A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 7.


As we have already said the Veliky Novgorod of the chronicles is Yaroslavl upon Volga. To be precise, the name of the entire region including a number of cities, Rostov and Suzdal in particular. But in the epoch of the XVII century the name 'Novgorod' was taken away from Yaroslavl and given to a small town, a former town-district, a small fort in the North West of Russia, by lake Ilmen, by the mouth of the river called VOLKHOV. Why was it here that the famous name of Novgorod was moved to – on paper and on the maps – and at the time the name of VOLGA with it? As it is absolutely clear that VOLKHOV is a slightly distorted version of the name VOLGA.

The answers may differ. However, there is one that appears worthy of serious consideration. Let us turn to the old maps of Moscow drawn by the Western cartographers and travellers of the XVI-XVII cc. There emerges a curious fact. Northern Dvina River and its vicinities are rather well depicted on these maps [TsRIM], ch.1. It is clear that the Western cartographers knew those regions, where the Western merchants and trading ships would arrive via the Northern shipping route, quite well. They went up Dvina River and the other rivers of that region, eventually reaching Yaroslavl – the major centre of that epoch.

But Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, the suburbs of Moscow and the territories to the South and West of Yaroslavl on the whole, the Western cartographers had noticeably poorer knowledge of. They had difficulties even with Moscow. I.e. the capital of Russia in the XVI century! For instance, on that very map by S.Herberstein, allegedly of the year 1546, the city of Moscow is not indicated at all. There was written only the name of the land – MOSCOWIA [TsRIM], ch.1. A city near the Moscow river was drawn, but without a name. The other cities, however, were indicated and named.

It proves that the Western cartographers of the XVI century were getting confused about the location of Moscow, the capital of Russia. They knew roughly that it was situated 'somewhere there, far away', but they had trouble telling where exactly. That is why they nominally drew a large territory 'Moscowia'. Inside this territory they tentatively depicted a town, not quite understanding where exactly it was located. The same story was with Vladimir, another old capital of Russia-Horde.

Most likely in the epoch of the XIV-XVI c. the Russian-Horde authorities simply didn't allow the foreigners inside the country further than Yaroslavl and the merchant cities along the Volga river. The Horde acted in a comprehensible way. You are welcome to come and trade, but your entrance into the land where the Czar's quarters is situated is either forbidden or highly restricted. As the regions to the South and West of Yaroslavl were Vladimir and Suzdal Russia, the metropoly of the Empire. These lands were strictly guarded.

That is why the Western cartographers had to use on the whole only some vague stories about which towns, rivers and lakes are situated in the vast metropoly of the Empire, which was inaccessible to them. To draw a map based on such conversations was not simple of course. So Vladimir and Suzdal Russia on the maps of S.Herberstein and the other cartographers were possibly drawn in the quiet of European offices based on the snippets of the incidental information.

Let's go back to the 'problem of Novgorod'. Let's have a look at the map of S.Herberstein, fig.83. We can see that the Mologa river is shown INCORRECTLY. Instead of a 'loop' the Western Europeans depicted the river practically as a straight line starting not far from the lake Ilmen and flowing straight towards the Volga river. This is a first-rate blunder. In fact the Mologa meanders in a loop beginning in Vladimir and Suzdal Russia and flowing into the Volga river a little bit above Yaroslavl [TsRIM], ch.1. At the same time S.Herberstein says correctly, that THE MOLOGA RIVER 'FLOWS FROM THE LANDS OF VELIKY NOVGOROD' [161], p.153.

That is why the Western merchants and travellers having arrived to Volga at the mouth of Mologa near Kholopii Gorod (Town of Serves) understood that going up the Mologa river they would soon find themselves in the Czar's quarters of Velikii Novgorod. S Novgorod was not just another town, but an entire region of towns. That is why if you go up the Mologa river, at first you need to move TOWARDS THE NORTH WEST. However later, going up Mologa further, you need to turn South or even East, and as a result the ship will return to the Yaroslavl, i.e. Novgorod lands.

Thus the Westerners CORRECTLY informed their cartographers, that the Czar's headquarters in Velikii Novgorod was situated upstream of the Mologa river. The only thing left to do was to draw this river on the map. That is where the cartographers were faced with difficulties. They knew for sure that going upstream on the Mologa from Volga, the ship would at first go NORTH WEST. But they had no idea how the river would act further. They were not allowed as far as that. So the cartographers decided to merely CONTINUE THE LINE OF THE RIVER STRAIGHT TO THE NORTH WEST. The way it is drawn on the map of Herberstein. Having made this fundamental mistake, the cartographers 'stretched' the Mologa river as far as the lake Ilmen. And they erroneously decided that Mologa's source is located there. After that they confidently DREW HERE THE CZAR's VELIKI NOVGOROD, 'at the riverhead of Mologa'. Thus the annalistic royal Novgorod was 'driven back' far to the North West.

The Romanovs dynasty was pro-western not only by blood, but also by their original spirit. That is why the Western chronicles and maps, which replaced either the destroyed or the edited chronicles and maps of the 'Mongol' Empire, provided the basis to the Romanov geography and history. As we can see on the Western maps Velikii Novgorod is erroneously drawn near the lake Ilmen. There was nothing left for the Romanov historians to do, but to place here 'on the ground' the geographical Novgorodian names, which they have read from the Russian chronicles. In particular, they had to call a shabby town-district with a prison 'Velikii Novgorod'. This was an isolated place, desolate swampland, wolves, frogs, snakes and mosquitos. The mistake once firmly consolidated, it acquired an authoritative appearance, and overgrew with the other distortions. In the XX century Moscow archaeologists arrived here in order to 'even better confirm the chronicles'. To see the outcome of this 'activity' see [4v1], ch.2:11-12.


The coat of arms of the Russian Empire has changed over the course of time. It is interesting to see what it looked like in the XVI-XVII cc., during the epoch of the Horde Empire and immediately after its break up in the XVII century. According to [162] four old depictions survive of the Imperial emblem of the XVI-XVII cc. [4v2], ch.2. Namely:

1) The state seal of Czar Ivan the Terrible (Ioann Grozny). Here surrounding the two headed eagle on the face side of the seal there are 12 emblem-seals [162], p. VIII and [568], p.161. See fig.84, fig.85.

2) The depiction of the coat-of-arms on the throne of Mikhail Fedorovich.

3) The coat-of arms on the silver plate of the Czar Aleksey Mikhailovich.

4) The depiction of the coat of arms of the Empire from the diary of Korb (Joanne Georgio Korb 'DNEVNIK PUTESHESTVIYA V MOSKOVIYU'- "A Diary of the Travel to Moscovy [Russia]") (1698 and 1699)) who in 1698-1699 accompanied the Austrian ambassador of the Habsburgs, sent to Moscow. Here are already depicted the 32 coat-of-arms of the Czardom, not including the Moscow coat-of-arms, fig.86.

Let's look at the national coat of arms of the Horde Empire of the XVI century, fig.84. It is considered to be the earliest of the four previously mentioned. The 12 regions-kingdoms surrounding the two headed eagle on this emblem are intriguing. They are listed in the inscription [161], p.VIII:

'Grand Sovereign Czar and Grand Prince of All Russia Ivan Vasilyevich ,Czar of Vladimir, Grand Prince of Moscow, and Novgorod; Czar of Kazan; Czar of Astrakhan; sovereign of Pskov; Grand Prince of Smolensk; Grand Prince of Tver; Grand Prince of Yugra region, Grand Prince of Perm, Grand Prince of Vyatka, Grand Prince of Bulgaria and the other territories, Sovereign and Grand Prince of Novai Gorod (New Town) of the Nizovskii Zemli (Nizovskii Lands); Sovereign and Grand Prince of Chernigov'.

It turns out that the entire Empire consisted of 12 Czardom-regions, reflected in the Bible as the 12 tribes of Israel [6]. It was exactly the 12 Israeli tribes = files who set off for the conquest of 'The Promised Land'. As it is shown in [6v1], ch.5, it took place in the XV century. These 12 tribes originated in Russia and the Ottoman Empire and settled across the world. I.e.in Southern and Western Europe, Africa, Asia and America.

Among the 12 kingdom-regions there were also the indigenous Russian-Hordian ones. For example, Velikii Novgorod, which in the coat-of-arms is rightly combined with Moscow and Vladimir. Or,for example, the Kazan Czardom, the Astrakhan kingdom, Smolensk Grand Duchy, etc.

An interesting question arises. Shouldn't there also be the territories of Western and Southern Europe as well as Constantinople conquered by the Ottomans comprising the 'Mongol' Empire? I.e. Asia Minor, Egypt and other neighbouring countries. Where are they in the coat of arms of the Russian-Horde Empire of the XVI century? Could it be that we have stumbled across a contradiction? No, it turns out that everything is fine.


In [4v2], ch.2, we were able establish – which territories of the Empire corresponded with the emblems specified on the state seal of the XVI century. We will mark those places on the map of Europe where the capitals of the 12 Czardom -regions indicated on the face side of the seal were situated, fig.87. The dots and figures in bold represent the 12 Czardoms-tribes positioned around the two-headed eagle.

1) Velikii Novgorod, including Vladimir and Moscow. I.e. Vladimir and Suzdal Russia. 2) Czardom of Kazan 3) Astrakhan Czardom. 3) Pskov republic = Prussia, Central and North Germany. 5) Grand Principality of Smolensk. 6) The Principality of Great Perm = Tiverian Principality with its capital in Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus. 7) Grand Principality of Yugra = Hungary 8) The Principality of Great Perm = German-Austrian. 9) Grand Principality of Vyatka = Spanish-Vatican. 10) Grand Principality of Bulgaria. 11) Grand Principality of Nizovye = Nizhegorodskoye Principality. 12) Grand Principality of Chernigov.

In fig.87 you can see that these Biblical kingdoms-tribes are arranged in groups. Except for the last two tribes, added to the Coat of Arms after the words 'and the other territories'.

1st group – are the Czardoms along the Volga river: Velikii Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan.

2nd group – is West Russia: Pskov or Pleskov = Prussia, Smolensk = White Russia (Belya Rus) or Blue Russia (Blue Rus).

3rd group – is West and South Europe: Czar-Grad, Hungary, Austria, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria.

4th group – two more Russian Princedoms – Nizhnii Novgorod and Chernigov.

Thus in the coat of arms of Russia-Horde of the XVI century there is depicted a significant part of the Empire. But not all of it. Some of the Northern provinces were not included (Sweden, for example), distant Eastern lands (Japan, for example) and the distant Western territories (England, for example). The overseas colonies in America also were not included [6v2], ch.6. However, England and Sweden are included in the other Russian emblems.

In fig.86 we see the Russian emblem of the Romanov epoch of the end of the XVII century [162], p.XI. On the eagle's wings from left to right there are the Coats of Arms of: Kiev, Novgorod, Astrakhan, Moscow, Siberia, Kazan, Vladimir. Inside the oval clockwise from the top are the Coats of Arms of: Pskovsky, Tverskoi, Podolsky, Permsky, Bulgarsky, Chernigovsky, Polotsky, Yaroslavsky, Udorsky, Kondiisky, Mstislavsky, Iversky, Kabardinsky, of Chersky and Gorsky Territories, Cartalinsky, Sveisky, Vitebsky, Obdorsky, Belozersky, Rostovsky, Ryazansky, Novgorod-Nizovsky, yatsky, Yugorsky, Volynsky, Smolensky.

Here the number of the Coats of Arms is significantly greater than in the 'Mongol' emblem of the XVI century. There appear mysterious Czardoms, such as Udorsky, Kondiisky and Obdorsky. Besides, the princedoms Iversky and Cartalinsky are named. One of them - Cartalinsky Czardom is, possibly, Georgia. In which case Iversky Czardom is Spain. We don't mean to say that at the end of the XVII century Spain still belonged to the Russian Empire. The Romanovs, quite simply, took the old Hordian Coat of Arms, where among others were named the distant Czardoms which used to belong to Russia-Horde in the XV-XVI cc. This 'Mongol' emblem was more detailed than the one we have discussed earlier.
That is why we can see here such well-known Czardoms as Sveysky, i.e. Swiss (Sweden). It is followed by Iversky, i.e. Spain. Then there is Yugorsky Czardom, i.e. Hungary. Then - Bulgarian. And lastly there is Permsky, i.e. Austrian Czardom.
Let's go back to the three new, at first glance unclear names in the 'Mongol' emblem: Udorsky, Kondiisky and Obdorsky princedoms. As we show in [4v2], ch.2, the answer is as follows:
The mysterious Udorsky Prinsdim is 'the Mongolian' lands on the border of the present day Germany and Poland, where the river Oder flows.
The British Isles = England, or the Isle of Crete are named as Kontiisky island on the coat of arms of Russia-Horde.

Mysterious Obdora is a town and may be even the entire territory in Spain. Or in Thrace. And it could also possibly be in France, if we remember that THRACE and FRANCE are just the two versions of the same name. Latin C would read as TS or K.


As we have shown in [4v2], the 'ancient' chronicles in existence today describe the Czar-Grad Czardom of the XII-XV cc. and the Horde Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. The historians erroneously date these chronicles as deep 'antiquity', earlier than the XII century. Roughly speaking the 'ancient' English chronicles are the Romaic and 'Mongol' chronicles transferred to England during its conquest by the Horde and interweaved into the insular English history.
The actual written history of England which provides the accounts of the events SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ISLAND, begins only in the XI century. There are very few fragments of the XI-XIII century which survive. Then on top there was applied a layer of the events telling us about Czar-Grad and the Great Empire. The combination of the insular-English and Romaic-'Mongolian' layers gave us the modern textbook of the history of England of the XI-XVI cc.

The history of England as we know it today which truly reflects the native English insular events, only begins with the XVI-XVII cc. i.e. unalloyed with the Czar-Grad or Mongolian' events. Roughly speaking beginning with the XVI-XVII cc. the Scaligerian version of the history of England is more or less correct, see fig.88.

In the XIII century the waves of the Crusades overwhelm Romea. The Crusader states emerge here. Both the local population and the crusaders get mixed up in them. Cultural life flourishes, the chronicles are written.

At the beginning of the XIV century the 'Mongol' conquest takes place. Then, in 1453 under the attack of the Ottomans who came from Russia-Horde, Constantinople fell. Byzantium is destroyed; crowds of its people leave the country. Many rich people, intellectuals and aristocrats leave for Europe, including for the island of England. These fugitives of the XIV-XV cc. take with them the Czar-Grad chronicles as a memory of the true history of Romea and Horde. In the XIV century a gigantic Horde Empire emerges. On the island of England appears another of its provinces with its governors subordinate to Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The chronicles which are written during this time on the island reflect not so much the local events, as the life of the whole Empire and its Hordian metropoly.

Some time passes. They start writing THEIR OWN history on the island of England, and in the XVI-XVII cc. the 'new' history of 'ancient' England is created. This is a part of global 'Reformation'. The old chronicles are being re-written in England as well. A lot of the true history of the XIV-XVI cc. has been forgotten. The English historians of the XVI-XVII cc. declare the old Romaic and Hordian-Ottomanian chronicles edited by them to be the documents of the allegedly insular English history. They make them the basis for the 'ancient' history of the British Isles. Big chunks of the history of Romea and the 'Mongol' Empire which unfolded on the vast territories of Eurasia, are transferred on paper to the comparatively small British Isles and their surroundings. Many major events inevitably become smaller, as if shrunk in size. The Hordian Czars of the Empire turn under the quill of the English editors into the local island rulers. The Great Empire disappears from the pages of the edited chronicles. And those accounts which they didn't succeed in destroying, are moved to the past with the aid of the false chronology, transforming them into the 'most ancient myths'.

As a result in the XVI-XVII cc. there emerge the English chronicles in the style of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 'The History of the Britons' by Nennius, etc. Soon this fresh version of the 'ancient' English history solidifies like a monument. In the XIX-XX cc. it becomes only slightly clarified and lacquered over. And today, when discovering with the aid of mathematical methods astonishing duplicates inside the 'English textbook', we begin to understand that the actual English history is considerably shorter [4v2].

It is possible that the Reformers moved the stolen treasury of the Empire to England. They didn't want to take a chance of keeping it in Europe, weary of the restoration of Russia-Horde. At first they tried to create a new metropoly in Vienna, Austria by installing their string puppets there under the pompous name of the 'Habsburgs'. Nothing came of it. This 'Empire' was short-lived. That is why the Hordian money was taken as far away as possible to the distant English isles (where under Ivan the Terrible Elena Voloshanka = Esther = Mary Stuart was exiled to and executed). Having seized the vast treasures of the Horde, the English rebels acquired influence and created the 'English Empire', which existed for some time.


In the XVI-XVII cc. they began re-writing the history. The attitude towards the 'Tatar Mongols' also changed. They were now painted purely with black colours. In fig.89.there is shown an illumination from The Chronica Majora by Matthew Parris, allegedly of the XIII century. It depicts a leisurely dinner of the 'Tatar Mongols'. Under the picture there is a caption: 'The Tatars are eating human flesh'. They are roasting a human corpse on a turnspit. Next to it there are cut off human heads and arms. Indicating that such are the 'Mongolian' customs. Savages, cannibals. A far cry from the enlightened and sensitive Western Europeans [4v2], ch.6.

Just about the same was said about the 'Tatar Mongols', calling them the Scythians. Thus, for example, Solinus Gaius Julius reasons with confidence: 'The Scythians of the inland regions lead a rough lifestyle, they live in caves… They love battles. They drink blood from the wounds of the slayed. Glory grows with the number of murders, and not to kill anyone is a disgrace'. Quoted from [953], p.219.

All such provocative leaflets like these are the Western European propaganda of the Reformation epoch. Among the same kind of 'horror stories' is the creation of the character of a wicked Russian bear intimidating Europe. In regards to the name of URSUS under which the bear is depicted in the old maps, the historians inform us: 'The Hereford Mappa Mundi could probably shed the light onto the origin of the English stereotype of the 'Russian bear' which was widely spread during the Elizabethan epoch… There were attempts to raise this Elizabethan stereotype to the symbolism of the early Christian tradition, WHERE BOTH THE NORTH AND THE BEAR WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDEA OF EVIL… Finally, both filthy beasts (a bear and a monkey – Author) are the components of the diet of the 'TURKOMEN OF THE GOG AND MAGOG DESCENT'' [953], p.230. The very name of the bear itself – URSUS is just one of the versions of the pronunciation of the word RUSS, Russian.


In [5v1], ch.14:3, we show that the works of art attributed to the artist of allegedly the XV-XVI cc. Albrecht Durer were most likely created a century later – in the XVII century. It appears that EXACTLY IN THE XVII CENTURY OCCURS THE PEAK OF DISCOVERING BOTH THE ORIGINAL WORKS OF DURER AND THE NUMEROUS 'COPIES' AND 'IMITATIONS'. They write: 'Not long before 1600 the demand on Durer's prints (his engravings – Author) became so great, that the market was swamped with the engravings and other imitations. This copying carried on almost continually during the 18th century' [1117], p.130. It emerges that the first list of Durer's graphic art appears only in the XVIII century (!) by (Heinrich Hüsgen, 1745-1847).

The Reformers of the XVII century were destroying not only the state structures of the Horde Empire, but its manifestations in art, sculpture, literature and science. A sweeping blow was also dealt on the legacy of the Imperial artist A.Durer. Something similar was inflicted on the cartographer Gerardus Mercator [7v1], ch.7.

Later the fire of the coup died down, emotions were placated. Following the success of the Reformation there was a need in the new Germany of the XVII century to create the 'great German history', allegedly independent from the former one – the 'Mongolian'. They decided also to create a new history of art, literature and architecture. Free of the 'detrimental' tradition of the Horde Empire. They remembered of A.Durer and decided to create on the basis of the glorious, but already forgotten name, a 'new Durer of the Reformation'. His earlier paintings perished. Burnt in the fires of the Reformation. Oh well, said the Reformers, it's for the best, as they were improper. We will paint the new – proper ones. 'Durer's second birth' was naturally cleared of the memories of the 'Mongol' Empire. As envisioned by the Reformers Durer was supposed to become a 'typical European' in the 'progressive' meaning of the XVII century. So Durer was declared the 'great supporter of the Reformation' [1117],p.104. They kept repeating it until present day. But is it true? Durer, the Empire's artist of the XVI century, hardly supported the anti-government coup, aimed primarily against the Empire, which he served faithfully all his life [5v1], ch.14:3.


Of course as it has already been said, the important result of the New Chronology is as follows. The star catalogue of the famous 'Almagest' by Ptolemy was created in the interval between year 600 to year 1300, and by no means in the II century [3v1].

The dating method which we suggested was successfully tested on a number of the well-known star catalogues, in particular those of - Ulugh Beg, Al-Sufi, Tycho Brahe and Johannes Hevelius. In all cases the traditionally known dating of the old catalogues – with the exception of the Almagest catalogue – were confirmed by our method. The Almagest catalogue turned out to be the single exception. It means that the traditional dating of Ptolemy's life contains an error of several hundred or even more, a thousand years.

Almagest is an encyclopaedia, where several hundred years' worth of astronomical observations are collected. The earliest of them date to the epoch not earlier than the X century. The observations up until the XVI century could have been included in the Almagest. This encyclopaedia reflects the current and changing state of astronomical science. The final version was published in the XVI century.

Editions of the Almagest prior to the XVI century, even if they existed, didn't reach us. In the XVII century, during the falsification of history, the Almagest, which was important for the chronology, was significantly re-worked. It was published 'post factum', listing erroneous dates. It included the fabricated 'ancient observations', which in fact were the results of the THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO THE MEDIAEVAL ASTRONOMICAL THEORY OF THE XVII CENTURY. It is presented in the Almagest. Thus one of the whales of the Scaligeraian chronology was created.

The coordinates of the planets, position of the Sun, the Moon and etc. were calculated into the past. Then the calculated astronomical phenomenon were declared to be 'observed' and were included into the Almagest: 'A such-and-such astronomer in a such-and-such (calculated!) year observed this and that'. But as the astronomical theory of the XVII century was not so precise as today, the evaluations made according to the modern formulas reveal the fraud. As was discovered by the well-known astrophysicist Robert Newton [3v1].

So, THE ALMAGEST AS WE KNOW IT TODAY WAS CREATED IN THE XVII CENTURY. Its creators presented this book to be 'ancient' in order to lay it as a foundation of the Scaligerian chronology which was in the process of being created in precisely that very epoch. THAT IS WHY THOSE ASTRONOMICAL PHENOMENA WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED INTO THE PAST ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF THE XVII CENTURY WERE DATED IN THE ALMAGEST ALREADY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHRONOLOGY OF SCALIGER. Naturally, with the precision which could have been achieved with the flawed astronomical theory of the XVII century. That is why it is necessary to refer to Almagest data with great caution, when we wish to use it for the purpose of chronology. Only the data which could not have been computed in the XVII century should be used. For example the solar eclipses, the precise phases of the lunar eclipses, the star positions. However, the falsifiers of the XVII century naturally did their best so there were no such possible data left in the Almagest at our disposal. For example, 'for some reason' no solar eclipses are mentioned in the Almagest.

Going forward. The famous 'classical' astronomer Hipparchus, who lived allegedly in the II century BC [797], p.307 – is, to a great extent, a phantom reflection of the famous astronomer Tycho Brahe, who lived in the XVI century. In the beginning of the XVII century, when filling the 'distant antiquity' with the phantoms of the Mediaeval events, the historians 'split' Tycho Brahe into two as well. One of the versions of his biography was cast away into the past and there was created the 'great astronomer Hipparchus'. Besides, in [VAT], part 1, ch.1. we show that the life description of Hipparchus also includes the ancient information about the astronomer from the XI century.

Ptolemey's Almagest was finally edited and finished only AFTER Tycho Brahe, in the epoch of Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). I.e. the Almagest, including its star catalogue, was being edited up until the beginning of the XVII century. As a result the following picture is forming.

# At first there emerged a comparatively small catalogue of Tycho Brahe – the most ancient among the star catalogues which survive to the present time.

# Followed by – a more complete 'ancient' catalogue of Claudius Ptolemy, to be more precise – its surviving version.

# Then – the even more complete catalogue of Johann Hevelius.

# And finally the even more complete catalogue of John Flamsteed.

The catalogue of Tycho Brahe appears to be the earliest and therefore the most sparse from the point of view of the quantity of stars recorded in it. Then Ptolemey or the editors of his catalogue increase the number of the observed stars. And only after that an even larger quantity of stars appear in the catalogues of Hevelius and Flamsteed.

Can we date the Almagest based on the Ptolemy's descriptions of the 21 lunar eclipses? They allegedly were observed by the astronomers in the duration of 850 years. The serious analysis of these lunar eclipses was conducted by Robert Newton [3v1]. He discovered a lot of evidence supporting the fact that MOST OF THEM ARE FORGED. Therefore we cannot consider the lunar eclipses from the Almagest to be trustworthy material for astronomical dating. Most likely this forged 'ancient list' was manufactured in the XVI-XVII cc. in order to lay the grounds for the Almagest's 'antiquity'.

THE CONCLUSION. The surviving version of the Almagest was created not by some single author-observer, but is a collective 'textbook on astronomy'. It is a collection of many individual observations, various theories, calculations and exercises on chronology belonging to different astronomers of the XI-XVII cc. The star catalogue could have been compiled by one observer in the epoch of the X-XIII cc. But the final text of the Almagest is by other authors of the XVI-XVII cc.


The Scaligerian history claims that 'ancient' astronomy enjoyed an unprecedented rise. However later, 'during the next three centuries after the death of Hipparchus, it was as if the history of astronomy became enshrouded in darkness' [65], p.63. Purporting that the epoch of the greatest stagnation has started. Practically the only outburst during 300 years in the 'darkening' Greek astronomy is considered to be Ptolemy's Almagest. Today he is regarded as the 'last chord of ancient astronomy'. IT IS FOLLOWED BY A PERIOD OF PROFOUND SILENCE AND DARKNESS IN THE SCALIGERIAN HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY.

They write: 'CLASSICAL CULTURE IN DECLINE'. After the breath-taking rise of the classical culture there began a PROLONGED PERIOD OF SOME STAGNATION AND, IN SOME CASES, REGRESSION in the European continent – a timespan of more than 1000 years, which is commonly referred to as the Middle Ages… AND OVER THESE 1000 YEARS THERE WAS MADE NO SIGNIFICANT ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERY' [395], P.73.

Our thought is simple. These 'dark ages', 'dips', 'centuries of complete silence', 'global catastrophes' appear only because the historians of the science use the incorrect chronology. In which there exist the 'ancient' mirage-reflections and the 'dark ages' between 'Classical Antiquity' and the 'Renaissance'. The new chronology removes these 'gaps' and 'sinusoids' in the development of the science and culture. So.

In the Scaligerian history of astronomy there occurs a strange phenomenon: a magnificent blossoming of the 'ancient classical' astronomy, followed by a deep millennial regression, followed by the repeated rise beginning with the XIII century.

We are assured that practically all the main breakthroughs in astronomy of the XIV-XVI cc. have been 'already discovered' more than 1000 years prior to that, in the 'Classical antiquity'. But later in some mysterious way were forgotten. Let's list the fundamental ideas allegedly discovered a long time ago by the 'classical ancient' astronomers.

Ecliptic and equatorial coordinates, methods of their calculation. Determination of the principal elements of the relative planetary inter-motion in the Solar system. Heliocentrism - essentially the heliocentric theory of the planetary system. Calculation of the relative distances in the Solar system – Earth – Moon – planets – stars. The forecast of the Lunar eclipses. Compilation of star catalogues. Celestial globes design. Discovery of precession. Professional astronomical instruments: astrolabe, etc. Computing the length of the sidereal year and the tropical year. Allocation of the constellation of stars, recording of their 'image'. The question of the existence of proper motion stars.

These discoveries were made in the XII-XVII cc. But later their duplicates were dated back into the past by the incorrect chronology. There were no major 'regressions' in the history of science and culture.


The World system according to Tycho Brahe is shown in fig.90. In the centre of the world there is the Earth around which revolves the Sun. However, the rest of the planets are already revolving round the Sun. This is the reason why today Tycho Brahe's (Tychonic) system is called Geo-Heliocentric [395], p.132. BUT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR, THAT IT DIFFERS FROM THE 'COPERNICUS SYSTEM' ONLY BY THE CHOICE OF THE ORIGIN OF THE COORDINATES. That's all! For, as we know from school, change of origin does not change the system of bodies in motion. Only the coordinate system changes, the point at which the observer is placed. The 'picture' changes, but not the core of the matter [3v1], ch.11.
From the point of view of kinematics, the system of Tycho Brahe (Hipparchus) is quite heliocentric. But only the centre of the coordinate system is placed at Earth. After all, the centre of the coordinates can be connected with any astronomical body of the system. IF WE MOVE THE STARTING POINT OF THE REFERENCE SYSTEM ON TYCHO BRAHE'S CHART INTO THE SUN, THEN WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY CHANGING ANYTHING WE WILL GET A 'COPERNICAN' SYSTEM'. Earth will start revolving around the Sun. Where all the other planets, according to Tycho Brahe, already revolve around the Sun. All that's missing to complete the picture according to Kepler is only the mild orbital ellipticity. Brahe still has his planets' orbits as circular. As, incidentally, does Copernicus. But this is the 'second order' effect. That is why, we will repeat, Tycho Brahe's system is in fact as good as the Copernican system. But with a different starting point of the reference system. The observer is placed at Earth, but not at the Sun.

It is clear that the idea by Tycho Brahe (Hipparchus) preceded or co-existed with the idea by Copernicus. The 'Copernican system' evolutionally follows the system by Tycho Brahe or is contemporary to it, but not at all preceding it. The final 'model' of the heliocentric system was most likely suggested only AFTER TYCHO BRAHE, in the epoch of his student Johannes Kepler. And Copernicus of the XV-XVI cc. was accredited with its invention post factum. Thus the true chronological order of the 'world system' is as follows.

First – the Ptolemy's geocentric system. Its complex model of epicycles was formed most likely in the XV-XVI cc. Earth was placed at the centre of the universe. Based on the idea of the epicycles, stating that Earth is a fixed point, it was necessary to create a complex model of the epicycles in order to explain the movement of the planets visible from Earth. This world system was based on the 'royal' star catalogue of the XII century. Its creation is connected with the Birth of Jesus Christ in the XII century and with the flaring up of the supernova circa 1152, i.e. the Star of Bethlehem. It is possible that the first astronomers created the star catalogue in honour of Jesus. Hence the origin of the great authority of the catalogue. It existed in its more or less unchanged form until the epoch of the XVI century.

The star catalogue included by Copernicus in his book and called 'Copernicus' star catalogue', IS IN FACT THE VERY SAME PTOLEMAIC STAR CATALOGUE, HOWEVER MODIFIED FOR ANOTHER EPOCH BY CHOOSING A DIFFERENT LONGITUDE REFERENCE POINT. The Astronomy historians became aware of this fact a long time ago [395], p.109. This indicates that the astronomers of the Middle Ages kept shifting zero longitude, moving the 'catalogue date according to precession' into the epoch they required, for one reason or another. In the XV-XVI cc. the astronomers made the next step and began to develop the theory of the planets' motion, Earth and the Sun. The 'Ptolemaic system' appeared. The historians of astronomy note, that 'according to its composition the book by Copernicus GREATLY RESEMBLES the Almagest' [395], p.105. It's all correct. It was in the epoch of the XVI-XVII cc. when the final edition of the Almagest was created.

1) Simultaneously with Ptolemy's concept, in the second half of the XVI century the system of Tycho Brahe = 'ancient Hipparchus'. It is practically heliocentric. The planetary motion, apart from the Moon, is circular with the Sun in the centre. The coordinate origin is connected to Earth.

2) And finally, the heliocentric system with the coordinate origin in the Sun. There is a new idea here, but it has nothing to do with the crux of the matter. The idea is that it is not necessary to place the coordinate origin at the very same point where the observer is located. I.e. on the Earth. It could be the Sun. For the public and school education the 'picture' was simplified.

This system entered the astronomical practices possibly in the XVII century, in the epoch of Kepler. It was attributed post factum to the astronomer of the XV-XVI cc. by the name of Copernicus. He was most likely a remarkable astronomer. He could have been the first to express in its 'raw' form the heliocentric idea with the zero point at the Sun, and not at the Earth. However, today it is very difficult to be sure what exactly he was doing. The only thing to go by on Copernicus' life and work are the XVII century texts, i.e. written 60-100 years after his death.

Most likely, both systems – by Claudius Ptolemy and by Tycho Brahe – belong to the same epoch. The systems were in competition with each other and were discussed by the astronomers. Until finally they realised that the heliocentric system by Tycho Brahe is the only correct one. However the historians unceremoniously took this fundamental discovery from Tycho Brahe and attributed it to the 'earlier' Copernicus.


We were taught that allegedly in the XIV-XVI cc. – as indeed always – Western Europe looked at Russia in a condescending manner. And allegedly deservedly so. Indeed, in the West – there is civilization and culture. And Russia is a backward and ignorant country, only having crawled out from under the Tartar and Mongol yoke with great difficulty. Of course, there is a lot of honey, bread, bacon and hemp. That is why they sometimes succeeded in luring in some skilful overseas artisans here, so they could relent and mercifully build something extraordinary in this, backward, dim Russia. The cathedrals, the palaces, the factories and the ships. The Russians naively marvelled at the craftsmanship of the foreigners, realising that they would never be able to reach such dizzy heights in those skills. Only after Peter I (the Great) the Russian mechanical and industrial arts started to develop at last, generally still being second rate. Not to mention that the Western Royal courts gazed condescendingly at the Moscow Czar, the Asiatic barbarian on the throne.

However, it was quite the reverse. In the XIV-XVI cc. there emerged the 'Mongol' Empire which included, in particular, all the West-European territories. The local rulers were the vassals to the Horde Czar-khan. The traces of their subservient state survive in the testimonies of their contemporaries [6v3], ch.1:16. Despite the fact that they underwent tendentious editing in the XVII-XVIII cc.

The remote regions of the Empire were in a different situation from the metropoly, i.e. Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The centre of the Empire was generally occupied with military matters and the development of military capability necessary to keep the vast territories under its rule. It was necessary to supress, appease, and arbitrate. A big army was necessary for this. A lot of energy was required to maintain the routes of communication. It was required to collect taxes, to regulate trade between the Imperial territories. That is why generally the metropoly required military servicemen and civil servants and a large administrative apparatus.

The life of the remote provinces was different. The Hordian Czar-Khan was far away. The governors ruled as his representatives. The Cossack garrisons were located nearby to maintain order. The focus was not only on the local issues, but the necessity to win favour from the metropoly. A lot depended on that. For example, the superiority over a neighbour could be achieved not only by crushing it's military detachment, but also by sending fine gifts to the Horde. If the gifts were fine, than the Czar-Khan could graciously allow seizure of the neighbour's land. Especially if the latter didn't please the 'Mongol' Khan. For example, either the tax was not paid regularly by that neighbour, or the gifts he sent were unsatisfactory.

In Western Europe they were developing arts and sciences. Including those aimed at entertainment. Their industry was being created especially in the resort provinces of the Empire where the climate was favourable. In Italy, France and Spain. In Italy there developed: architecture, literature, history and singing. In England – shipbuilding. In France – its own palette. And so on (etc.)

The Hordian court of the Czar-Khan considered all of it to be its own, at their disposal. If the building of a new fleet was required, the request was sent to England. From there the best ship builders were sent to Russia. Otherwise the Imperial ships were built in England outright. If a skilful physician was required – they would call for a Frenchman, for example. If there was an urgent need to build a cathedral in Moscow – the architects from Italy were called for, as it was during the construction of the Moscow Kremlin. The architects would come straight away. Refusal was not an option. Having received the Imperial order they would answer 'Yes, Sir!' execute the order and send the specialists to the metropoly. From Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, Africa, Asia…

At the Czar-Khan's court in Yaroslavl and later in Moscow there were probably parties of representatives from various provinces: of Englishmen, French, Germans… They fought for the right to be the first to gain the lucrative contracts. Vouching to the great Khan and his administration that their specialists were the best. The victorious party would rejoice. The significance of that province in the eyes of the Khan administration would thus increase.

Following the split of the Great Empire, when the Western territories declared themselves independent, the efforts of the local governors were aimed at 'proving' that 'it was always the way it is today'. As if purporting that the Western rulers were always independent. They wanted to wipe out the memory of the revolt, about the fact that they came to power by illegal means from the point of view of the ideology of that time. They came up with a false chronology which has cast into the past the 'Mongol' conquest under the name of the Great Transmigration of Peoples, the Slavic conquest of Europe allegedly of the IV-V cc. The recent Europe was hastily wiped out off the world map. They appropriated for themselves the history of the 'Mongol' dynasty of the XIV-XVI cc. under the name of the 'Western-European Habsburgs' [7v2], ch.3. Here, they said, are our former emperors. And we were altogether never under the authority of Moscow. Such an absurd and politically detrimental idea should not even enter one's head.

This activity coincided with the desire of the pro-Western Romanovs, who had seized the power in Russia. That is why the actions of the Romanovs and the new rulers of Europe were coordinated. And against the Ottoman Empire which was in the way of this civilizing process, it was necessary to organise the Crusade. With Russian hands and Russian blood.
The revision of the texts, chronicles and memoires was carried out. Many foreigners visited Russia in the XIV-XVI cc. That is why there still remained many original documents in Western Europe. They were sought, destroyed, edited. Then they were printed. The 'old dates' were put onto them in order to vindicate the new perspective.

But many things survived. Various details escaped the attention of the editors. Not all of them understood the task equally well, not all of them were astute. And indeed the perceptions themselves of how history should appear 'in reality' were only gradually developed by the falsifiers. That is why much of the stuff the later historians of the XIX-XX cc. would decisively cross out from an old document, the earlier editors of the XVII-XVIII cc. could have missed. Which they did!

That is why some of the works of the Western Europeans of the XVI century about Russia seem today somewhat strange. Even after being edited they do not fit the ideas which are instilled in us. Such as, for example, the well-known 'Notes on Russia' by Jerome Horsey. See details in [6v3], ch.1.