A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 7.


In [4v2], ch.2:47 we talk about how the style of temples which today are known as 'gothic' are based on the architecture of the old Russian-Horde cathedrals of the XIV-XVI cc. which formed later in Western Europe. Fig.91 shows the Church of Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Nicholas Cathedral on Ladoga. We can see that the Hordian tradition to build cathedrals in the old 'Mongol' style, i.e. in a form of a long building with a gable roof on one side out of which rises a tower, was still alive in Russia for a long time. Some of the Islamic mosques are still built in this style, for example in Tatarstan. And also the Western 'Gothic', i.e. Goth cathedrals. They were modelled on the cathedrals of the metropoly, i.e. Russia-Horde. However, after the Romanov take-over the style of the Russian churches was replaced by a new one – the domed style, which was called the 'old Gothic' style. But in Western Europe the old Hordian style survived. Under the name of the 'Old Gothic'. Thus its initial 'Mongol' origins were obscured. Following the split of a united Christianity into several branches these architectural styles began to be considered independent. It is not true. They date back to the mutual Hordian source.


Here is an important conclusion we arrived at while analysing the 'Ancient' Greek chronicles and above all the famous 'Histories' by Herodotus. It turns out that there we find a vivid reflection of the epochs numbered 1,2,3,5 in fig.92 [GR].
1: The epoch of Andronicus-Christ of the late XII century.

2: The epoch after Christ, when Russia-Horde and the regions of the Romaic Empire allied with it and took revenge on Czar-Grad = Jerusalem and its inhabitants = the residents of Judaea, for the crucifixion of Christ in 1185. This is the time of the Crusades of the early XIII century followed by the 'Mongol' conquest of the late XII- early XIV cc.

3: The epoch of the second Baptism of Russia-Horde and of the entire 'Mongol' Empire at the end of the XIV century, following the Battle of Kulikovo. In this battle the Apostolic Christianity led by Dmitry Donskoy, aka Emperor Constantine I the Great, won a victory over the Royal Ancestral Christianity led by Khan Mamai – aka Ivan Veniaminov or Velyaminov.

4: The Ottoman conquest is reflected exceptionally sparingly in the 'ancient' sources.

5. The epoch of the Reformation of the late XVI century – early XVII century, when the split of the Great Empire began. The unsuccessful Livonian War; the coup d'etat in the capital of the Empire, i.e. the story of Esther-Judith; the separation of Western Europe from the metropoly of the Empire.

In fig.92 between the epochs 3 and 5 there is the epoch 4 – the Ottoman conquest. The curious thing is that the 'ancient' Greek authors – Thucydides, Herodotus, Plutarch and some others – omit it. They sparsely, 'through gritted teeth' speak of this second conquest of Europe by the Ottoman Empire and Russia, i.e. about the conquest of the Promised Land according to the Bible. The Western authors, which were later called 'Ancient' Greek ones, didn't like recollecting the events which were too painful for them.

These five epochs cover the main written history of the European part of the Horde Empire from the XII to the XVII cc. The epochs 1, 2, 3 and 5 are described in detail by the 'Ancient' Greeks. They were more reticent about the 4th epoch. However the 'ancient classical' authors speak effusively of the 5th epoch of the Reformation and the break-up of the Empire. As of the victory of the 'Eastern Barbarians', which they were rather happy about. That is exactly how Thucydides, Herodotus and the other 'classics authors' called the Persians (P-Russians) – THE BARBARIANS.

In fig.61, fig.62 and fig.63 there are depicted the main parallels between the 'ancient classical' and mediaeval history. In the right column there are listed all the chapters of the 'Histories' by Herodotus. On the left there are recorded some of the various important events of the XI-XVII cc. The arrows show which of Herodotus' books they are described in.

Herodotus' descriptions of King Cambyses' desecrations of the Egyptian kings' mummies also point to the more recent origin of the text. The matter we refer to is the epoch of the Reformation. The Empire was descending into the Times of Troubles. The weakening of the central authority led to the beginning of disintegration of traditional customs and morality among the clerical workers, public servants of the Royal necropolis in African Egypt far removed from the metropoly. The former reverence of the great Khans' and their governors' mummies started to give way to contemptuous attitude. The fading of the disciplinary fear coming from the metropoly led to the desecration of the royal burial vaults. Vast treasures were searched for and found. Gold, silver, precious stones. The holy remains were brutally discarded when rummaging through the sarcophaguses and burial shrouds. This is already the XVII-XVIII cc. When Europe broke away, the rebellious governors, having arrived to Egypt, could have mocked the royal mummies on purpose in order to erase from the people's memory the recollection of the 'Mongol' Empire.

The Western European authors of the XVI-XVII cc. and the Romanovs attributed to Ivan the 'Terrible' many atrocities. The true picture of events was dramatically different. It is, of course, difficult to fully grasp the bloody tangle of the story of Esther, Oprichnina, St.Bartholomew's night massacre of the mid XVI century. Truth and lies become entwined in the furious struggle during the break-up of the Empire. The Empire tried to supress the revolt. But later, in the epoch of the Reformation the victors including the Romanovs shifted all the atrocities onto the defeated. They claimed that the Hordians and the Czar-Khan the 'Terrible' (Cambyses according to Herodotus) were solely to blame. They declared Russia-Horde to be the empire of evil and attached other negative labels. When the Imperial lion weakened, they with joy began to blacken the past of Russia-Horde. It will just suffice to mention the work of A.Schlichting 'A Short Tale About the Character and Cruel Government of the Moscow Tyrant Vasilevich' for example [ZA], ch.5. Fifty pages are filled with abominations which allegedly took place under Ivan the Terrible. The details of tortures and executions are savoured. They have created a 'bogeyman story for grown-ups'. Similar horror stories are told to us by Herodotus when writing about Ivan the Terrible and calling him the Persian Cambyses: 'And on another occasion he ordered without good reason the seizure of twelve of the most noble Persians and buried them alive' [163], p.149.

The temporary victory of the 'good Greeks' over the Barbarian Xerxes (Ivan the Terrible) was agreeable to the Western European Herodotus and his colleagues, the 'ancient classics'. Western Europe is positively described in their works as 'beautiful Hellas', and Russia-Horde – as the 'barbarian Persia'. The attitude of the chronicler can be heard even in the choice of terminology. On one hand there are Hellenes Greeks, gallant and sophisticated, but extremely poor. On the other hand there are savage and rough, but very rich Persians. And the modest nobility of the first defeated the magnificent savageness of the second! The 'ancient' classical authors wanted to write about this subject again and again. Having already spoken about the Western-European joy of liberation in his previous books, Herodotus couldn't help it and repeatedly poured out his admiration of the victory over the 'savage East' onto the pages of the three voluminous books at the end of the 'Histories'.

We have discovered a good correspondence between the famous 'ancient' battle of Thermopylae between the Spartans and the Persians allegedly in 480 BC and the Battle between the Russians and the Germans in 1560 during the Livonian War at the town of Fellin. The historians were wrong in the dating of this well-known event by two thousand years [GR].

Hence the historians are mistaken when presenting some ravine in Greece as the famous 'annalistic Thermopylae'. This passage was called 'Thermopylae' later, in the XVII-XVIII cc. having moved here – on paper – the events of the 'ancient' war with King Xerxes = Cossack Czar = Kaiser. Numerous tourists, who wish to bow to the memory of the 300 legendary Spartans should be taken not to modern Greece, but to the German town of Fellin or the Livonian town of Wenden.

In Herodotus' work we come across traces of the famous correspondence between Prince Kurbsky and Ivan the Terrible. To remind you, after the Prince fled to Lithuania, they exchanged a number of letters. Much research has been dedicated to them. As we have shown, this correspondence is also reflected in the Old Testament, in the Book of Judith, which also gives an account of the Livonian war of the XVI century [6v1], ch.8.

Thus Herodotus began his writing with Emperor Andronicus-Christ and
drove forward the narration until the beginning of the XVII century, having talked about the Time of Troubles, about Dmitry the Imposter and Czar Vassili Shuisky. The Horde History (i.e. the Empire of the XIII-XVII cc.) has unfolded before us. The name of 'Herodotus' itself probably originated from the word ORDA (HORDE – Translator's note), in the West-European pronunciation HORDA : Horda - Herodotus.

It is quite possible that Herodotus lived either in Southern Europe or in the Mediterranean, as he had never seen a snow storm and didn't understand what it was. When narrating about Scythia, i.e. Russia-Horde, Herodotus says: 'As the extent of their land (Scythia) is very great, Colaxais, according to the Scythians, gave each of his three sons a separate kingdom, one of which was of ampler size than the other two: in this the gold was preserved. Above, to the northward of the farthest dwellers in Scythia, the country is said to be CONCEALED FROM SIGHT AND MADE IMPASSABLE BY REASON OF THE FEATHERS WHICH ARE SHED ABROAD ABUNDANTLY. THE EARTH AND AIR ARE ALIKE FULL OF THEM, AND THIS IT IS WHICH PREVENTS THE EYE FROM OBTAINING ANY VIEW OF THE REGION'. [163], P.188-189.

It is obvious that the matter he is talking about is the snow storm here. Everything is clouded over with twirling snow. Nothing can be seen even up close . A person who had never seen a snowstorm and who uses only the travel notes of the others, could have decided, that the snowflakes flying around were white bird feathers. Or he could have confused the Russian words PURGA (SNOWSTORM, BLIZARD – in Russian) and PERYA (FEATHERS – in Russian).


In [1v] and [2v] we mention numerous accounts of the life dates of various famous Renaissance painters are in fact closer to us by approximately 100-150 years. We are speaking here in particular of Leonardo da Vinci: allegedly 1452-1519; Michelangelo: allegedly 1475-1564; A.Dürer: allegedly 1471-1528. The same conclusion results from entirely different reasons – the astronomical ones. In [GR], in the introduction, we show, that the zodiac on the ceiling of Sala dei Pontefici in Vatican was created in 1670. I.e. 150 years later, than we were led to believe. We are told, that the fresco was created in 1520-1521 by the artists Perino del Vaga and Giovanni da Udine. Notably these artists are famous not only in their own right, but also in connection with the other famous painters of allegedly early XV - late XVI cc. Therefore this constellation of the Renaissance masters shifts upwards on the timeline and finds itself in the epoch of the XVII century.

Most likely such reputed artists as Rafael, Pinturicchio, Signorelli, Botticelli and many others lived not in the XV-XVI cc., but in the XVI-XVII cc. And some – even in the XVIII century.

The dates like 'year 1520' which we encounter in old works of art could be read as follows. As it is shown in [1v], number (figure) 1 earlier meant letter I, the first letter in the name of IISUS (JESUS in Russian – Tr.). In other words the date I520 earlier meant 'year 520 from Jesus (AD)'. But Jesus Christ was born in in 1152. Calculating from year 1152 up 520 years we get year 1672. Therefore in some documents the dates like 'year 1520' could have referred to the second half of the XVIII century, and not at all in the XVI century as it is thought today.


In the book [SAK] we show that such extraordinary Shakespearian plays as 'Hamlet', 'King Lear', 'Macbeth', 'Timon of Athens', 'Henry VIII', 'Titus Andronicus' (the time of which is erroneously dated today into the distant past and placed in the wrong geographical regions) in fact give an account of real and important events. Of the XII-XVI cc. unfolding mainly in the metropoly of the Great Empire. Here we were also guided by other original sources, telling us about the very same events as Shakespeare does. In particular, upon the chronicles by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Saxo Grammaticus and Raphael Holinshed. As the result the following has emerged:

# Prince Hamlet appears to be a reflection of Andronicus-Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky) and John the Baptist from the XII century.

# King Lear is the reflection of Khan Ivan the Terrible from the XVI century.

# King Macbeth is the reflection of the Biblical King Herod from the XII century.

# Timon of Athens is the reflection of Judas Iscariot from the XII century.

# The English King Henry VIII is another reflection of Ivan the Terrible.

# The English queen Catherine of Aragon is the reflection of the Czaritsa Sophia Palaiologina, the wife of Ivan III=IV the Terrible.

# The English queen Anne Boleyn is the reflection of Elena Voloshanka = Biblical Esther from the XVI century.

# Emperor Andronicus-Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky) is reflected on the pages of Shakespeare under the names of: Prince Hamlet (in 'Hamlet'), McDuff (in 'Macbeth'), philosopher Apemantus (in 'Timon of Athens) and Titus Andronicus (in 'Titus Andronicus').

All of this may sound unbelievable. If you recall the events described by Shakespeare, it would seem you will not discover anything resembling Shakespeare's writing in the story of Christ or Ivan the Terrible. Indeed, having arrived at a modern theatre or cinema and listening attentively to a tragedy performed by distinguished actors, it is difficult to imagine, that in fact they, not understanding it themselves, narrate about the events of not such a distant past and of famous heroes, whose connection with Shakespeare's writings, was apparently forgotten long ago.

The reason for such a psychological fog is clear. Often we do not realise how far from the original (purely on the surface) its literary interpretation might move. A dramatist and a poet add to the ancient chronicle some made-up details and emotionally decorate a scanty plot. The literary emotions take centre stage and conceal the true essence. It gets covered by a thick dust. A rather complex analysis is required to 'wipe the dust off'. It is necessary to behave like the criminologists who untangle crimes. Moreover, without the objective guiding milestones – the New Chronology – it is often impossible to understand what was based on what, and where to look for the original.