Facts and inconsistencies that speak about the real history and the cataclysm that occurred. The idiocy of official history and obvious inconsistencies in historical science

To date, three streams of researchers have emerged whose object of study is the ancient stage of Russian history.

1. The first stream consists of scientists who are narrow specialists in the designated field.
2. The second stream consists of various researchers - from ordinary people to doctors of science and academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences - who are both narrow specialists in the designated field and specialists in other fields.
3. The third stream consists of church leaders who are not specialists in any field of science.

Position of the first(let’s call them “officials”) boils down to the fact that the ancient history of Russia and the Russian people should begin from the 9th century, and before this date the history of Russia and the history of the Russian people cannot be defined at all.

Position of the second(let’s call them “patriots”) boils down to the fact that the history of Russia and the Russian people begins at the Kostenki site and dates back to the 50th millennium BC, after which through a series of successive archaeological cultures and stages in the development of the Russian ethnos and the Russian state, the modern Russian people were formed.

Position of the third(let's call them “churchmen”) coincides with the position of the former.

Analyzing in detail the essence of the designated positions, we discover. Officials claim that no history of Russian backgammon exists before the 9th century. At the same time, they do not derive the Russian people from any specific ancestors, formulating only completely vague images of possible genetic predecessors. These images are so vague that they do not allow us to identify them with any more ancient people. To support their arguments, officials cite an extensive body of work published by experts.

The clergy agree with the position of the officials in terms of those parameters: that the history of the Russian people simply does not exist before the 9th century and, secondly, that no ancestor people of the Russian people exist in history. To support their arguments, churchmen cite chronicles (church “monuments”), as well as numerous official publications.

It would seem that the issue has been resolved, the results of the research of official scientists are fully confirmed by chronicle sources, which should have made it possible to conclude the existing dispute and begin to count the history of the Russian people precisely from the 9th century of the new era.

In this case, a contradiction arises on the part of the church. It is as follows. In the 9th century, the first act in the tragedy “The Baptism of Rus'” took place. After this date the church began a long military operation in Rus' called “baptism of Rus'”. Who did the churchmen fight with? Answer: with the old religion, which the Russian people did not want to betray and forget.

Note that the devotion of the Russian people and the memory of the Russian people in relation to their own Russian religion were so strong that Russian villages were only able to be baptized with the help of the Mongol-Tatar yoke by the 15th century. And even then: it is unknown who defeated whom! The Church was forced to put all the original Russian holidays on its calendar. Thus, the “church” holidays of Kupala (Church Ivan Kupala), Rusalia (Church Trinity), Komoeditsa (Church Maslenitsa), Korochun (Church Christmas), etc. were formed. and so on. This list can be continued to the extent that ALL Orthodox holidays, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, will be borrowed from the Russian folk calendar.

In this regard, a logical question arises: where did so many religious holidays come from in Rus' (without the history of the Russian people) that it was from them that the network of church holidays was formed? Over what period were these holidays, these traditions formed?

And this is just the first question.

The second question is even more significant. It lies in the fact that IN FROM ANCIENT TIMES, there was a presentation of the genealogy of the Slavic gods and peoples, which has been carried out since time immemorial and is replete with the names of many gods, known to us as eponyms of a number of people V. For example, from Man came the Mansi, from Tarusa - the Turks, from Ros - the Russians, from Kiy - the Kievans, from Kisek - the Gisenians, etc. The ancient Russian gods are also named in this genealogy: Veles, Makosh, Perun, Yarilo, Khors, Mara, Zhiva, etc. These same gods are known to Christians from the idols placed by Vladimir in Kyiv.

These Russian gods are the object of struggle of Orthodox Christians, indicated in all teachings and many chronicles.

It is from this point that we begin to discover THE DEEPEST contradiction between the official and real story Russian people.

If churchmen state such a numerous tribe of Russian gods, then by this they also state the existence of a long process of formation of the pantheon of Russian gods designated by Christians. The churchmen do not deny this, but support it - as an object of confrontation between “pagans and Christians”.

Then a logical question arises: how were the Russian people able to create such a vast religious layer if official scientists and church leaders gave them a time period of less than a century?

Noting the majority of peoples who took their origin from one of the Russian gods, we find that these events occurred much earlier than the 9th century AD. As a result, the question we asked becomes even more acute.

Let’s add just a few touches to what has been said. The name of Khorezm is deciphered from Russian - “Land of Khors” (khor.zm). The emergence of the cults of the Russian gods Veles and Mokosh, academician B.A. Rybakov attributed it to the 50th millennium BC.

Summary: Orthodox Christians came to Rus' to fight pagan gods, the existence of which is fully supported by patriots and completely denied by officials. Then, if we adhere to the position of the officials, the question arises: why did the Orthodox come to Rus' to fight paganism, if, according to official science, there was simply no paganism? Obviously, the “Russian” Orthodox Church benefits from the position of patriots who significantly ancientize the history of Rus' - as a result of which a pagan platform appears, from which Orthodoxy came to fight.

But then the position of official science turns out to be incorrect.

What do we know about the ancient Greeks? Wonderful sculptors, magnificent philosophers and poets, outstanding athletes... What else? Experienced sailors and warriors. How many ancient historians describe various naval battles!.. And how many modern historians repeat these descriptions!.. What type of ships is most often described? That's right, Greek triremes are ships with three tiers of oarsmen. They were the decisive factor in the famous ancient battles.

Of course, anyone understands that a ship with three rows of oars will be faster than one with one. And with five it’s faster than with three. Just like a ship with a diesel engine of 3000 horsepower will be faster than exactly the same one, but with a thousand “horses”.

And from one historical book to another, ancient triremes float, foaming the waves... Only, however, for some reason they are always in a modern depiction. History does not yet know a single antique vase, not a single antique fresco with a reliable, unambiguously interpreted and equally unambiguously dated image of a ship with a multi-tiered arrangement of oars. Everything that sources offer us (for example, Shershov A.P., “On the history of military shipbuilding”), upon closer examination turns out to be either sculptural compositions of certain monuments (triumphal, rostral columns, etc.), or decorations on dishes or on anything else. "Painting on a wine cup", for example. And, by the way, muralists and graphic designers of all times and peoples never considered themselves bound by the need to accurately observe the shapes and proportions of the objects depicted. You may or may not comply. There is even such a term - “stylization”. There is also the term "canon". Where, for example, did the portraits of Peter I and Alexander Suvorov come from, who by historical standards lived literally yesterday or the day before yesterday, but were clad in blued steel? knight's armor? After all, it is clear to anyone, not even a historian, that they never wore such armor. So what's the deal? Someone decided to confuse descendants? Not at all! It’s just how the canon was in those days. No more. In the case of the ancient triremes, nothing has reached us that could even with a stretch be considered a “drawing” of this type of vessel. Only pictures have arrived. The canon has arrived.

This inevitably raises two questions. First: to what extent does the canon correspond to the prototype? And second: when did this canon arise? If after the lessons of orthodox historians, then there is nothing to talk about. The artist painted not what he saw, but what his “respected” teacher convinced him of. More honest ones write captions for illustrations of the same triremes like “Reconstruction”.

Now let's think sensibly and take as an example something modern, which we will try to row against the wind. At least the standard naval Yal-6, a six-oar lifeboat. Its empty displacement is already 960 kg. With a full-time team, equipment and supplies - about one and a half tons. Anyone who has at least some connection to the fleet will authoritatively confirm: rowing against the wind, even with six of us, is backbreaking work. Especially if the waves are at least four points. It is no coincidence that the word “hard labor” comes from the Turkish “kadyrga”, i.e. "galley" on which convicted criminals served their sentences as oarsmen. This later naval term crawled onto land while maintaining its, so to speak, penitentiary content. In other words, rowing is very hard work. Firstly, it requires great physical strength to even just lift and lift a heavy oar, and secondly, an excellent sense of rhythm. And do not confuse a pleasure boat on a pond with a lifeboat, much less a galley! With a freeboard height of the Yal-6 of about 40-50 cm, the length of the oar is about 4 meters, it is made of ash - a heavy, durable tree, and the roller, the counterweight, is also filled with lead to make it easier for the rower to lift the oar out of the water.

The further reasoning is simple. For a six-oar boat, the side height of half a meter is quite sufficient: its full-time crew is eight people, its weight is one and a half tons. Let's say our hypothetical trireme has only ten oars in a row on each side, for a total of sixty. Let’s say, one rower per oar, plus a dozen deck sailors, about thirty soldiers, plus the authorities and “artillerymen” - about 110 people in total. And this is at a minimum!

By the way, all our “let’s say” are taken not just at the minimum, but below the lower limit, i.e. are outrageously small, and we simplify all calculations to the limit and far beyond that limit! But even with this unrealistically preferential approach, we get a ship with a tonnage of 150 tons. Such a vessel must have a side height of at least a meter, unless, of course, it is a sea vessel and not a river barge or a port pontoon.

Now let's draw a simple drawing. Newton's binomial is not needed here; it is enough to remember Thales' theorem. It turns out that the length of the oar of the bottom row should be at least 8 meters! A boat oar weighs about 4-5 kg, but how much should a galley oar weigh for the bottom row? 8-10? Not at all, its weight will be 32-40 kg, because... the dependence here is cubic, any engineer, not just a shipbuilder, will confirm this. Is it possible to move such an oar alone? And for many, many hours in a row? Of course not. This means we have two rowers per oar, and even that is speculative! As a result, our crew automatically increases from 110 people to 170. What happens to the displacement? It also increases automatically! It turns out to be a vicious circle, which at all times has been a curse for engineers designing mobile technical equipment, and not just watercraft. As power increases, mass increases; the greater the mass, the greater the required power! Therefore, qualitative leaps in this area were achieved only by a sharp increase in the specific power of engines and the efficiency of propulsors. Example: Parsons created an efficient steam turbine, and immediately warships noticeably increased in speed with a sharp improvement in other combat qualities.

But we still forgot about the remaining two tiers of oars! The oar of the second (upper) tier is 16 meters long and weighs approximately 300 kg. How many people can move such an oar for several hours in a row?! And what will be the rowing frequency? Ten strokes per minute? Five? One? We will return to this a little lower, but for now we will calculate the parameters of the oars of the third tier. Here the oar will be 24 meters long and weigh several hundred kg. Up to a semitone. How many rowers should you put on such an oar? Ten? Twenty? How much heavier will the ship become after this? This means that the side must be increased again, the displacement will increase again, the ship will become much wider and with a greater draft; will the rowers pull it? It is necessary to increase the number of oars in a row, but how much will the size of the ship increase? What about displacement? And let’s add the excitement at sea not at four points, but at six?.. And how will the rowers of the first, second and third tiers synchronize their actions? On a sports kayak, debugging synchronization is a problem, but here? But there are athletes, educated people who understand what they are doing and why, and on the galley there are slaves. Illiterate, by the way. They care about that ship, about its fighting qualities - like they care about the Moon. I don't care, in a word. No consciousness! And they (if you believe orthodox historians) will have to work for many days on oars of completely different masses, therefore, with a completely different moment of inertia, therefore, with a completely different operating frequency of rowing, and all this is completely synchronous! I emphasize: completely synchronized! If at least one oarsman gets lost, and hello, best case scenario the trireme will stop, in the worst case, go off course, in even worse case, it will crash into the neighboring one and break half of the oars before the battle. To synchronize dozens of people sitting on three tiers (and even two!), who see only a couple of neighbors, and hear only the supervisor of their tier, you need at least computer program, and instead of rowers there are robots.

The conclusion is clear: you cannot use oars with different moments of inertia, different weights and different lengths on a rowing boat. They should be close in parameters to each other, preferably even identical. But any scheme proposed by the “reenactors” assumes the presence of oars of different lengths and masses, that is, with different moments of inertia.

Alternative historian Georgy Kostylev, specializing in military campaigns, a former sailor, the author of the work "Military Historical Hochmas", which touches on this problem, turned for help to the candidate of technical sciences of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, engineer M.V. Degtyarev - asked to carry out the appropriate calculation according to all the rules of strength of strength. What happened was this: in order to get, so to speak, the “right to life” for a 25-meter-long oar, it must have a diameter at the oarlock of half a meter (!) and weigh 300 kg. And that’s provided that it’s made from pine. Ash, of course, will be heavier. But oars are not made from pine - soft wood, loose. Thus, science has confirmed the absurdity of ancient triremes, or rather, their reconstructions.

Now let’s look not at reconstructions, but at paintings and engravings of real galleys, well dated and documented, from the 16th-18th centuries. Fortunately, the galley as a class of warship remained in the navies of many countries for quite a long time, until the end of the 18th century, until it was supplanted - sometimes earlier, sometimes later - by a more advanced type of coastal ship, the so-called gunboat, which more successfully combined oar, sail and artillery weapons. A lot of images of medieval galleys have been preserved. They have Spanish, Genoese, Venetian, French, Swedish, Peter the Great, Turkish, Arab galleys... And every single one of them has one row of oars! Okay, Europeans are a wild people, descendants of barbarians, but Arabs?! But they also only have one row of oars.

Now let's look at the problem from the other side. About thirty years ago, so-called replicas came into fashion, i.e. copies of various ancient equipment, made as close as possible to the historical prototype. They copy everything: from Egyptian papyrus boats to fighter planes from the First World War. Including ancient rowing and sailing ships. Thus, in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, a great many replicas of longships and Viking ships were built. And all - single-row! Englishman Tim Severin created replicas of the Irish rowing and sailing ship and the Greek galley, the notorious Argo. And again they turned out to be single-row! But maybe no one has simply gotten around to reproducing a formidable battle trireme in real life? The answer to this question is amazing! The fact of the matter is that they “arrived.” We tried it. And nothing worked!

But here it was not scientists or researchers who tried, but filmmakers. In the late 50s and early 60s, Hollywood was overwhelmed by another fad: the fashion for films from ancient history. Many of them have even become world classics. These are films such as “Ben-Hur”, “Spartacus”, “Cleopatra”, etc. Their budgets, even in modern times, were crazy, especially since the dollar in those days was much more expensive. The producers spared no expense; the scale of the extras and scenery surpasses any imagination. And so, to enhance the surroundings, it was decided to order full-fledged replicas of ancient stone-throwing machines and antique triremes. But there was a problem with the trireme: a task that seemed so familiar to ancient shipbuilders suddenly turned out to be beyond the capabilities of professional naval engineers of the middle of the last century, although the ancient Greek carpenter did not know and could not know even a thousandth part of what is known to modern materials science specialists , mechanics, naval architecture, etc. He had at his disposal neither aluminum-magnesium alloys, nor titanium, nor ultra-light carbon fiber reinforced plastics. If this were not so, we would all now be speaking Greek and colonizing the satellites of Jupiter at an accelerated pace.

As a result, the filmmakers had to film the triremes on the pavilion, making them out of foam plastic and plywood.

And what follows from all this? The conclusion is clear: neither the Greeks nor the Romans built any two-, three-, or even more so multi-tiered ships, because, unlike orthodox historians, they were head-to-head friends. Opinion about the existence of “bireme”, “trireme”, etc. in antiquity. there is a misunderstanding that arose either as a result of a complete misunderstanding by the authors of ancient texts of what they were writing about; or due to problems with translation and interpretation. It is very likely that Pliny, Diodorus, and other ancient historians had a good idea of ​​what they were talking about, but when writing the originals of their works they used some kind of maritime terminology that has not reached us, which was familiar and generally accepted in their time. It never occurred to them to put a glossary at the end of the scroll. Then the translator (most likely, having absolutely nothing to do with maritime affairs), and, moreover, perhaps not at all a first-class language expert, without understanding some kind of speech pattern and without delving into the topic, created (on paper) a “trireme”, "quadriremu", etc. And then the original was lost, and that’s it, a big hello to the truth.

Most likely, the authors, by terms containing numerals, meant something else, some other characteristic feature that made it possible to distinguish ships of one type from another. Which one? Here's an option. All terms with a numeral do not indicate the number of rowing tiers, but the regular number of rowers per oar. If this condition is met, perhaps even the incredible detsera - a ship with ten tiers - will gain the right to life. Interesting: in the absolutist and early bourgeois fleets, the criterion for distributing warships by rank was something similar, namely the number of guns. Note, not the number of battery decks, but precisely the number of guns! That is, it turns out that a trireme is a medium-sized galley, single-row, naturally, with three rowers per oar. And the pentyrema or decera is a large rowing and sailing ship, on which the oars, of course, are more massive, as a result of which more rowers are required.

Two and with measures of weight and distance in ancient times there was also that confusion! In the “era of galleys,” the inconsistency and confusion in this area could drive any metrology specialist crazy. All these poods, pounds, talents, stades, schenes, pletras, parasangs, spools, ounces, mines, didrachms, orgies, pequises, podes, stones, Tours livres, etc., etc., etc., not only differed between themselves, but also constantly “fluctuated” here and there, depending on the place and time of use. In addition, they still managed to change their meaning in principle: for example, both talent and the later pound and livre are both measures of weight and monetary units. So if a certain chronicler, well, let’s say, Father Bernard from Saint-Denis, writes that the Count of Montmorency used 60-pound cannons during the siege of Chateau-Renaud, this does not say, in itself, absolutely nothing. The guns cost him 60 British pounds apiece? Or did they weigh 60 English pounds? Or is 60 pounds the weight of the core? But then - what pounds? English? Russians? (I could have bought it in Muscovy!) Or special “artillery” pounds (see Yu. Shokarev, “History of Weapons. Artillery”)?

One can, of course, admit a funny option: the ancient author wrote... a fantastic work. Like, today we have ships with one row of oars. Let's imagine how many enemies we will scare and drown if we have ships - wow! - with two, three, fifteen rows of oars. If this is so, then the author succeeded! The whole world is reading ancient science fiction! Moreover, believing her as God.

What about medieval galleys? How were they treated, with just one row of oars? We re-read their description and what do we see? The number of rowers per oar reached ten people! But!.. The rowers did not sit on benches, but continuously walked along the deck (not along the tier, mind you!) back and forth. And indeed, with this method of rowing, you can put those same ten people on an oar, and they will work with approximately the same efficiency. It’s just that the innermost rower will take one or two steps, and the outermost rower will take five or six. If you put at least five oarsmen on the banks, then the innermost one will only move his arms a little, and the outermost one will dangle at the end of the oar, like a flag on a pole. Absurd! From three to ten people can be accommodated on one oar only in a standing position.

But then, again, there can be no question of any multi-tiered vessels: if this is the first row, then what will the oars of the second or third row be, given that the height of the tier automatically jumped to at least one and a half meters, the rowers are in growth is worth it! (Taking into account the average height of a Hellene is the same one and a half meters. And if there are taller ones, then they are slaves, who will think about their comfort?)

As for the medieval and later galleys of Northern Europe, for example, Swedish or identical Russian galleys of the era of Peter I, this is another shipbuilding tradition, coming from the Viking longships. Its formation was influenced by the harsh navigation conditions in the Baltic, North and Barents Seas. Rowing there is exclusively seated, with no more than two people per oar, and the oars, accordingly, are shorter and lighter. By the way, Mediterranean galleys and galleasses felt very uncomfortable in the inhospitable northern waters and lost to ships of the Northern European type.

So it turns out that the ancient sailors did not and could not have had any multi-deck rowing ships, but there were ordinary galleys of not very large displacement. Some are larger, others are smaller, but on the whole they are similar in type and all, naturally, have one row of oars.

The most significant (but not the most important) argument in favor of the fact that the ancient Greeks and no less ancient Romans did not have multi-tiered galleys - triremes, biremes, kinkerems - is that there is simply no material evidence of their existence. There are no remains of ships, no wrecks, no artifacts so dear to the heart of an orthodox historian. Not found in any sea. Marine (underwater) archeology has existed for decades; many sunken medieval and ancient ships have been found and explored by scientific archaeologists and amateur enthusiasts, and among them - what a strange thing! - there is not a single ancient battle trireme. Meanwhile, historians assure us that they know exactly where the most grandiose naval battles took place, during which many warships were lost. Yes, of course, searching under water is far from the same as excavating a mound. But they find it! Not triremes.

Meanwhile, the bottom of the same, say, Salamis Strait, should simply be strewn with the skeletons of dead Greek and Persian ships. By the way, these places - Salamis, Aktium, Eknom - are simply heaven on earth from the point of view of a light diver. This is not the icy Baltic with its eternal storms, poor visibility (at a depth of 20 meters you can no longer see your own palm), lousy soils, as well as strong undercurrents capable of scattering the remains of any wooden ship into splinters. And the season on the Mediterranean Sea is almost all year round. And yet, Swedish archaeologists found and raised it - in Baltic conditions! - ancient ship "Vaza". And not today, but in the late 50s - early 60s. It was a galleon with a displacement of one and a half thousand tons, which sank in Stockholm harbor more than three hundred and fifty years ago. By the way, it is made of oak, which was perfectly preserved under water. Even the red paint that was used to paint the cannon decks of warships, so as not to frighten the sailors with the sight of blood, survived in some places. What prevented the triremes from being so well preserved? Okay, maybe not great - just good? After all, other types of ancient ships have survived!

Or here’s another example: British archaeologists raised the Mary Rose ship from the bottom of the English Channel, where conditions were no better than the Baltic. And also in remarkable preservation.

Everything that was found at the bottom of the ancient sea belongs to the same category of ships, repeated with insignificant variations. These are chunky, clumsy “boxes” that have nothing in common with an elongated predatory galley. We repeat - there are no remains of galleys, and, as there is no doubt, there will not be. For the simple reason that they did not exist, orthodox historians sat down with triremes in a huge galosh.

Why it didn't exist is another question. Either history is actually shorter than what we are all taught and taught in history lessons, and all the “ancient” battles happened in the Middle Ages, or we actually misunderstand ancient historians due to confusion in terms and discrepancies in classifications. Or - which, in general, is also quite likely - is it beneficial for someone to imagine the ancients as more skillful and perfect. The main thing is not to take the word for everything that history teachers tell us.

But why they say all this is another question. Perhaps in order to obscure the question - where did all the knowledge and skills that the ancients had go? Orthodox historians blame everything on the barbarian nomads, they say, they came, broke everything, burned everything and drowned it. Honestly, it’s worth building an eternal flame in front of the monument to the Unknown Nomad (that’s right, with a capital letter), this ubiquitous and elusive guy of uncertain appearance and mysterious origin, with the help of which it is so convenient for orthodox historians to hide their ends in the water.

I decided to summarize the information a little and systematize the data on the recent flood, which took place in the very recent past, about 200-250 years ago. This flood completely changed that world, and after it came the modern world we know. There will be a lot of buff below, so I apologize to impatient comic book fans.
A lot of facts have already accumulated that confirm this event and contradict the official ones. But most of them are either private in nature or are considered separately from the rest, locally, and as a result it is difficult to put together the whole picture of what happened.
In the Tretyakov Gallery there is a painting measuring 5.4 by 7.5 meters, which must be viewed at the maximum distance from the painting..., so to speak in general. If we look at the particulars, then the whole idea of ​​the picture is lost...

So in our case, there was a very large-scale planetary event, which had a lot of details, these details are seen by observers, researchers, each in their own city or region, but it is impossible to see the whole picture as a whole. Let's try to fill this gap today.

1. The same type of architecture of EXISTING BUILDINGS, all over the world, known as “antique”, Europe, Russia, China, India, North and South America, Africa, Australia.

2. Destroyed buildings built in the same “antique” style, Greece, Italy, Egypt, France, Russia, America, Africa, Australia, Asia…. The remains of which EXIST NOW, and were in large quantities in the recent past, have been dug up and are being dug up by archaeologists. These destructions are reflected in the paintings of “ruinists,” who captured on their canvases, clearly visible with their own eyes, the ruins of all kinds of majestic buildings and structures, cities.

3. “Sinking into the cultural layer”, to a depth of 4 meters or even more, buildings and structures built earlier than the 19th century. Moreover, everywhere the “cultural layer” consists, as a rule, of homogeneous material of sedimentary origin (sand and clay), under which there is often a fertile layer.

4. A large dispersion in the time scale, the time of the same type of architecture, up to several thousand years, and the architectural style, in general and in detail, the structural elements, have practically not undergone any changes over thousands of years, as if thousands of years ago certain standards were invented, which were later did not change for hundreds and thousands of years, nothing was invented, new technologies, materials, styles, etc. did not appear.

5. Remains of canals and hydraulic structures, sometimes technically very complex (dams, locks, aqueducts), and in a volume exceeding the technical, financial, human capabilities in their construction, in places where, by definition, their presence is at least strange, sometimes simply unnecessary. Climatically completely unjustified (for example, irrigation canals in the northern regions, in areas far from the current centers of population centers (Siberia, Arkhangelsk region, Karelia, Caucasus, Kamchat, etc.), aqueducts-water pipelines in places where there is winter for half a year and very low temperatures at which aqueducts will simply be destroyed). High from a technical point of view, the finishing of these canals and structures with granite blocks, even in places far from the places where these granites were mined, their technical complexity (slopes of one to two degrees over tens and sometimes hundreds of kilometers, taking into account the complex terrain, sometimes even mountainous areas).

6. Vegetation residues, peat, sapropel, black soil, bog trees, on the surface, in the ground, very shallow, and in areas where they should not exist according to the current climate. (Severnaya Zemlya, New Siberian Islands, oak moraines in the northern regions). In permafrost areas that have been retreating to the north for the last hundred years, in the first year vegetation characteristic of more southern regions begins to grow, and in next years, this vegetation is replaced by the current one, characteristic of modern tundras, forest-tundras, etc. northern plants).

7. The presence of a large number of maps, with high accuracy of drawing settlements, longitude and latitude, vegetation (forests in the north), rivers, canals, roads, which, according to the OP, either do not exist, or were created or opened much later (for example, land roads from Moscow to St. Petersburg, built only in the 19th century, canals connecting the Don and Oka in the Tula region, the Volga-Don Canal, built only in the 20th century, in the Volgograd region, etc.). A large number of settlements in the North, along the Siberian rivers, in the region of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the coast of the Arctic Ocean. The relief of the coastline of ANTARCTICA, which only in the 20th century was able to be seen with the help of satellites, and the shore of which is under a thick layer of ice.

8. The presence on the surface and very shallow occurrence of homogeneous sedimentary rocks (sand, gravel, clay, limestone, boulders weighing up to tens of tons), the formation of their deposits in the amount of millions of cubic meters, in one place, oriented strictly from north to south in descending order , in stripes along current and DRY rivers and ravines. Soil logging in a volume that does not allow agricultural work even in the 20th century, in the northern regions, especially in Karelia, Arkhangelsk, Leningrad, Pskov, Novgorod, Tver, Yaroslavl, Vladimir, Moscow, Vologda, Kostroma, Vyatka, and others.) Moreover, in those areas where, according to the OI, intensive agriculture has been carried out since ancient times, agricultural products were supplied, including for Export), but at the same time in the presence of a very poor plant layer, even in the 20th century (Non-Black Earth regions).

9. Total clearing to the granite bases of the ENTIRE NORTHERN COAST, from Sweden to Kamchatka (North of the Leningrad region, Karelia, Arkhangelsk region, and further to the east. In the complete absence of sedimentary rocks - limestone, sand, clay, a plant layer of a couple of centimeters , and in the lowlands there are swamps full of peat, reservoirs with sapropel, in places, meter-long accumulations of plant soil, EXPLAINED BY THE RAISE OF THE NORTHERN PLATE (and where did the sedimentary rocks from the bottom of the sea go during the uplift - the same meters of limestone and sand?), while the slope with north to south is not observed, moreover, ALL SIBERIAN RIVERS BEYOND THE URAL flow to the North!!!

10. The presence of a large number of salty reservoirs, underground springs, from the Arkhangelsk region, to Turkmenistan, from the Urals and to Altai. And also a large amount of salty soils.

11. Strange orientation of Deserts, especially Africa and America. All the deserts there are on the West Coast side. Deserts in Asia - China, Mongolia, with salt water bodies, Karakum and Kizilkum in Western Asia. Highly salty lakes in the Middle East - for example the Dead Sea, which, according to the OI, originate from precipitation, or freshwater rivers originating in the mountains (Aral Sea, Caspian Sea). Isolated from the Seas and Oceans, and in theory could not become salty from these sources. The half-salty Lake Balkhash, located in the foothills, certainly could not have been fed with salt water from the mountains.

12. Presence of North Sea fauna in the South Seas and LAKES. North Sea seals (or rather their relatives), in Lake Onega, in the Caspian Sea, in Baikal!!!. Fish species related to North Sea species are flounder in the Black and Caspian Seas, herring in the Black and Caspian Seas, omul in Baikal, and many other species. Moreover, they all go to spawn in rivers upstream, to the Don, Volga, Dnieper (i.e. to the north), as well as downstream from Baikal - to the Angara, but also to the north!!! Those. towards where their relatives live in the Arctic Ocean! Which speaks to the clear path where their ancestors came from – from the North.

13. The permafrost territory, strangely BEFORE THE URAL and BEYOND THE URAL, is very different in latitude, by thousands!!! km, which may indicate different reasons, its origin or its preservation. Moreover, the southern border of permafrost is constantly retreating to the north; over the past 100 years, this border has shifted hundreds of kilometers (from 250 to 500 km to the north). Moreover, this fact applies to both Eurasia and North America. The absence of a permafrost zone at similar latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, which indicates different reasons for its occurrence and preservation, not related to the angle of incidence of sunlight on the surface. If the current climate has remained unchanged for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!, then in 300-500 years of such movement, the permafrost of the Northern Hemisphere should have reached the Arctic Circle, at least.

14. Suspicious drying up of water bodies, over the last 100 years, rivers, lakes, swamps, and other bodies of water on land are becoming very shallow, drying up, the amount of water is constantly decreasing, which leads to climate change. The rate of this drying out, if compared over the last 100 years, over hundreds of years would have led to the complete drying out of almost all closed reservoirs, fed only by spring floods or precipitation.

15. False hypothesis inflation global warming, which GLOBALLY has nothing to do with the CO2 content in the atmosphere, or with solar activity, but is connected only with one thing - the presence and quantity on the surface of the land (including in its thickness) of a substance capable of accumulating and releasing heat, namely WATER, in its various states of aggregation, liquid water, and ice.

16. Rivers. ALL absolutely, from huge to small streams, rivers have gullies incommensurate with the current bed, the width exceeding the current ones, from several times to tens of times, more than the current bed. The banks of these gullies are formed by the simultaneous flow of water, strictly along the flow of the current rivers, the water level is much higher (tens of times in volume) than the current volume of water in the rivers, the level of the slopes of these rivers is their uniformity throughout the entire plane, a small number of ravines to the current river, ( slight destruction of slopes by ravines), their size (depth), indicate a small amount of time that has passed since their formation to this day. The presence of washed away and wetlands along rivers, the presence of oxbow lakes (periodic changes in riverbeds), at a great distance from the current bed, isolated reservoirs without external recharge (now drying up), along rivers. It says that in the very recent past the amount of water in all rivers was disproportionately greater. Judging by the water erosion of the surface of the slopes and surrounding areas, it was several hundred years old, no more. Very often there are perfectly smooth rivers, tens of kilometers long, in flat areas, which may indicate their artificial origin, which were once canals. A strange formation of high banks with an opposite low bank, usually on the north or northwest side.

17. Rivers in populated areas. IN ALL settlements, near rivers, there are washed away areas, even at elevations up to tens of meters from the current river level. Even if there is a low opposite bank!!! Now these territories are parks, nature reserves, nature reserves, stadiums, vacant lots, industrial zones, construction sites only in the 20th century. At the same time, they contain destroyed or heavily “sagging” historical buildings and structures (usually quite large (Churches, Fortresses, Monasteries). Moreover, at a serious distance from modern streets, and even populated areas, which suggests that they were once were part of denser developments, or estates.

18. Ravines. On plains, in places where there is insufficient water for their formation (low precipitation, groundwater, reservoirs, etc.), a lot of ravines. Moreover, in their structure and condition of the slopes, these ravines are very similar to the rivers that exist in the same area. The condition of their slopes, their structure, are practically no different from lowland rivers, and what is said about rivers above.

19. Fortresses, castles, kremlins. Until the 17th century, all over the world there were a huge number of fortresses, star fortresses, castles, monasteries, with high fortress walls, especially near rivers, reservoirs, kremlins (essentially the same fortresses), with a structure many times greater than their fortification purpose, according to the types of weapons used in those wars. Most of them are currently either completely destroyed, or, according to the OI, in the 17th-19th centuries they were destroyed by war (cannonballs), or survived terrible fires that destroyed them completely or partially. Moreover, most of them were known back in the 18th century, were marked on maps, and described in many later literary works. The costs of their construction, their presence in the 18th century, when according to the OI there were no mass wars, the distance from the theaters of military operations of those years (for example, in Siberia), in Northern cities, indicate that their purpose was clearly not for protection from raids.

20. Mountain cities and monasteries. In many places, in the mountains, there are the remains of mountain cities capable of accommodating thousands of inhabitants. Crimea, Caucasus, Türkiye, Middle East, America, Kazakhstan, Carpathians, etc. The purpose of these cities, their time of use, logistical inaccessibility, labor costs for their construction, and the transport inconvenience of the location indicate that the reason for their appearance can only be the need for protection from something very destructive, the need to save a certain number of residents from some then a cataclysm that is occurring, or could occur, below these cities, in the lowlands.

21. Sacred Mountains. All nations have sacred mountains. Moreover, it is very difficult to find an explanation of what is so sacred about them.

22. Holy springs. All over the world, especially at higher elevations, there are ancient sacred springs, usually with religious overtones. Often these sources are located in the mountains, or on hills, often on the territory of monasteries, also located on hills.

23. Kitchen. In many countries, cuisine is replete with ingredients that do not correspond to the growing capabilities of these crops in the region where it is located. Pepper and spices are found in rather northern areas where these crops do not grow now. National cuisines abound in plants that were either introduced at a fairly late time according to the OI. For example: corn comes from America, in Moldova. The age-old culture of growing, processing and storing plants originating thousands of kilometers south, or even from other continents - for example: American potatoes in Belarus, cucumbers, onions, cabbage in European Russia, (originally from North Africa, or Western Asia), with This has a long tradition of cultivation, use in food, processing and storage. It is not clear how southern onions, or cucumbers and cabbage, were able to adapt to the harsh northern regions; northern varieties appeared. Moreover, these cultures have a very ancient history. About 80!!! varieties of PINEAPPLES grown everywhere in Russia, in greenhouses, but still, where does such diversity, ability to grow, and such passions of local, northern residents come from??? Southern Wheat, the northern varieties of which cultivated north of the Voronezh region, appeared only in the second half of the 20th century, was known and used in the cuisine of our ancestors since ancient times, and so on until Arkhangelsk. Massive use, back in the 17th century, AMARANTH in Russia, originally from South America, which was discovered in the same century a century earlier, and which managed to conquer such expanses of the NORTH COUNTRY??? Tea, coffee, tobacco??? The cuisine of some peoples, now considered a delicacy, could only appear from a very terrible shortage of food - for example, the use of frogs in the food of the French and Vietnamese, snails, etc., speak of times, and for long periods, when this was possible, there were the only living creatures that could save from hunger.

24. Architecture. Similarities in architecture, building materials and construction technologies Architecture over vast territories, thousands of kilometers away, and on different continents. Extreme technical complexity in the design and construction of some buildings and structures, with the complete (alleged) absence of drawings, strength of materials, technical documentation, technical and aesthetic perfection of architecture of the 17th-19th centuries. In northern latitudes, even until the 20th century, there remained buildings and structures that were not designed for this climate. All of them, as a rule, come from no later than the 18th and early 19th centuries. There was no HEATING provided in these buildings. The so-called SUMMER TEMPLES, huge religious buildings, designed without taking into account cold and frost, in areas where even now it is cold up to 8 months a year. Residential buildings with huge windows, having huge heat losses, also without heating (most of them were heated either by stoves added in the 19th century, or during their reconstruction changes were made and heating systems were created. Most buildings were designed and built with FLAT ROOFS, which is for the northern regions, it was extremely impractical, because it led to leaking roofs due to melting snow, and the lack of precipitation drainage. Moreover, the second half of the 19th century, this short-sightedness was already eliminated. Buildings were already DESIGNED taking into account the northern cold climate, with heating. , with pitched roofs, having a slope for snow and rain, with windows smaller in size than a century earlier. Almost all buildings built before the 19th century have a deep “subsidence into the cultural layer”, and very uniformly, which, according to science, did not lead to the destruction of the entire structure of the building. As a result, the first floors of the buildings ended up in the ground, and the plinths on which these buildings were built disappeared. The aesthetic and technical design was violated, an additional opportunity appeared for moisture to penetrate from the ground into the building itself and its walls, which leads to a violation of waterproofing and more rapid destruction of walls in northern latitudes, which have a greater freezing depth. Loss of technology in building materials in the 19th century, changes in construction technology, use of building materials. (foundations and walls were previously built from limestone blocks, later from brick; brick was previously more durable, later less durable, the use of long rolled steel in construction (clearly superior in characteristics to rolled steel of the 19th and 20th centuries, For example: Metal base structures The domes of St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg - the structure did not succumb to corrosion even after 300 years), etc.

25. Megabuildings of the 18th-19th centuries. In the 18th and 19th centuries, a huge number of structures (Canals, Roads, Railways, Buildings and Structures) were built in Russia and the World, in terms of the volume of work performed, the quality and technology of construction, the places of their construction, the distance from the places of production of materials, CONSTRUCTION TIMES not amenable to logical explanation, not corresponding to the level of existing and used building material, qualifications of the builders (according to the Olympic Games, they were built either by serfs or soldiers, under the guidance of an experienced European architect).
For example: Nikolaevskaya railway, built in the shortest possible time (less than 10 years, in places, even in the 20th century, heavily swamped, sparsely populated, in a climate with up to 9 months a year of cold, rain, snow and frost), Transsib - built within a period of about 10 years, in areas with minimal population density, distance from places of production of rails, sleepers, etc.). At the same time, tens of thousands more km were built during the same period. railways, in terms of the volume of construction work surpassing similar work in the 20th century.

26. Population. The main resource of any state is people. People are also the army that waged wars in the 18th and 19th centuries. This includes the production of agricultural products for the army, builders, for sale within the country and abroad. These include workers in plants and factories, builders, representatives of service services, clergy, doctors, teachers, etc. These are TAXES for the treasury, from which, again, state expenditures are financed. And here there is a problem. According to available, more or less official data, the population of the Russian Empire, at the end of the 19th century, was about 110-120 million people. Taking into account the population of Poland, Finland, Turkestan, and the Caucasus. The official population growth is about 2 percent per year, which is very strange and suspiciously low, taking into account the fact that about 80% of the population is rural, and the families there were from 5 to 15 children, they also started giving birth very early, years from 15. Those. In 20 years (even 35-40 years, average duration life, from two parents, there were already 3-4 heirs for each parent, and taking into account that there were often grandchildren, by the time the first parents died, the increase over 40 years was no less than 100%.).
But even with a 2 percent increase, calculation in the opposite direction gives no more than 15-20 million people for the entire Russian Empire. If you still count 100 years into the past, then that’s about 500 thousand – a million. Throughout the entire territory of the RUSSIAN EMPIRE. This raises the question of the possibilities of building what is described above, and the next point.

27. Expansion. At the beginning of the 19th century, there was a populated area from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok, from Arkhangelsk to the Pamirs. SIBERIA is inhabited, along the northern sea route, along the Siberian rivers. There are thousands of populated cities on the maps throughout the entire territory. Around each city there are dozens of villages and villages (otherwise the city will not survive, and will not even appear), in total tens of thousands of settlements throughout the WHOLE TERRITORY. Question: Why? Why is such a complex, dangerous and unpredictable expansion from a fairly comfortable area necessary? Southern Europe. 10-20 million people can easily disperse throughout Central Russia, while 5 million will live by the sea, enjoying the southern sun and fruit and wine. WHAT or WHO should force people to leave their homes and go hundreds or thousands of kilometers, in an unknown direction, to the taiga, to Siberia, to the North? And most importantly WHY? Well, let’s say the Stolypin reforms, the mass settlement of SIBERIA (Who then built the Trans-Siberian Railway, and for whom, ten years before that), and who populated the cities of Siberia, which supposedly had been living and thriving there for hundreds of years before? And let me remind you that the Stolypin resettlement was considered UNIQUE by contemporaries!!! So, such operations have never been carried out on such a large scale before?
This means that in the 19th century, the ENTIRE TERRITORY OF RUSSIA was already populated through natural expansion, the gradual settlement of new territories, when the previous ones had already been developed, and the population size allows us to look for new territories for agricultural activities, and only then a city appears there that provides village with everything you need, and most importantly! People won't go north anymore worst conditions, if the south allows you to settle without problems! Then it turns out that natural expansion required either HUNDREDS of years, or the settlement was forced (and besides Voronezh and Peter1, the OI does not present us with such events anymore, and even this is not the North.) ... Or the climate during this expansion was completely different. And most importantly, the population at the end of this expansion should not be 20 million people who could dissolve in Central Russia. And many times, and maybe tens of times more.
This time, I think 27 points will be enough to try to estimate the scale and put together most of the puzzles of the picture called “History”.
Later I will try to give a more detailed article on each of these points, with examples, questions, answers, and conclusions.
And also gradually add other items to this list of questions.

Good luck and wisdom to everyone!

You can add regular fluctuations in the level of the Caspian Sea, with the absorption of ancient fortresses and islands. And the Black Sea, which is historically documented, was previously 120 meters below the level, has a basin depth of about 8-10 km, and is 80% filled with organic residues that emit hydrogen sulfide...
In addition, there is also, at a depth of about 100 meters, if I’m not mistaken, a layer of fresh water that does not mix with the salt water on the surface.

A very large linguistic community is suggestive - most of the peoples of Eurasia speak distorted forms of Prakrit (the predecessor of Sanskrit and the Russian language).

The mythology, if you dig a little, is also identical, the figures of the gods are the same - which speaks of a common origin.

Follow us

In Andrei Sklyarov’s film “The Very Best Baalbek,” Mrs. Dudakova complains that historians attribute the construction of the megaliths of Baalbek to the Romans, but there is no documentation about the construction of such an epoch-making structure, although, according to her, ancient Rome everything was carefully documented and many sources have survived to this day. But it’s the same with aqueducts. Since they don’t know exactly their age, it means that documents about their construction have not been found.

Same with Egyptian pyramids. There, some pyramids are primitive, built late and more destroyed. Other - complex design made of large blocks, built earlier, it is not known exactly when, but preserved in better condition than the newer ones.

Here is another Eagle aqueduct in Spain with an official age of about 2000 years:

It’s strange, but there is little information about this aqueduct on the Internet. It recently underwent restoration:

It’s not clear whether these square holes were made by restorers or whether they were there originally:

An interesting weather vane on the aqueduct spire - a two-headed bird with a crown and a cross above it:

As you can see, the spire was slightly modified after restoration and a metal cone with a ball was placed on it.

It is interesting to find out when the double-headed eagle and cross appeared. Who knows, tell me. And what could this symbolize? Really the Russian Empire? But the double-headed eagle is also a symbol of the Roman Empire.

I need close-up shots of the blocks to understand what's what. Maybe I didn't search well.

HELP FIND INFORMATION ABOUT THIS "EAGLE" AQUEDUCT!

Who was able to design such complex structures from an engineering point of view?

Who made the necessary, complex measurements and calculations?

Who created the technology for such construction?

Where did suddenly come from many thousands of engineers, craftsmen and workers of the highest qualifications who were able to produce very high quality, incomprehensibly accurately and reliably ( for centuries!) implement objects the like of which we are not able to build today?

According to modern historians, these three gigantic structures, located thousands of kilometers apart from each other, were built almost simultaneously. And they were built, as the “scientists” tell us, by slaves and legionnaires (soldiers). That's it, cheap and cheerful. The main thing is to bring in more slaves and legionnaires, and the most complex structures will grow like mushrooms after rain! And we, so smart and civilized, build houses that fall down in just a few decades? Why were “Roman” legionnaires with slaves able to build colossal objects that lasted 2000 years, while our dams collapse after 30-40 years? It turns out that the “Roman” legionnaires (ordinary soldiers) of those times were incomprehensibly smarter than today’s “docents with candidates”?

And another big question arises: where did the money come from for all this? No matter how large the “Roman” Empire was, it is very difficult to believe that it was able to finance the construction of these colossuses. We read that the “Romans” fought all the time and supposedly conquered someone, and such events in themselves are very expensive! However, as we have already seen, at the same time the Empire built many high-quality roads, comfortable cities with baths, fountains, theaters and temples, as well as country villas, bridges and many other, small and large aqueducts in almost all conquered countries. Where can a continuously warring country get funds for construction around the world?

Where did the notorious “Roman Empire” get the financial, material and human resources to carry out almost simultaneous, grandiose construction projects in different parts of Europe? Where did she recruit such a horde from, firstly, qualified specialists - managers, engineers, mid-level specialists, skilled workers, and, secondly, legionnaires and simply slaves? What an “army” it was necessary to have in order to continuously build structures of colossal complexity and scope throughout Europe!

Who fed all this horde and what? Who guarded the slaves if the legionnaires worked with picks and shovels?

So, the conclusion suggests itself: it was NOT built by slaves and NOT soldiers!

But the little-known supposedly modern aqueduct, the highest in the world, Roquefavour:

According to the official version, the construction of the aqueduct was led by a young 26-year-old engineer, Franz Major de Montrichet. It began in 1842 and ended in 1847. 5 years. In our high-tech times, the construction speed of such a gigantic and complex object is approximately the same. In this amount of time, you can only manually restore the abandoned aqueduct built by the ancient gods of Sklyarov.

Its length is 393 meters, height 82 meters, it consists of three rows of arches. It is rivaled only by the aqueduct at Pont du Gard, which is 266 m long and 47 m high, allegedly built by the Romans 18 centuries earlier. And it also consists of 3 tiers.

So far I haven’t found any information: was cement used or was everything based on word of honor? If anyone knows, tell me in the comments.

However, if you take a close-up look at its blocks, they are very similar to Mesoamerican megaliths. Here is a photo of the aqueduct struts from ground level:

As you can see, the traditional Peruvian Machu Picchu and Ollantaytambo “nipples” on the stones are in all their glory. Here's a photo from Peru to refresh your memory:

In addition, the opening of the passage under the aqueduct supports is trapezoidal. This is the favorite shape of the builders of Machu Picchu:

What's the point? We do not have photographs that would show that these objects are being built and not restored. Therefore, there is no reason to be sure that they were built in the 19th century. Somehow it turns out so well that they manage to build them just before the appearance of photography. And this applies specifically to structures that are too difficult to build without machines. For some reason, the construction of such complex objects stopped with the advent of photographs and machines.

But there are many photographs of restoration work.

Achtung!

SCHMACHTUNG!

BIRIBAKHTUNG!

Pay attention to the attitude of pathological liars and miracle-haters who deny other civilizations on Earth in the past and present to the documentary effect of photographs.

They say “take our word for it that everything was built by hand, there just weren’t any photographs yet to prove it. It’s not our fault!”

And for example, there are photographs confirming the antiquity of, for example, the Aswan obelisk and the “Stele of Hunger” on the island of Sehel. But, a pathological hater of the truth, the leader of miracle-haters, Professor Davidenko, ignores the fact of the existence of many photographic documents and does not mention them in any way in his speeches. Because just one photograph drives a stake into his entire theory of remakes to attract tourists. Details here http://levhudoi.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post.html whoever does not read is a fool.

Second example. Moscow State University professor Vladimir Braginsky claims in a newspaper article that the Soviet sorceress Ninel Kulagina was afraid of his revelations and hid from him. And that she is not a sorceress, but a fraudster. But, I found a color documentary film where she talks peacefully with him and demonstrates on his hand her ability to heat objects with her touch:

The question arises. Why, for example, is the Pondugar aqueduct not attributed to weapons in the 19th century? Because Pondugar has not been used for delivering water for a long time and therefore has not been restored. But Roquefavour is used and therefore they had to restore it in the 19th century. Otherwise, millions of people will simply be left without water.

The fundamental point is the size of continuous lines and their geometry. In Pondugar, I don’t yet see anything unusual for a simple chisel.

Lev Khudoy wrote:

Is it possible to be more detailed? What sizes and geometry of lines do you classify as DVTs?

Sklyarov:

I don’t think so, but I think it’s worthy of attention. Rows of clearly parallel lines with a length that obviously exceeds the range of comfortable movements of a stonecutter of average height.

Further, Sklyarov refused to acknowledge and generally discuss the fact that the lines are 4 - 5 meters long, which is tens of times greater than the range of convenient movements of a stonemason. He began to give incomprehensible answers about some horizontal lines that did not in any way affect the essence of the matter. I specially made enlarged images of some of these lines for him, from which it is clearly visible that they are freely intersected by inclined parallel lines of artificial origin, so that they were not interrupted by horizontal ones and did not change their direction, as could be the case when working with a chisel manually:

The Romans built a lot of things. It is possible without cement. But I'm not interested in the Romans. And in order to classify any buildings as a DVC, you need something more than just your own doubts about something.

The monastic chroniclers claim that having taken Russian cities, Batu burned them to the ground. The population is destroyed or taken into captivity. In short, he is trying in every possible way to bring the lands into a state of incapacity. How is he going to “take” tribute now if there are no cattle, no crops, no people? Moreover, after the plunder, he immediately goes to the steppe. There are no fruits or vegetables in the steppe. The climatic conditions are difficult. There is nowhere to hide from the wind and snow. There are few rivers. There is nowhere to have fun. They explain to us: this is the people. They have more fun with jerboas. They love this business. It turns out that the crops were trampled, the warm comfortable houses were burned and they quickly fled to the hungry, cold steppe. They took the population with them. Those who were not taken were killed. At the same time, those who remained (obviously corpses) were subject to tribute. I want to exclaim, like Stanislavsky: “I don’t believe it!”

Of course, if you are forced to invent military actions, and you have not worn out a single pair of boots, it is not surprising to confuse “seizure of territory” with “punitive expedition.” After all, it is the punitive expedition that the chroniclers describe, at the same time presenting Batu as an invader. Batu’s entourage also does not need a punitive expedition. The entourage is the older Chingizids, i.e. sons of Genghis Khan. After all, Batu is only his grandson. They do not need the glory of “conqueror Batu”. They don't care about her. Not even. They hate her. Because of Batu’s fame, they remained in the shadows and became second-class citizens. There is no need for them to go further with Batu. Each Chingizid wants to have his own rich ulus (region), in which to sit as a small independent king. This happened in all eastern countries. The abandoned Chingizids are now blissful there.

According to the historian Ala ad-Din Ata-Malik, having received the ulus, the Mongol governor received the title of Sbabna and after that he no longer went to war. He feels good now.

Nevertheless, we are convinced that the Mongol army modestly leaves the captured Russian territory and humbly retires to the steppe to collect dry horse cakes to heat the yurts. How much do Mongolian morals change when it comes to Rus'? Moreover, among those Mongols who are not in contact with Russia, the morals remained the same. And in Rus', the Mongols are completely different from the Mongols. Why don't historians initiate us into these mysterious incarnations?

The only one who tried to indicate the reason for Batu’s sudden departure to the steppe before the onset of spring was the researcher General M.I. Ivanin. He claims that the lush grass of the middle zone, which turns green in the spring, will certainly cause Mongolian horses to die. They are accustomed to the skinny, steppe environment. And the juicy grass from Russian meadows is like poison for them. Therefore, the only thing that drives Batu into the steppe before the onset of spring is his father’s care for the horses. We, of course, do not know such subtleties of horse food. And this statement by M.I. Ivanina puzzles us. Wouldn't it be interesting to feed a Mongolian horse some succulent grass and see if it dies or not? But for this, she needs to be discharged from Mongolia. It turns out to be difficult. What if he suddenly doesn’t die? Where should I put it then? We live on the 11th floor.

In general, we cannot refute this statement, but we are hearing about such a phenomenon for the first time.

Here's what official sources say about Batu's campaign:
“In December 1237, Batu invaded the Russian lands... The Ryazan people could not provide serious resistance: they could field no more than five thousand soldiers. There were many more Mongols. Russian chronicles speak of a “countless army.” The fact is that each Mongol warrior brought with him at least three horses - riding, pack and fighting. It was not easy to feed such a number of animals in winter in a foreign country... In February alone, 14 cities were taken, not counting settlements and churchyards.”

So, dense forests. Lack of roads. December. Winter is in full swing. The frost is crackling. It can reach 40 at night. Snow, sometimes knee-deep, sometimes waist-deep. A crust of hard crust on top. Batu's army enters the Russian forests. Here it is necessary to do some calculations in order to have a more or less clear idea of ​​the size of the Mongol army. According to many historians, Batu's army numbered 400,000 people. This corresponds to the idea of ​​“innumerable multitudes”. Accordingly, there are three times more horses, i.e. 1,200,000 (one million two hundred thousand). Well, let's build on these numbers.

This means that 400 thousand warriors and 1 million 200 thousand horses entered the forests. There is no road. What should I do? Someone in front must break the crust, the rest follow him in single file: Mongol, horse, horse, horse, Mongol, horse, horse, horse, Mongol... There is no other way. Either walk along the river, or through the forest.

What is the length of the chain? If we give each horse, for example, three meters. That is 3 meters, multiplied by 1 million 200 thousand horses, it turns out 3 million 600 thousand meters. Simply put, 3600 kilometers. This is without the Mongols themselves. Introduced? If the crust in front is broken at the speed of a fast-walking person, approximately 5 km/h, then the last horse will be where the first stood only after 720 hours. But you can only walk through the forest during the day. Short winter day 10 hours. It turns out that the Mongols will need 72 days to travel the shortest distance. When it comes to a chain of horses or people, the “eye of the needle” effect comes into force. The entire thread must be pulled through the eye of the needle, even if it is 3600 km long. And no way faster.

Based on the above calculations, the speed of Batu’s military operations is surprising - 14 cities in February alone. It is impossible to simply carry out such a cavalcade in 14 cities in February. The Romans, unlike the Mongols, advanced through the forests of Germany at a speed of 5 kilometers per day, although this was in the summer and without horses.

You have to understand that Batu’s army was always either on the march or on the assault, i.e. We constantly spent the night in the forest.

And the frost in these places at night can reach 40 degrees. We were shown instructions on how a taiga dweller needs to make a barrier out of branches on the leeward side, and place a smoldering log on the open side. It will warm and protect from attacks by wild animals. In this position you can spend the night at 40 degrees below zero and not freeze. But it’s impossible to imagine that instead of a taiga man there will be a Mongol with three horses. The question is not idle: “How did the Mongols survive in the forest in winter?”

How to feed horses in the forest in winter? Most likely - nothing. And 1 million 200 thousand horses eat approximately 6,000 tons of feed per day. The next day again 6000 tons. Then again. Again, an unanswered question: “How can you feed so many horses in the Russian winter?”

It seems that it’s not difficult: multiply the amount of feed by the number of horses. But apparently, historians are not familiar with arithmetic primary school, and we must consider them serious people! General M.I. Ivanin admits that the strength of the Mongol army was 600,000 people. In this case, it’s better not to remember about the number of horses. Such statements by Ivanin involuntarily give rise to the thought: did the general have a habit of abusing “bitter” in the morning?

Cheap stories about how horses, in 30-degree frost, hollow out last year's grass with their hooves from under a meter-long layer of snow and eat to their fill, are naive at best. A horse cannot survive the winter in the Moscow region on grass alone. She needs oats. And more. It's in warm climatic conditions a horse on the grass will last until spring. And in cold weather her energy consumption is different - increased. So the “father’s” horses would not have lived to see the “victory”. This is so, a note to academic historians who imagine themselves to be biologists. Reading such “scientific” research in historical works, one wants to hiss: “Bullshit!” But you can't. This is very insulting to the mare! The gray mare would never have wandered into the Russian forest all winter. And any Mongol would not do this. Even if his name was Sivy Batu. The Mongols understand horses, take pity on them and know perfectly well what they can and cannot do.

Only gray-haired historians, for whom delirium is obviously a normal state, could have thought of this.

The simplest question: “Why did Batu take the horses at all?” People don't ride horses through the forest in winter. There are branches and thickets all around. In winter, a horse will not walk even a kilometer on the crust. She'll just hurt her feet. Reconnaissance on horseback in the forest is not carried out, and chases are not carried out. You won’t even be able to gallop through the forest on a horse in winter; you’ll definitely run into a twig.

How can you use horses when storming fortresses? After all, horses don’t know how to climb fortress walls. They will only shit under the fortress walls out of fear. Horses are useless when storming fortresses. But it is precisely in the capture of fortresses that the whole meaning of Batu’s campaign lies, and nothing else. Then why this horse epic?

Here in the steppe, yes. In the steppe, a horse is a way of survival. It's a way of life. In the steppe, a horse feeds you and carries you. There’s no way without her. Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Scythians, Kipchaks, Mongols and all other steppe inhabitants were engaged in breeding horses. And only this and nothing else. Naturally, in such open spaces it is unthinkable to fight without a horse. The army consists only of cavalry. There have never been any infantry there. And it’s not because the entire Mongol army is on horseback that they’re smart. But because the steppe.

Around Kyiv there are forests, and there are also steppes. In the steppes, the Polovtsians and Pechenegs “graze,” which is why the Kyiv princes also have cavalry, although not numerous. And the northern cities - Moscow, Kolomna, Tver, Torzhok, etc. - are a completely different matter. The princes don’t have any cavalry there! Well, they don’t ride horses there! Nowhere! The boat is the main means of transportation there. Rook, monoxyl, single shaft. The same Rurik did not conquer Rus' on a horse - on a boat.

German knights sometimes used horses. But their huge iron-clad horses played the role of armored battering rams, i.e. modern tanks. And only in those cases where it was possible to deliver them to their destination. There was no talk of any cavalry attacks in the northern forests. The main troops of the north were on foot. And not because they are stupid. But because the conditions there are like that. There were no roads for either horse or foot. Let us at least remember the feat of Ivan Susanin. Led the Poles into the forest and ambes! You can't get out of it now. We are talking about the 17th century, when civilization was all around. And in the 13th? Not a single track at all. Even the smallest one.

The fact that Batu led millions of useless horses through Russian forests in winter is presented by chroniclers as the height of military art. But since none of the chroniclers served in the army, they do not understand that from a military point of view this is insanity. Not a single commander in the world would have committed such stupidity, including Batu.

For some reason, historians forgot about another animal, which was the main draft force of the Mongol army, the camel. Cavalry is for the offensive. And the loads were carried by camels. Read the works of eastern travelers. And modern scientists are happy to describe how Batu’s army advanced to the Volga from the Karakum on thousands of camels. They even complain about the difficulties of transporting camels across the Volga. They don't swim themselves. And then one day... and camels in their entirety disappeared from the horizons of history. The fate of the poor animals ends on the other side of the mighty river. In this regard, a question arises for historians: “WHERE DO THE CAMELS TAKE THE DELHI?”

We are convinced that the population of Russian cities, having learned about the approach of the enemy, settled into their homes and began to wait for the Mongols. Why did the population rise up to defend their land during the other numerous wars? The princes agreed among themselves and sent out an army. The remaining population left their homes, hid in the forests and became partisans. And only during the period of the Mongol-Tatar yoke the entire population stubbornly longed to die when the Mongols stormed their hometown. Could there be an explanation for such a massive manifestation of love for the hearth and home?
Now directly about Batu’s assaults on fortress cities. Usually, during an assault on a fortress, the attackers suffer huge losses, so they try to avoid an open assault. The attackers go to all sorts of tricks to take possession of the city without storming. In Europe, for example, the main method of capturing fortresses is a long siege. The defenders of the fortress were starved and thirsty until they surrendered. The second type is undermining, or “silent sap”. This method requires a lot of time and caution, but thanks to the element of surprise, it allowed us to avoid numerous losses. If it was not possible to take the fortress, they simply bypassed it and moved on. It’s a very dreary thing to take a fortress.

In the case of Batu, we see the lightning capture of any fortress. What is the genius behind this amazing effect?

Some sources talk about the Mongols having stone-throwing and wall-breaking machines, which appear as if out of nowhere, immediately upon the Mongols’ arrival at the site of the assault. It is impossible to drag them through the forest. On the ice of frozen rivers too. They are heavy and will break the ice. Producing locally takes time. But if you take 14 cities a month, it means there is no reserve of time either. Where then do they come from? And how can we believe this? We need at least some reason.

Other historians, obviously understanding the absurdity of the situation, are silent about siege engines. But the speed of capturing fortresses is not reduced. How is it possible to “take” cities at such a speed? The case is unique. There are no analogues in history. Not a single conqueror in the world could repeat the “feat of Batu.”
“Batu’s genius,” obviously, should form the basis for the study of tactics at all military academies, but not a single teacher at a military academy has ever heard of Batu’s tactics. Why do historians hide it from the military?

The main reason for the success of the Mongol army is its discipline. Discipline rests on the severity of punishment. The entire ten are responsible for the “disobedient” warrior, i.e. all comrades with whom he “serves” may be subject to the death penalty. Relatives of the person who committed the fine may also suffer. It seems clear. But if we consider that in Batu’s army the Mongols themselves were less than 30%, and 70% were nomadic rabble, what kind of discipline can we talk about? Pechenegs, Cumans and other Kipchaks are ordinary shepherds. No one has ever divided them into dozens in their life. To this day they have never heard anything about the regular army. He didn’t like something, turned his horse around, and looked for the wind in an open field. You won’t find either him or his family. Which, by the way, they demonstrated more than once. In other wars, nomads betrayed their partners at the slightest danger or simply went over to the enemy’s side for a small reward. They left one by one and in whole tribes.

The main thing in the psychology of a nomad is to survive. They do not have a homeland, in the sense of a designated territory. Accordingly, they did not have to defend her, showing miracles of heroism. Heroism is a completely foreign concept to them. A person who risks his life is not seen as a hero in their eyes, but rather as an idiot. Pile up in a heap, grab something and run. This is the only way the nomads fought. Stories about how a visiting Kipchak proudly shouts: “For the Motherland, for Batu!” And he climbs the fortress wall, deftly knocking with his crooked legs on a makeshift ladder, but they just don’t form a single image. After all, he still has to shield his comrades from enemy arrows with his chest. At the same time, the Kipchak understands perfectly well that no one will then push him across the steppe in a wheelchair. And no one will issue him a pension for his injury. And then you climb up a rickety ladder for some unknown reason. And they pour boiling tar down your collar. Please note that the steppe nomad never climbed anywhere taller than a horse. Climbing high on a rickety ladder is as much of a shock for him as a parachute jump. You're on your own ladder try to at least get to the fourth floor? Then you will partially understand the experiences of the steppe man.

Storming fortress walls is the most complex of martial arts. Ladders and devices are very specific and difficult to manufacture. Each assaulter must know his place and perform difficult duties. The coherence of the unit must be brought to automaticity. In battle there is no time to figure out who is holding, who is climbing, who is covering, who is replacing whom. The skill of such assaults has been honed over the years. In preparation for the assault, normal armies built fortifications identical to the real ones. Soldiers were trained on them to the point of automaticity, and only then did they proceed directly to the assault. For the capture of fortresses, count titles, marshal ranks, lands, and castles were given. In honor of successful assaults, personalized medals were minted. The capture of a fortress is the pride of every army; it is a separate page of history.

And then they cheerfully tell us that they transferred the nomad from his horse to an assault ladder, he did not even notice the difference. He storms two fortresses a day and is bored the rest of the day. A nomad will not get off his horse for any price! He fights, always ready to escape, and in battle he relies more on his horse than on himself. No Mongols are his orders here. The combination of iron discipline and nomadic rabble in Batu’s army are mutually exclusive concepts. Never in his life can a steppe dweller even entertain the thought of climbing a fortress wall. That is why the Great Wall of China became an insurmountable obstacle to the nomads. That is why so many people and funds were spent on it. It all paid off in full. And whoever planned the construction of the Chinese wall knew that it would pay off. But if our historians had worked as advisers to him, and rubbed him the wrong way about nomads who could climb fortress walls better than any monkeys, he would have foolishly listened to them. He would not have built the Great Wall of China then. And this “miracle of the world” would not have existed in the world. So the merit of Soviet-Russian historians in the construction of the Great Wall of China is that they were not born then. Kudos to them for this! And thanks from all the Chinese.

What follows relates not only directly to Batu’s campaign, but also to the entire period of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. Many events can be assessed by considering the entire historical period.

It turned out that not only Rus' suffers from a lack of information about the Mongol invasion. Batu’s campaign against Europe is also not recorded anywhere in Europe itself. The historian Erenzhen Khaara-Davan speaks about it this way: “About the Mongols among the Western peoples, despite the fact that they suffered so much from them, almost no one has more or less detailed historical works, except for the descriptions of travelers to Mongolia Plano Carpini, Rubruk and Marco Polo". In other words, there is a description of Mongolia, but there is no description of the Mongol invasion of Europe.

“This is explained by the fact,” Erenzhen writes further, “that at that time young Western Europe stood at a lower stage of development than ancient Asia in all respects, both in the field of spiritual and material culture.”
However, he describes in detail the European actions of the Mongols. Describes the capture of Budapest. True, with little idea that at that time Buda was a fortress standing on a steep slope, surrounded by mountains, on the banks of the Danube. And Pest is a village across the river from Buda.

According to Erenzhen’s vision, Batu shouts: “These will not leave my hands!” when he sees that the Hungarian-Croat army has left Budapest, where it was previously hiding. Where did the army come from? If you are from Pest, then it is a village, it is a village. It was possible to cover them there too. And if from Buda, then it’s only to the Danube, i.e. it turns out into the water. It is unlikely that the troops would go there. How can we understand what “the withdrawal of troops from Budapest” should mean?
In the description of Batu’s adventures across Europe there are many colorful little details of unknown origin, which are supposedly intended to emphasize the reality of what has been said. But upon closer examination, they are precisely what undermine the veracity of such stories.

The reason for the end of the Mongol campaign against Europe is surprising. Batu was summoned to a meeting in Mongolia. And without Batu, it turns out that there is no longer a campaign at all?

Erenzhen describes in detail the campaigns of Genghisid Nogai, who was left to rule the captured part of Europe. In the descriptions, a lot of attention is paid to Nogai’s control of the Mongol troops: “Numerous Mongol cavalry at the mouth of the Danube united with the Bulgarian and went to Byzantium. The troops were led by the Bulgarian Tsar Constantine and Prince Nogai... According to the Arab historians Ruki ad-Din and al-Muffadi, before his death Berke Khan sent troops under the command of Prince Nogai to take Tsar Grad... In the nineties of the 13th century, Nogai becomes especially aggressive. The Tarnovo kingdom, the independent principalities of Vidin and Branichev, and the Serbian kingdom fell under his rule... In 1285, Nogai’s Mongol cavalry again poured into Hungary and Bulgaria, devastated Thrace and Macedonia.”

We are given a detailed description of the actions of the Mongol troops under the command of Nogai in the Balkans. But then the Golden Horde prince Tokhta punishes the separatist-minded Nogai. He utterly defeats Nogai near Kaganlyk.

Does Erenzhen indicate the reason for the defeat? Do you know what? You won't believe it right away. The reason is this: there was not a single Mongol in Nogai’s army! Therefore, it was not difficult for the disciplined Mongol army of Tokhta to defeat Nogai’s army, consisting of all sorts of rabble.

How can it be? Erenzhen has just praised the actions of the Mongol cavalry under the command of Nogai. He tells how many Mongols Khan Berke sent him. And on the same page he claims that there were no Mongols in the Mongol cavalry. It turns out that Nogai’s cavalry consisted of completely different tribes.

Reading historical works, it is impossible to get rid of the impression that Nogai, as well as Mamai, were not Mongols, but Crimean Tatars. Historians, against their will, simply describe the military campaigns of the Crimean khans, who have nothing in common with the Mongols. The clashes between Nogai and Tokhta in the 13th century and Mamai and Tokhtamysh in the 14th century only push for such a version. We don’t know what nationality these Tokhta and Tokhtamysh were, but Nogai and Mamai were clearly Crimean Tatars. However, even without looking at the fierce struggle of Nogai and Mamai against the Golden Horde, historians stubbornly continue to call them themselves Horde men. Apparently, this is because someone REALLY WANTS it.

We reached, so to speak, the dead. With such massive battles, the death of a huge number of their participants is inevitable. Where are these thousands of burials? Where are the Mongolian monuments in honor of the soldiers who “died for the just cause of Batu”? Where is the archaeological data about Mongolian cemeteries? Acheulian and Mousterian ones were found, but Mongolian ones were not. What kind of mystery of nature is this?

Well, since the Mongols later lived on vast European territories, then all this space should be “strewn” with stationary city and village cemeteries. Surely they can be easily found in Mongolian Muslim mosques? A request to academicians who claim that history is a serious science: “Please submit it for inspection.” I would like to make sure that there are many thousands of Mongolian cemeteries and admire the specific ornaments of Mongolian Muslim mosques.

When planning a military campaign, the choice of time of year plays an important role. This is of particular importance when conducting campaigns in countries with cold climates.

Hitler started the war against Russia at the end of June - he started late. The capture of Moscow was necessary for the winter. And that's it, a complete failure! Came as they joked soviet soldiers, General Moroz, and it is useless to fight with him. German military theorists to this day say nasally: “It’s just that during the battle for Moscow the frosts were severe, that’s why we failed.” And the Russian military reasonably answer them: “How can you, guys, not take frosts into account when planning a war? If there were no frosts, it would not be Russia, it would be Africa. Where were you going to war?”

Insoluble problems arose among Hitler's troops due to Russian frosts. This is what it means to start a war at the end of summer.

Before this, the Frenchman Napoleon went to Rus'. He defeated the Russian troops at Borodino, entered Moscow, but here... winter, frosts. I didn't calculate it either. There is nothing to do in Rus' in winter. The invincible French army collapsed from hunger and cold itself, without looking at the previous victorious march. Subsisting on dead horse meat and occasionally rat meat, the French fled Russia without even having time to bury their comrades.

Are these titanic examples known to historians? Without a doubt. Are these examples enough for them to understand: “It is impossible to conquer Rus' in winter!”? Hardly.

In their opinion, it is easiest to attack Rus' in winter. And Batu, at their suggestion, plans and conducts his campaign in winter. There are no rules of military strategy for historians. It's easy to be smart while sitting with your professorial butt in a warm chair. We should take these smart guys to military training in January, so they can sleep in tents, dig in the frozen ground, and crawl on their bellies in the snow. You see, the professors’ heads would begin to have other thoughts. Maybe Batu began to plan military campaigns differently then.

There are many inexplicable questions related to the assertion of historians that the Mongols belong to Mohammedanism (Islam). Today the official religion of Mongolia is Buddhism. There is a small number of Mongols who prefer shamanism. They can be recognized by the presence of scary masks in yurts. But the official religion is Buddhism.

Buddhism influenced Karakorum (a Mongol city that later became the capital) and China for many centuries. Only in the 5th century BC. Taoism began to influence China. But even today there are a huge number of Buddhist adherents in China. Logic dictates that the Mongols also always gravitated towards Buddhism. But historians say no. In their opinion, until the 14th century, the Mongols were pagans and worshiped one God, Sulda, although the concepts of “paganism” and “monotheism” are mutually exclusive. Then in 1320 (there are different dates) Islam was recognized. And today the Mongols for some reason turned out to be Buddhists.

When did they become Buddhists? Why did you leave Islam? In what century? At what year? Who is the initiator? How did the transition happen? Who was against it? Were there religious clashes? But nothing anywhere! You won't find even the smallest hint. Why doesn’t academic science provide answers to such simple questions?

Or maybe it’s not the historians who are to blame? Maybe it’s the Mongols themselves who are being bureaucratic? They are delaying the transition to Islam to this day, you understand! And what should we take from historians? They have already converted the Mongols to Islam. They completed their task, so to speak. It’s not their fault that the Mongols don’t listen to them. Or are they still guilty of something?

The only representatives of the Mongols in Europe are the Kalmyks, who today are building Buddhist khuruls. And at the same time, there is not a single Muslim mosque on the territory of Kalmykia. And there are not even ruins of mosques. Moreover, the Kalmyks are not just Buddhists, but Lamaist Buddhists, exactly the same as in modern Mongolia.

What does this mean? Has Kirsan Ilyumzhinov still not been told that he is a Muslim? Almost seven centuries have passed! And Kalmyks still think that they are Buddhists. So the historians are to blame! Where are they looking? An entire people, in spite of historical science, professes a completely different religion. Are they not affected by scientific achievements? Not only that mongol mongols They don’t know that they are Muslims, and Russian Mongols too?! It's a mess with these Mongols, no matter where you point!

Historians are to blame. Their fault. Whose is it? Everything is clear with the Tatars. They were Muslims before and are Muslims now, whether Crimean or Kazan - no questions asked. But the Islamic period of the Mongols is described by historians as somewhat clumsy. And the smell from these descriptions is not good, it gives off something stale.

A vast and at the same time dark part of the story is the relationship between religion and power. Religion is something so sublime and innocent, it has practically nothing to do with earthly things. But you can only receive the royal crown from the hands of the Pope. He will decide whether you can get married or divorced. Crusade will only start if he announces. And simply farting is dangerous if you have not received a blessing first.
These are generally known rules. But they clearly show that the Christianization of other countries is not a selfish matter. The situation is exactly the same with other religions. Whoever has “religion” in his hands decides who should be king. Everything is simple and clear. If you calculate how much good was exported from Rus' to Byzantium before the Russian Orthodox Church became autocephalous, you could probably buy two of these Byzantiums with this money.

Religious expansions are an integral part of history. So much blood has been shed for this matter! For this, people in entire cities and countries were destroyed. And the end to these wars is not yet in sight.

The combination of church and state power in the same hands in Byzantium was called “Caesar-papism.” There are such descriptions of the period of Caesaropapism:

“Caesar-papism practically paralyzed the spiritual strength of the church and almost deprived it of genuine social significance. The Church completely dissolved in worldly affairs, serving the needs of the rulers of the state. As a result, sincere Faith in God and spiritual life began to exist autonomously, fenced off by monastery walls. The Church has practically closed in on itself, leaving the world to go its own way.”

And yet it is not clear why the head of the Byzantine church does not crown the Kyiv princes as kings? This is his responsibility. Why do the Mongols “crown” them? More precisely, they issue “labels” for the Great Reign. And the important question is, who is it given to? In all states conquered by the Mongols, the most noble Genghisid is appointed to rule. Moreover, the Chingizids want to get a “fattier piece”. They quarrel over this and get into fights. As soon as it touched Rus', the Genghisids no longer swear. Nobody wants to acquire their own fiefdom (ulus). It is no longer Genghisid who is put in charge in Rus'. They are already installing Russian. But what is the reason? How do historians explain this? We did not find such explanations. People of non-Mongolian nationality are trusted to govern, even though this completely contradicts ideas about the Mongols. In China, for example, the Mongols even formed their own Mongol dynasty of emperors. What prevented them from starting their own dynasty of Great Russian Dukes? The inexplicable gullibility of the Mongol khans towards the Russian princes must probably have roots.

The hospitable attitude of Muslim Mongols towards the Christian Church is surprising. They exempt the church from all taxes. During the yoke, a huge number of Christian churches were built throughout Rus'. The main thing is that churches are built in the Horde itself. And if we consider that Christian prisoners are kept in pits from hand to mouth, then who builds churches in the Horde?
The Mongols, according to the descriptions of the same historians, are terrible, bloodthirsty savages. They destroy everything in their path. They love cruelty. They rip off the skin of living people and rip open the bellies of pregnant women. For them there are no moral standards, except... the Christian church. Here the Mongols magically turn into “fluffy bunnies.”

Here is the data from official “research” by historians: “However, the main share of the influence of the Mongol yoke on Russia relates specifically to the area of ​​spiritual ties. It can be said without exaggeration that the Orthodox Church breathed freely during the rule of the Mongols. The khans issued golden labels to the Russian metropolitans, which placed the church in a position completely independent of the princely power. The court, revenues - all this was subject to the jurisdiction of the metropolitan, and, not torn by strife, not robbed by princes, the church quickly acquired material resources and land property, and most importantly, such importance in the state that it could, for example, afford to provide refuge to numerous people who were looking for she has protection from princely tyranny...
In 1270, Khan Mengu-Timur issued the following decree: “In Rus', let no one dare to disgrace churches and offend metropolitans and subordinate archimandrites, archpriests, priests, etc.

May their cities, regions, villages, lands, hunts, hives, meadows, forests, vegetable gardens, orchards, mills and dairy farms be free from all taxes..."

Khan Uzbek expanded the privileges of the church: “All ranks of the Orthodox Church and all monks are subject only to trial Orthodox Metropolitan, not at all the officials of the Horde and not the princely court. Anyone who robs a clergyman must pay him three times. Whoever dares to mock the Orthodox faith or insult a church, monastery, or chapel is subject to death without distinction, whether he is Russian or Mongolian.”

In this historical role Golden Horde She was not only a patroness, but also a defender of Russian Orthodoxy. The yoke of the Mongols - pagans and Muslims - not only did not touch the soul of the Russian people, it Orthodox faith, but even saved her.

It was during the centuries of Tatar rule that Russia established itself in Orthodoxy and turned into “Holy Rus',” a country of “numerous churches and incessant ringing of bells.” (The World of Lev Gumilyov Foundation. Moscow, DI-DIK, 1993. Erenzhen Khara-Davan. “Genghis Khan as a commander and his legacy.” pp. 236-237. Recommended by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation as teaching aid for additional education). NO COMMENTS.

They had interesting names Mongol khans presented by our historians - Timur, Uzbek, Ulu-Muhammad. For comparison, here are a few real Mongolian names: Natsagiin, Sanzhachiin, Nambaryn, Badamtsetseg, Gurragchaa. Feel the difference.

Unexpected information on the history of Mongolia is presented in the encyclopedia:
"ABOUT ancient history No information has been preserved from Mongolia.” End of quote.

O.Yu. Kubyakin, E.O. Kubyakin “Crime as the basis of the origin of the Russian state and three falsifications of the millennium”

TO BE CONTINUED...