull impaled by a bullfighter's steel weapon. It is not impossible, that we see the traces of the original symbolism, in which an Ox-bull identified with a cross (stauros), in the famous Spanish Corrida (Bullfighting). Maybe in some versions of the liturgical performance (which later on turned into Corrida) a bull symbolises a cross, bringing death to Christ, and the matador – Christ himself.
Later the original meaning of the mystery plays was forgotten, and the performance took on a life of its own. The toreadors began to kill the bulls in an arena in front of the audience excited by the smell of blood, simply for entertainment and a demonstration of their fighting skills.
And so, Domitian-Christ was buried 'as a gladiator' for no other reason that it was Kolyada-Tor, i.e. Christ, who they were burying. And since Kolyada (Nikolay) is Christ, then a 'gladiator' meant Christ bearer or Cross bearer, a man who fights in the name of Christ. I.e. Christopher, who goes into battle under the banner of Christ. Bringing to the nations the name and the legacy of Christ. This corresponds with the essence of the Crusades of the early XIII century whose goal was to punish those guilty in the crucifixion of Andronicus-Christ. These are Horde campaigns described by the 'classical authors' as the Trojan War.
The ancient references to the gladiatorial games being established exactly by the ET-RUSCANS, i.e. the Russians, according to our results, become clear [RI], ch.12. Following the victory in the Trojan War it was in 'Ancient' Rome, i.e. in Russia, where the religious festivities were established, spreading from the metropoly to the provinces of the Empire. The Et-ruscans = Russians celebrated the victory over the enemies of Andronicus-Christ. It is clear that the celebration in honour of the victory was established by the victors, and not by the defeated side.
It turns out that there were women-gladiators [589:1], p.121. It is not surprising, since in the Trojan War there were both men and women among the victors and the defeated.
So, in the arenas of the circuses-churches the two groups of Gladiators = Christ bearers came together. Some represented the Hordians, the others – their enemies. They fought to the death. The gladiatorial games originated within the Royal Christianity, practiced by the czars, who succeeded Andronicus-Christ. At first in Czar-Grad, and later in Russia-Horde after the capital of the Empire was moved there in the XIII century. The Royal Christianity is known to us today as 'ancient paganism', when bloody sacrifice was practiced, including those of humans. One of those sacrifices was the Gladiatorial = Christ bearing Games, the religious pageants.
Today all the participants of the Games are called the Gladiators. However, earlier, most likely, only those who represented Horde –Cossacks avenging Christ were called thus. The warriors representing those people who crucified Christ might have been called differently. It's for a reason that the gladiators came under different groups.The name of one of them – Retiarii – clearly points to Rat' (army), Horde. The Retiarii probably represented the Horde-avengers. Another group under the name of Murmillones brings to mind the name of Myrmidon. Thus were called the 'ancient' warriors Achilles-Svyatoslav, who participated in the Trojan War [NOR]. In this way the very names of the gladiator castes reflect the events of the Trojan War.
The history of the Gladiator Games shows that they were not GAMES in the modern meaning of the word. They were not considered as a contest of agility. The commentators correctly identified the key element of the Games: 'Closer than anything else to the Gladiatorial Games is the 'trial by combat', in which the guilt of the accused was decided by way of armed combat. The defeated had to admit his guilt or die. The victor was considered not guilty. The combats were usually conducted with the real weapons and in the presence of an audience' [589:1], p.8-9.
Originally the Gladiator Games were replaying 'combat by trial' between those guilty in the execution of Andronicus-Christ and the crusaders. The Trojan War is the act of revenge. There were both judges and accused. This war could have been viewed as God's retribution to those guilty.
From the descriptions of the Gladiator Games it is clear that they were an important public event. Large (sometimes enormous) sums of money were spent. Special schools for gladiators were established. One can see what a great importance the czars-khans of the 'Mongol' Empire placed on the Trojan War being cemented in the people's memory, as it was the Trojan War which prompted the emergence of this gigantic Empire. The rulers constantly reminded their subjects of that.
After the Battle of Kulikovo, when Dmitry Donskoi = Constantine the Great gained victory over the Royal Christianity, he made Apostolic Christianity the state religion. The radical reform inflicted a blow to the Gladiator Games too. They were declared 'pagan' and were banned: 'The end of the gladiator games is directly connected with the adoption of Christianity (under Constantine – Author)' [589:1], p.22.
The Gladiator games were irrevocably banned under the emperor Honorius. According to our analysis, it took place in the late XIV – early XV cc. Gradually the Gladiator Games and the gladiators in general were forgotten. Up until the middle of the XVIII century 'the gladiators were of no interest and it's likely that very few people knew anything about them at all. A new surge of interest towards this subject was caused by the discovery of the objects of gladiatorial weaponry in Pompeii in 1766' [589:1], p.5.
Thus, the Gladiator Games were abolished as the 'relic of paganism', i.e. of Royal Christianity. Human sacrifice was forbidden in Apostolic Christianity. The enormous 'ancient' circuses-churches were abandoned and began to dilapidate. 'Pagan' Gladiator contests became a thing of the past. They were replaced by the more peaceful religious mystery plays. Where Christ's death was represented with the conventional acting devices (red paint in place of blood, etc.)
Besides the gladiator contests, where the two groups of warriors would fight, on the circuses-churches' arenas combat with animals took place – lions, bulls, bears, wild boars. Could it be that fighting animals was originally of a religious nature?
The answer is probably as follows. In the XIII-XIV cc. the emperors who followed Royal Christianity, persecuted the Apostolic Christians. They were baited with animals and set on fire, notably, in full view of the public. The Scaligerian history speaks of it as the 'persecution of the first Christians' allegedly in the I-II cc. In fact it took place in the XIII century in the epoch of the Trojan War. That is why when after some time the czars established the religious Gladiator Games, there were two kinds of the bloody performances provisioned for in them . The first – the fight between two groups of warriors representing Passions of Christ, his execution and the Trojan War as revenge. The second type – the warriors fighting wild animals. Here they represented the hunting of the Apostolic Christians as admonition.
The reports from the 'ancient' sources become clear telling us that 'frequently among the condemned (from whom the gladiators were also recruited – Author) were the CHRISTIANS REFUSING TO BESTOW GOD LIKE HONORS UPON THE EMPEROR' [589:1], p.163. It is all clear. The Gladiator contests with the animals is a form of execution of the Apostolic Christians who renounced the divinity of the Roman emperors, beside Andronicus-Christ.


In fig.70 we sum up our studies of the 'ancient' epoch of Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. There is demonstrated an overlapping between the Roman Emperors and the Russian czars and rulers [RI], ch.12.
Galba <---> Simeon + Prince Dmitry (under Feodor Ioannovich),
Otho <---> Boris Godunov,
Vitellius <---> False Dmitry I,
Vespasian <---> Vasilli Shuisky,
Titus <---> Skopin-Shuisky
Domitian <---> False Dmitry II + Mikhail Romanov and also: King Herod + Andronicus-Christ.
Slanting broken arrows on the picture represent the overlapping of the 'ancient' and Russian rulers. The 'ancient' biography of Domitian is split into four parts, marked in fig.70 by the numbers 1,2,3,4.
Part 1 describes False Dmitry II, part 2 – Mikhail Romanov; part 3 describes King Herod from the XII century; part 4 tells us of Andronicus-Christ from the XII century.
Feodor Ioannovich is lightly reflected in the works of the 'ancient classics'. Possibly as a result of circumstances, is made note of in the Romanov version as well. Feodor was perceived as a weak ruler who was under the strong influence of Boris Godunov. Probably for the 'ancient' authors Feodor's reign was 'covered' with the reign of Boris Godunov, who is reflected in their accounts under the name of Emperor Otho. On the other hand during Feodor's reign the infamous murder of Prince Dmitry took place, which was brought to the notice of the 'ancient' chroniclers and which was described by them in detail [RI]. As a result, Boris Godunov's strong personality and Dmitry's death, which astounded many, obscured the 'fainter Feodor Ioannovich in the eyes of the 'ancient' chroniclers.
In the epoch, reflected in fig.70, the correspondence between the duration of the reigns is greatly distorted. It is clear. As the subject matter is the Time of Troubles, the descriptions of which are muddled up and also distorted by the Romanov historians. Chaos in history bred chaos in the chronicles. At the same time the overall duration of the Time of Troubles – approximately 30 years – is the same both in the 'ancient' and in the Russian sources. Here we speak of the epoch of the 1584 -1613. After all the chronology generally survives, though the details got substantially deformed.
In fig.71 and fig.72 is represented a scheme of parallelism found by us, between the Russian czars-khans of 1530-1620 and the 'Ancient' Roman emperors of the Second Roman Empire of allegedly I century. We can clearly see that beginning with Fedor Ioannovich Russia-Horde plunges into the gravest strife. If prior to 1584 the correspondence of the durations of the reigns on the whole is not bad, then post 1584 the chroniclers start to get seriously confused. In particular, they 'compress' in time some of the reigns [RI], ch.12.
In fig.73 it is shown which epochs of the Russian-Horde history are described by Suetonius and Tacitus. Above are marked the reigns from Ivan IV to Mikhail Romanov. Below is indicated under which names they were reflected in works by Suetonius and Tacitus. Starting with a short biography of Augustus, Tacitus in detail tells us the story of the 'Ancient' Rome, i.e. Russia-Horde from the Seven Boyars of the first half of the XVI century to Vasily Shuiskii (Vespasian) and Skopin-Shuiskii (Titus). The Emperor Mikhail Romanov (Domitian) is not reflected by Tacitus any more. In other words, Cornelius Tacitus cut his narration short approximately at the year 1610.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus spans a slightly longer time interval. He begins with Julius Caesar and Augustus. Then he moves on to Tiberius (Ivan the Terrible) and continues his narration up to Domitian (Mikhail Romanov). Thus Suetonius advances slightly further than Tacitus, about ten years, and stops approximately at the year 1620, having illuminated the first part of Mikhail Romanov's reign.
The two initial biographies – of Julius Caesar and Augustus – in the book by Suetonius are represented on the left in fig.73 by two triangles. In a similar way on the right are marked the fragments from his book referring to the last two plots from Domitian's 'biography'. To recap, here are described King Herod and Andronicus-Christ. In this place Suetonius skips back in time: from the XVII century into the XII century.
Besides, in fig.73 there is also shown 'volume (in years) of the description' by Suetonius of the various emperors-czars. To clarify. Suetonius' book consists of 12 'biographies', from Julius Caesar to Domitian. We calculated the volume (in pages) of each 'biography'. Having divided the resulting volume of life description by the number of years which each given czar reigned (according to the chronology of the Russian history) we received an average number of pages allocated by Suetonius for each year of his reign, fig.73. For example, the volume of description about Tiberius is not great, but, let's say, about Caligula – rather large. Here we fall back on the fact that the Roman emperors are the reflections of the Russian czars. That is why, when calculating, the reign duration was taken as specified in the Russian sources.
In the case with Tacitus we did not calculate the volume of accounts, as in his work the life stories of the emperors are closely intertwined, and it is difficult to calculate their volume. That is why in fig.73 the chronological disposition of Tacitus' work is represented by a horizontal line of uniform thickness.
So, as it follows from fig.73, the main bulk of books by Suetonius and Tacitus is dedicated to the second half of the XVI – early XVII century. Beyond this epoch remain just the biographies of Caesar, Augustus and the last part of Domitian's 'biography'. All these fragments date from the second half of the XII to early XIII century.
We can see that for Suetonius, Tacitus and Flavius the events of the XVI-XVII cc. were vital. They wrote keenly, taking everything close to heart. It is understandable. They lived in the turbulent times of the Reformation and the events of their generations and the preceding one's were of the utmost importance to them.
In fig.74 see the general picture of the parallelism which we discovered [RI], ch.12. On the left are depicted the Second Rome and the Third Roman Empires spanning the period from the I century BC to the middle of the VI century (in Scaligerian dating). On the right there is shown the chronology of Czar-Grad and the Russian-Horde Kingdom from 1000 to 1620. Between the dates on the right and on the left there is an approximately 1050 years shift. It is one of the main shifts discovered by A.T.Fomenko [1v], [2v]. To remind, the Second Rome and the Third Rome are the phantom reflections of the 'Mongol' Empire of the XIII-XVII cc. Therefore they duplicate each other to a great extent.
In fig. 74 we can see that with a shift of approximately 1050 years the dates of the Battle of Kulikovo of 1380 and the 'ancient' battle between Constantine and Maxentius of allegedly 312 perfectly coincide [TsRIM], [ZA].
THE CONCLUSIONS. The 'Ancient' Roman history of the I century is a phantom reflection of the events of the XVI-XVII cc. unfolded in Russia-Horde, the metropoly of the Great Empire. The Russian sovereign rulers – 'Ivan the Terrible', Dmitry, Godunov, 'False Dmitry', Vasily Shuisky, Prince Skopin-Shuisky, czar Mikhail Romanov – reflected in the 'ancient world' are the famous emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.

The works of Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus and Titus Flavius Josephus narrate the events of the XVI-XVII cc. unfolding mainly in Russia-Horde and Western Europe. These 'ancient writers' lived in the epoch of the XVII century. The events of the Reformation mattered deeply to them. They witnessed the grandiose turning point in history – the breakup of the Great Empire.