The present book is based on the new chronology, which was constructed with the aid of mathemat - ical methods and empirico-statistical results as re - lated in Chron1–Chron3, as well as Chron6, Chapter 19.
The primary chronological shifts discovered in the “ancient” and mediaeval history are repre- sented on the Global Chronological Map (GCM) compiled by A. T. Fomenko in 1975-1979.
Our research of Russian history as related in Chron4 apparently reveals its Millerian and Ro- manovian version to be greatly distorted. It turns out that Russia in the Middle Ages and the Great = “Mongolian” Horde can be identified as the same state. Quite obviously, this is but a hypothesis of ours for the time being; however, the constant in- flux of new data doesn’t merely prove it – the hy- pothesis in question becomes all the more sig - nificant.
The new and seemingly correct understanding of Russian history based on this hypothesis proved to be the very key to the entire history of the Mid - dle Ages that our predecessors have lacked.
In Chron4 we demonstrate that the XIV cen- tury is likely to be the correct dating of the Rus- sian, or Mongolian conquest, shifting it forward by about a hundred years.
We have previously considered the history of the Russian, or “Mongolian” Empire “from the in - side”, or the very centre of its naissance and expan - sion, known as the Vladimir and Suzdal Russia.
In the present book we provide an “external” analysis of Russian and Mongolian history. We shall relate the history of the countries that were caught in the wave of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the XIV century, including the West European territories. After the fragmentation of the gigantic Empire in the XVI-XVII century, these countries became independent from their former centre.
The present book isn’t so much aimed at the search of new proof to back our conception as a new interpretation of the numerous “blank spots” inherent in consensual history. We believe the ac - tual conception to have been validated sufficiently earlier, in Chron1, Chron2 and Chron3 – by mathematical methods for the most part. This book deals with corollaries, which are naturally still hypothetical to a great extent.
The corollaries stem from the three primary re - sults yielded by formal empirico-statistical meth- ods as described in previous books and applied to a global analysis of historical materials avail- able to date.
1) According to the new chronology, the ma- jor part of historical evidence that has reached our day describes events that postdate 1200 AD. Some of the materials date from the earlier epoch of the X-XII century AD, but those are ex - tremely scarce: our knowledge of this period, which can be considered legendary to a large ex- tent, is rather vague. We know absolutely noth - ing about the events that predate the X century AD. Let us remind the reader, that the emperor Andronik-Christ (1152-1185) (also called Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky, idem Apostle Andrew the First) was crucified in 1185 in Czar-Grad. See our book The Czar of the Slavs (see English page of the site chronologia.org).
2) A new conception of the decline of Romea, or Byzantium, in the XIII century of the new era. This event generated several copies of itself in Scaligerian history, known to us as war – the Tro- jan War, the Gothic War, the Tarquinian War, etc. The most important events of this period concern New Rome, or Constantinople – changing own- ership of the city and the wars fought over it. All of it happened in the XIII century AD.
3) A new historical conception of the “Mon- golian” conquest, which also receives a new dat- ing that is a hundred years more recent than the one suggested by consensual history – namely, the XIV century AD. According to this conception, the “Mongolian” (or the great) conquest started from Vladimir and Suzdal Russia – the conquer - ors can be identified as a multinational army of Slavic and Turkic peoples.
The conquest resulted in the formation of the gigantic Great = “Mongolian” Empire, known in Scaligerian and Millerian history as the Empire that stretched from the Western Europe and Egypt to China. The radical difference between our recon- struction and the traditional version is that the nu - cleus of the Empire, whence it originated, was Russia, or the Horde, with its centre in Vladimir and Suzdal. Moreover, Scaligerian history substantially understated the sheer size of the Empire, claiming that certain countries have never been part of it (which is incorrect, as we shall demonstrate).
About a hundred years later, the Great = “Mongolian” Empire became divided in two, the first part being Russia, or the Horde, or the Orthodox part, predominantly Slavic, and the second - Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire. This part was predominantly Turkic, and it became a Muslim country in the XVII-XVIII century. However, this division is of an arbitrary character – some part of Russian populace remains Turkic until this day, and many Slavs had lived in Turkey, or the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire until the secession of the Balkans in the XIX century.
The division resulted from the religious schism of the XV-XVI century AD, which led to the emergence of Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Catholicism. They had nevertheless maintained close ties as members of a military and political coalition until the ascension of the Romanovian dynasty in Russia.
The famous Turkish conquest of the XV-XVI century AD was the succession of the “Mongo - lian” conquest and occurred by leave of Russia, or the Horde, with some participation from the part of the latter.
These results lead us to important corollaries and hypotheses that can help one understand the history of many European and Asian countries. The corollaries are as follows.
If the historical annals of any country contain vivid descriptions of said country being conquered by a foreign force in the antiquity or the Middle Age, it is most likely to postdate 1200, and reflect the Russian (Great = “Mongolian”) conquest of the XIV, the ensuing Ottoman (Ataman) conquest of the XV-XVI century, or both.
It is therefore useful to look for such descrip- tions while analyzing the history of a given coun- try in order to see whether said descriptions con- tain obvious indications concerning the Russian or Ottoman origins of the conquerors. If we do find such indications, we can hypothesize that the allegedly “ancient” conquest is a mere reflec- tion of the Russian and Ottoman conquest of the XIV-XV century.
As a rule, this facilitates the interpretation of the country’s history and allows us to fit it into the post-1200 AD time interval.
For the convenience of the readers, we shall be number the primary corollaries related in the present book.
• Corollary #1: a new interpretation of Western European history.
• Corollary #2: a new interpretation of Chinese history.
• Corollary #3: a new interpretation of Egyptian history .
• Corollary #4: a possible solution of one of the hardest historical riddles – the identity of the Etruscans.
Final observation. Vestiges of a major conquest remain in a language – this concerns names in par ticular. Therefore, we must pay special attention to the names of people and geographical location for a new interpretation of historical documents. If we’re attentive, we shall recognize familiar medi aeval terms that accompanied the Russian (“Mon golian”) and Ottoman conquest.
Our vocalizations, translations and variants of old names are not necessarily successful. We cite them nevertheless in order to give the readers an opportunity to conduct research of their own, and possibly correct us. Let us reiterate that our inter pretations of such names as found in chronicles should be no means be regarded as independent proof of anything at all. We are simply attempting to approach the ancient chronicles and documents from a new point of view based on the application of mathematical methods to history, and we urge the readers to keep this in mind all the time. No matter how ambiguous and controversial such new interpretations might seem, they are necessary if we want to reconstruct a more veracious picture of the past.
It goes without saying that individual cases of homonymy and name coincidence may be random, including the ones that we point out herein. Therefore, individual coincidences are of little im portance – we are interested in cases when they come in groups. Manifestations of such groups serve as valuable complementation of the general statistical results related in the previous volumes, permitting the construction of actual historical hypotheses.
Let us reiterate that linguistic vestiges of this sort cannot be expected to prove anything on their own – they merely provide additional details for a rough and general reconstruction based on altogether different principles, namely, mathematical methods. They are only useful to us in this capac ity, providing some flesh for the existing skeleton of the new chronological conception.
Some of the mediaeval documents that we shall try to interpret from a fresh point of view are vague, convoluted and controversial per se, and this controversy shall doubtlessly manifest in our reconstruction. We shall occasionally suggest contradictory and even mutually exclusive inter pretations of the same document. This shall obviously complicate the perception of the book for the readers – however, we are doing this deliber ately, in order to introduce as many new facts as possible in scientific circulation, even if we cannot understand them fully. Moreover, our knowledge of certain subjects is limited, and we can simply overlook facts that will be instantly noticed and understood by some of our readers.
We can only hope to attract the readers to further research, in viting them to complement and possibly even correct some of the interpretations that we suggest. We have made the table of contents as detailed as we could for the convenience of the readers. The titles of the sections were made as comprehensive as possible, encapsulating the content. The table of contents can therefore be regarded as a brief summary of the book.
A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy.
Lomonosov Moscow State University,