A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 7.


Before the end of the XVI century Russia, Ottoman Empire and Persia were all parts of the single Horde Empire. That is why there surely must have existed common cultural traditions. In particular, the similar weaponry production and ornamentation techniques. Despite the emerging religious split between Christianity and Islam in the XVI century, the state and military traditions of the XVI-XVII cc. must have still been very close.
Sure enough up until the middle of the XVII century, i.e. already in the epoch of the Romanovs, THE RUSSIAN CRAFTSMEN still decorated the weapons – even the Royal ones! – with ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS. It was only in the second half of the XVII century they were probably told that they were no longer allowed to do so. After that the Russian weapons with Arabic inscriptions disappeared. However, Russian Royal weaponry with Arabic inscriptions emblazoned with gold, diamonds and other precious stones produced by the best craftsmen of the Armoury Chamber, were preserved, in view of its material value. But most of the 'Russian-Arabic' weaponry were moved to the storerooms, see Appendix 5 in [6v3]. But today, when all of this is forgotten, some of this 'dangerous weaponry' is displayed in the museums. For instance, in the Kremlin Armoury Chamber. Here, for example, is the ceremonial helmet of the Moscow Czars made of damascene steel called 'Jericho cap' ('State helmet' – Tr.), i.e. Jericho cap, fig.81. However, in order to see the ARABIC INSCRIPTION ON THE RUSSIAN WEAPONRY you have to be very attentive. As the explanatory signs don't say anything about such 'improper' engravings. And the exhibits are often displayed in such a way that the Arabic engravings are barely discernible [4v2], ch.1.
Weapons with the Arabic inscriptions were being forged not only, and quite possibly, not as much in Turkey. In the Christian Russia UP UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE XVII CENTURY they liked to ornament the weaponry with the Arabic script. The sabre of Prince Mstislavsky, who was Ivan the Terrible's commander, was adorned with Arabic aphorisms [187], p.207. One of the aphorisms goes: 'There will be strong protection in the battle' [187], p.207. There is also a Russian inscription on the sabre stating the identity of the owner [187], p.207.
So why today are the Russian weaponry with the Arabic inscriptions always attributed to a non-Russian origin, usually Turkish or Persian? In those cases, when the Russian work is completely obvious, it is considered that the inexperienced and ignorant Russian craftsmen copied the wonderful Eastern and Western pieces in an apprentice-like fashion. Alleging that they mechanically transferred them, like some 'beautiful pictures' onto the magnificent weapons of the Russian Czars and commanders without understanding their meaning. And they proudly wore and showed off those strange aphorisms which were incomprehensible to them. Accompanied by the reserved and incredulous smiles of the learned Arabs and even more learned Europeans.
This is not true. In the epoch of the XVI and even the XVII cc. a great many of the Russian-Horde weaponry with the Arabic engravings were produced, it seems, in Russia-Horde, which in the XV-XVI cc. constituted a whole with the Ottoman Empire=Atamania. Later, a considerable part of the weaponry made in Moscow, Tula, Urals and the Russian weapons in general was cunningly declared to be either 'damascene', 'Eastern' or 'Western'. An opinion formed, that allegedly in that epoch the Russians carried mainly foreign weapons. As, purportedly, there were very, very little home-made weapons and they were of poor quality, though it is obvious that any military power fought using its home grown weaponry. That said, they forgot that Mediaeval Damascus was T-Moscow, i.e. the name of Moscow with the definite article T (denoting respect).
They also made weaponry with LATIN inscriptions in Russia. Or at least they used the Latin letters. As, for example, the precious Damask steel sabre made by the RUSSIAN craftsman Ilya Prosvit in 1618 [187], p.156-157.
The historians reassure us that the Arabic inscriptions are present on the old Russian weapons only because they were presented as the gifts to the Russian Czars and the Russian warriors by foreigners, who wrote in Arabic. This explanation is incorrect. Moreover, it appears that THE RUSSIAN CZARS THEMSELVES PRESENTED THE FOREIGNERS WITH GIFTS OF WEAPONRY ADORNED WITH ARABIC INSCRIPTIONS [4v2], ch.1.
Everything said about the Arabic inscriptions on the Russian weaponry does not only refer to the Kremlin Armoury Chamber. For example, in the museum of Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, the modern town of Alexandrov in the Raspyatskaya (the Crucifixion) Church-belfry there is exhibited the armoury of a Russian warrior – chain mail, a shield, a helmet, fig.82. The museum sign informs us, that this is Russian armour. Indeed, the entire helmet is covered with the depiction of exotic animals, horsemen, birds carried out in the Russian style, reminiscent of the famous engravings on the walls of the white-stone cathedrals of Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. The nose guard of the helmet ends above with a 4-ended - cross. All of which unmistakably points to the Russian origin of the helmet. At the same time there is a clear wide band inscription in Arabic running round it. Next to the helmet there is the shield. Once again there is a wide band inscription in Arabic running along the edge of the shield [4v2], ch.1. And this is a Russian shield!
The same sort of thing is in Moscow museum-reserve 'Kolomenskoye'. There are exhibited two old Russian military helmets [4v2], ch.1. Both of them have the inscriptions in Arabic and only in Arabic! And so on.
So, on the Russian Mediaeval weapons the inscriptions survived, which today are perceived as Arabic. Should you pay attention to it just once, you immediately begin to stumble across such examples at every step. This astonishing fact does not fit into the traditional version of the Romanov history. Just this one fact is enough to understand that the history of Russia of the pre-Romanov epoch was completely different than it is presented to us today.


Even in the XVII c. in Russia they still used a variety of alphabets to write down the Russian texts. The perfect example is the travelling notes, 'kept by Paul of Aleppo' (Paul, Archdeacon of Aleppo) – the talented ecclesiastical writer of the mid XVII century, who accompanied his father everywhere,
Patriarch Macarios III of Antioch. In 1656 the Patriarch visited Russia for the first time and was in Moscow… On the invitation of Czar Alexey Mikhailovich the Primate of the Antioch Church he visited The Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery' [422], p.94.
When accompanying the Patriarch, Paul of Aleppo made detailed notes, a trip report of a kind. Maybe such were the rules of the Patriarchy in that time. The notes survive to our day and are considered as remarkably valuable testimonies of the epoch of Alexey Mikhailovich [422].
The question is what language was the text written in? For our contemporaries brought up on the Scaligerian-Romanov history the answer would seem to be obvious. One must suppose that Orthodox Christian Paul of Aleppo, the son of the Orthodox Christian Patriarch of Antioch, who arrived to Orthodox Christian Russia to visit Orthodox Christian Czar Alexey Mikhailovich would write his report either in Russian or in Greek. At the very least in Latin. Which, admittedly would have been odd. But apparently the ACCOUNTS ARE WRITTEN IN ARABIC [422], p.95.
Further on it becomes even more intriguing. The Orthodox author of the XVII century freely alternates between Arabic and Russian, but at the same time he writes down a RUSSIAN TEXT WITH ARABIC LETTERS [422], p.98-99. Thus it unexpectedly becomes clear that in the epoch of Alexey Mikhailovich a RUSSIAN TEXT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN WRITTEN DOWN IN RUSSIAN, BUT USING ARABIC LETTERS.
The very fact, that Paul Aleppo's accounts, written in Arabic and Russian, but using Arabic letters survive, means that it was carefully preserved as an important official document.
But today we are assured that the writing of such documents in Arabic must definitely indicate their Muslim origin. At the same time the Antioch Patriarchy was considered one of the most important centres of the Orthodox Church. We can see that in the XVII century the picture was different from the way it is presented to us today [4v2], ch.1.
Another example is the famous writing - The Journey Beyond Three Seas (Khozheniye za tri morya) by Afanasy Nikitin. The text was written by an Orthodox Christian. 'The Journey' was mainly written in Russian. However from time to time Afanasy Nikitin freely and fluently changes into Turkic and even Arabic languages. Then, in the equally flowing way he changes back to the Russian language [4v2], ch.1. It is obvious, that he himself, as do his readers, knows several languages. But this is not the main thing. The main thing this is that the Turkic or the Arabic languages are used by Afanasy Nikitin for the RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN PRAYERS! Or, if you will, for the Islamic-Orthodox Christian prayers. However strange this combination of words may sound in our times.


Apparently on the 'Heads' side (of the Russian coins of the XIV century – Auth.) there is ALWAYS A COPY FROM THE TATAR COIN… On the reverse side of these coins there is ALWAYS an inscription the 'Grand Prince's seal' or 'Prince's seal and the image of the sealing wax itself. Possibly, soon after, they started adding the name of a Grand Prince… Hence it is necessary to conclude that ALL THE FIRST RUSSIAN COINS HAD TWO NAMES ON THEM' [309], P.33.
The numismatic historians call these coins 'double named'. I.e. on one side there is a name of a Tatar Khan, and on the other – of a Russian prince. It's true though, that, allegedly, due to their illiteracy the Russian money makers often put down the name of a wrong Khan [309], p.33.
Our explanation is simple. All of these coins are not double named, but bilingual. Meaning that on the coin there was printed a name of one ruler – who was simultaneously a Khan and a grand prince. But it was written in two languages – Russian and Tatar.


The 1610-1613 strife lasted for three years. The change of dynasties takes place. Mikhail Romanov mounts the throne, 1613-1645. The very name of a new dynasty – the Romanovs probably meant at that point NEW ROME. It is likely the new rulers tried to emphasise the difference from ROME OLD, i.e. from the Russian-Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc.
In Western Europe the former 'Mongol' governors who had split off from the metropoly enter a fierce battle for lands and dominance. Wars break out which today are known to us as the 'Reformation wars'. During this epoch, instead of the previous point of view: 'All the lands in one and undivided Empire belong to the Czar-Khan and are divided by him', a new ideology of the split emerges: 'This is our territory, we are the masters here and do not take orders from anyone '; 'We are better than the others'; 'We have lived here before you, so return these lands to us'; 'Our achievements are better than yours (our ships are better than yours, our science is better than yours…)'; 'We are sophisticated, you are 'ignorant', etc. The new unscrupulous ideology of the reformers was reflected in the cynical book 'The Prince' attributed to Machiavelli. A frenzied acrimonious carve up of the territories of the legacy of the Great Empire stretched on for decades. Rivers of blood were spilt. Today the true reason for the carve up - fight is forgotten. The historians bring the entire matter down to alleged religious squabbling.
The network of the 'Mongol' fortifications, which for a long time provided stability and order in the Empire, is destroyed. Primarily the reformers struck the blow on the Cathar = Scythian castles of the West Europe and on the Crusader castles-fortifications of the Middle East – in Syria, etc. They preferred to destroy the former mighty military fortifications in the Imperial provinces seething with revolt, fearing that in a few days they might fall in the hands of their enemies once again. The mighty Hordian castles were blown up with gun powder.


The struggle of the Reformation of the XVI-XVII cc. with the splinters of the Horde Empire is very well illustrated by the annihilation of the Cathars in France. The history of the Cathars is one of the most breath-taking and mysterious chapters of the Middle Ages.
Allegedly in the X-XI cc. in Western Europe and in particular in France there emerged a new Christian movement, the supporters of which became known as the Cathars (the Cathari), and also the Albigenses (or Albigeois). It is thought that the religion of the Cathars was Christian [6.2], ch.1. However, it differs from the Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism of today in its details. It was declared to be heretical.
It is widely thought that the Cathar heresy widely spread and met with the opposition from the Catholic Church. In the first half of allegedly the XIII century the crusades were organised against the Cathars. They fought back tooth and claw, but they were defeated, their mighty fortresses were destroyed. Allegedly since the XIV c. they 'exit the stage'. However up until now the south of France is called 'Cathar Country'. Very little remains from them today. But whatever is left is very impressive. In the first place – the mighty castles-fortresses in the cities, on top of the mountains and cliffs which controlled the trade and military routes. The magnificent fortifications received the name of the 'Cathar Castles'.
As we demonstrate in [6v2], ch.1, the Cathars are the Scythians of the Volga river, who came to France in the XIV c. from Russia-Horde during the 'Mongol' conquest. They settled down here and, as the colonizers, created the ruling class. Their religion was Christian.
In the epoch of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. the Cathars = Scythians, having partially mixed with the local population, created a unique culture, built the cities, cathedrals, fortresses, some of which are still called Cathar. In the end of the XVI- beginning of the XVII cc. during the revolt of the Reformation in West Europe, the Cathars – Scythians were defeated in a gruelling war.
Later they story was 'transported' from the XIV-XVI cc. into the XI-XIII cc. In addition it was declared that the Cathar = Scythian Gothic cathedrals starting as early as the XIII century, i.e. from the very start of their construction, allegedly were 'genuinely Catholic'. In its later Reformation sense. This was a falsification. The Bulgarian = Volga Orthodox Christian religion of the Cathars = Scythians was proclaimed to be 'heresy'.
The dramatic events of the history of the Cathars = Scythians found their way onto the pages of the Bible. For example the story of Count Simon (Osman) de Montfort, (Earl of Leicester) (aka 'ancient' Pyrrhus) under the name of ABIMELECH, is briefly described in the Old Testament Book of Judges, ch.9. Various 'ancient' authors of the XVI-XVII cc. gave their account of it. For example, Plutarch = Petrarch [6v2], ch.1.
Some of the Empire's provinces resisted the split and tried to restore the former unity. Siberia, the Far East and a part of the North America were governed by the Horde up until the middle of the XVIII century. In the West the conservative Imperial climate was particularly strong in Spain and England. In the East and South, where there was no rebellion, the former Imperial regions took up an antagonistic position towards the West and the pro-Western Romanovs. We mean Siberia, the Far East, America, China, Japan, Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Hindustan.


Aiming to establish their rights to the territory ceased and divided between themselves, the usurpers-rebels in Europe and the Romanovs in Russia re-write history. The Great Empire is wiped off the pages of the chronicles. The adulterated Scaligerian chronology is being created making the dates of a great number of events artificially older. Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) and Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652) are considered to be its creators. Though it is not very clear if in fact they were the authors of the works attributed to them or their names were cunningly made use of. Creating a self-serving version of history, the new authorities strived to prove their allegedly 'ancient origins' and non-existent alleged hereditary rights to the throne. A great many newly-minted Crowns, which were declared 'independent from time immemorial' appeared in the XVIIc on the ruins of the Empire – in France, Germany, Italy, England, etc. They were in conflict with each other for a long time.
The theory of the Indo-European languages originating from the distant India occupies an important place in the Scaligerian history. Where India is perceived in the modern sense, as a country situated on the Hindustan peninsula (the Indian Subcontinent). It is considered that the proto-languages originated here and permeate many countries. We do not see any reasons for objections except one. Where was that 'ancient India' situated in reality, where did the Indo-European languages originate from? And when? According to our results it is Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc.
The reformists quickly invent and energetically introduce the new languages based on the former Imperial state Church-Slavonic language and the local dialects in the provinces which acquired their independence. For example, French, German, Spanish, English and also 'ancient' Latin and 'ancient' Greek. This allowed the rebels to build language barriers between the populations of the newly-formed states. Their purpose is clear: to destroy the unity between the nations of the Empire. In the face of the newly established religious and linguistic barriers, former bonds began to break. It is all described in the Bible as 'the confusion of tongues' following 'the Babel pandemonium'. The invention of the new languages allowed the reformists to speed up the process of the casting into oblivion of the memory of the Great Empire to prevent its restoration. But as these new languages inevitably incorporated a significant layer from the former Imperial state Slavonic language, the numerous Slavonic traces can be found in them even today [7v2].
The process of the dissimilation of languages was also spurred on by the state activities. The settled Imperial governors began to introduce the alphabets into their territories, change grammar, invent new fonts and vowel marking, new reading rules. For example, in some places they introduced the way of reading 'not the way it is spelled. A great example of this is French. Let's say it is spelled Foix – the name of the Cathar city (a town not far from Toulouse, pronounced as Fwa. They strived to distance themselves as soon as possible from the Slavonic language and Slavonic writing.
In schools they introduced the study of the recently invented languages and in a generation or two the old language and writing were forgotten by the majority of the population. The old books written in Slavonic language with the old characters became incomprehensible. Not being reproduced they gradually became obsolete. In the West things were happening particularly fast, as this process was brought to the level of a national programme. The Index of Forbidden Books was introduced. Previous history, books, writing and also 'heretics' were thrown on the fire.
In the end of the XVI – beginning of the XVII cc. the formerly united Christianity began to splinter into several branches, including via the efforts of the reformists. In time there formed separate religions: Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. The former unity was forgotten and in some cases gave way to feuding. This was quite convenient for the usurpers who came to power. In order to keep hold of the recently created and still unstable local thrones they strived to split the previously united population of the Empire into antagonistic groups. The subjects were deceived by pointing at the neighbouring peoples and being told that: 'We were always different'; 'We always spoke different languages'; 'We always had different faith'; 'We never married gentiles (we never took adherents of different faith as our wives'). All of which was untrue. In the XVII-XVIII cc. in place of the former imperial idea of the world united under the sole supreme power with the limited power in places (at the local level), a new principle was introduced: in my own state I rule as I will. In the times of the Empire, on the contrary, there always existed a possibility that the supreme Czar-Khan arrives and the governors would have to answer for their actions. This curbed the arbitrary actions of the local authorities in places, which wasn't very popular with some of the Imperial officials. Thus the grounds for the Reformation were created.


The Cathedral of the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin could have told us a lot of things about the old Russian history, as it was declared to be the official burial vault of the Russian Grand Princes and Czars including the first Romanovs. Today there are approximately 50 tombs in the cathedral. It is thought that here were buried all the Moscow Grand Dukes beginning with Ivan Kalita.

However those tombs, which today can be seen in the cathedral, are the brick tombstones made in the XVII century under the first Romanovs [552], p.24. I.e. at the time when the old frescos removed from the cathedral walls and vaults and new ones were painted in their place. It is thought that 'burials were made in white stone sarcophaguses, which were lowered into the ground under the floor. In the first half of the XVII century at the burial site they erected brick tombstones with white stone slabs ornamented with Slavonic inscriptions. At the beginning of the XX century the tombstones were placed in glazed cases made of bronze' [552], p.25-26.

Thus the old tombstones slabs, beneath which there were supposed to be the burial site, were bricked up! At the same time they assure us that the inscriptions on the old slabs were reproduced precisely on the brick tombstones made by the Romanovs. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to verify this. To do so would require dismantling the massive modern constructions. It is only natural to question the authenticity of these 'royal burials' after the facts we have learnt about the barbaric destruction of the cathedral's frescos by the Romanovs [4v2], ch.2.

Today, situated in the basement of The Cathedral of the Archangel there are also the sarcophaguses of the Russian queens (Czaritzas) which were moved here in the XX century from the Kremlin cemetery, which was destroyed during the construction of the modern buildings. However, as we have shown in [4v2], ch.2, the Romanovs, in the middle of the XVII century, simply either used the anonymous tombs of nuns or removed the names from some other tombs and then passed them off as the 'tombs of the Russian queens'. They wished to establish some 'material evidence' to support their false version of history. The true burial sites of the Russian-Horde queens were, most likely, destroyed. That is if the graves were located on the territory of Moscow at all and not in the Royal cemetery in African Egypt. But the Romanovs needed to produce something to 'demonstrate' as proof of the image of Russian history they had painted. And it is in the XVII century the Romanov historians and archaeologists 'happily discovered' allegedly authentic tombs of Yaroslav the Wise (Mudry), Saint Vladimir (Svyatoy) etc. And their colleagues in Moscow at this very time were working hard on the creation of a 'presentable Royal necropolis of the XI-XVI cc'. in the Archangel Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin.

More specifically, having received the order from above, they were hastily producing the 'old Royal burial sites'. It has to be said, rather carelessly. It seems they simply arrived at the monastery cemetery and decide to turn it into the alleged cemetery of the 'pre-Romanov queens'. The name signs of the nuns were cut off. The tombstones bearing the new 'appropriate signs' were placed on top. Then they buried under each tombstone an old coffin. But as the coffins were buried, the officers-executants who were fulfilling this task didn't make those signs very thoroughly. Is it worth trying so hard if all of it was to be immediately buried under the ground?! In some cases they altogether forgot to make a sign on the tomb. In two cases they have missed, possibly by an oversight, the names of the simple nuns scratched with a nail on the old coffins. Thus, with such audacity there was created a false 'necropolis of the queens' in the Moscow Kremlin. We will repeat that there was no necropolis in Moscow in the pre-Romanov epoch. The Russian-Horde Czars and Czaritzas of the XIV-XVI cc. were transported to African Egypt to be buried in the Imperial cemetery.

The less distinguished ones were buried in Russia. But having assumed power the Romanovs did their best to destroy those old sarcophaguses which could have revealed the true story of the pre-Romanov Russia-Horde. What we are presented with today as 'antiquity' is either the Romanov modern replicas or the poor coffins of common people, presented by the Romanov historians as the 'Royal burial sites'.

Moreover, the Romanovs started using the old Russian white stoned tombs as building materials [62], p.297; [4v2], ch.2. This was a clear manifestation of the Romanovs' attitude towards Russian history. In everyday life builders would hardly go to a cemetery in search for the building materials and take the tombstones for that purpose, in order to build an apartment block out of them. Would you want to live in a building like that? Such things were always considered an insult to the memory of the deceased. It did happen sometimes, but exactly as a token of the disrespect towards those who were buried beneath those gravestones. This is amply demonstrated in the Romanovs' actions.

Apparently between 1632 and 1636 there the CHANGES IN THE TYPE OF BURIALS THAT OCCURRED IN RUSSIA. This refers at least to the royal burials. Before 1632 the first Romanovs still buried their queens according to the old tradition customary in Russia-Horde. But then, as we show in [4v2], ch.2., the Romanovs change the type of burial. Starting with 1636 they were burying in a different way. So we unexpectedly came across a serious fact. The change in the type of the burial is a major religious-social reform. It signifies the fundamental turning point in the life of the Russian society in the middle of the XVII century. Surprisingly nothing is said about this major event in Russian history.

Thus we come across the very same borderline – the XVII century, which separates the falsified history from the more or less accurate one. It is extremely difficult to surmount the barrier of the XVII century – very little true archaeological evidence and written records from earlier than the XVII century survive. In the colonies of the Great Empire, in Western Europe, the former imperial cathedrals and constructions were on the whole also destroyed. However the Western reformers who came to power decided to preserve the Gothic architectural style of the 'Mongol' temples in their own new buildings, having only declared it to be ancient and exclusively their own, allegedly purely Western-European [4v2], ch.2:47. A shock wave of the historical reconstruction with the total 'elimination of all traces' swept through occupied Russia of the XVII century. Not only the architectural style was changed, but also the very nature of the burials.