Famous mathematicians Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky created, at first glance, a coherent and well-reasoned concept of the “New Chronology”. However, representatives of traditional science subjected it to merciless criticism. What inconsistencies did they see in it?

Selective Approach

In the 1990–2000s, bookstores and fairs were inundated with numerous works on the “New Chronology” (hereinafter NK). The demand for such products grew at the speed of an epidemic, but contrary to expectations, it gradually faded away. Today, single editions of Fomenko-Nosovsky can be seen only on the periphery of bookshelves.
The main reason for the phenomenon is the decline in interest in such literature. On the one hand, the reader has had enough of the phantasmagoric theories of the above-mentioned authors, on the other hand, he has become more literate in matters of history, noticing the numerous absurdities of NH.
Thus, in Fomenko-Nosovsky’s concept, the ancestor of Russia was a single powerful state of Rus'-Horde, stretching from the Carpathians in the West to the Sea of ​​Japan in the East. How then can we explain why, from the end of the 16th century, Russian pioneers began to reconquer the lands of an already existing state?
No less shocking to the thoughtful reader is the denial by the authors of NH of the thousand-year period of the European Middle Ages, which they, as unnecessary, simply threw out of history with all the documented dates, events and personalities, since this does not fit into the concept of “continuity and progressive development of mankind.”
Fomenko is an experienced polemicist and it is useless to argue with him. He easily pulls out individual facts that confirm he is right, while at the same time pointing out to historians the gaps in traditional science in order to once again prove its falsity. To a person inexperienced in matters of history, the arguments of NH will seem quite convincing, and only the extremely radical nature of this theory will make them wary.

Beyond science

For a long time, there was no clear and reasoned criticism of the authors of NH, since representatives of official history considered it pointless to analyze what lies outside scientific knowledge. According to scientists, NH actually completely rejects the centuries-old experience accumulated in philology, linguistics, archeology, paleography, and astronomy, since it contradicts the speculative model of history they have built.
According to NH, almost all historical evidence that has survived to date dates back no earlier than 1200 AD. e. – everything that happened before was conjectured and falsified by traditional science. Accordingly, the co-authors of NH are trying to place all the events that are familiar to us from the era of Antiquity in the 2nd millennium.
Thus, they date the beginning of the new era to 1053, and call the life of Jesus Christ the main religious event of the 11th century. Due to the fact that Fomenko threw out an entire millennium from history, not only dates floated, but also toponyms, which lost their traditional place in chronology. Thus, Jerusalem became both Constantinople and Troy.
Many famous characters who lived at different times were also superimposed on each other (after all, they had to be placed somewhere). For example, Yaroslav the Wise turned into Khan Batu and the Lithuanian prince Gediminas, and Genghis Khan became the first ancient Russian ruler Rurik and the founder of Moscow Yuri Dolgoruky.
But what about the popes, information about whom the Vatican so carefully recorded? During the “non-existent” 1st millennium there were 138 of them! Where to put them? Perhaps Fomenko will resolve this issue the way he did with Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), appointing him Christ.

Missed longitude

The theoretical design of NH is largely based on astronomical events reflected in Ptolemy’s star catalog “Almagest”, which, according to Fomenko, was not compiled in the 2nd century BC. e., as is customary, and in the 10th century AD. e. In this regard, the history of the Ancient World in NH was “rejuvenated” by more than 1000 years.
Using the modern coordinates of the celestial bodies, it is indeed possible to calculate at what time the stars occupied the position reflected in the Almagest (for this, it is taken into account that the longitude of the stars increases by 1 degree every 72 years). The gigantic error in Fomenko’s calculations, according to astronomers, lies in the fact that he does not base them on the longitudes of stars, which gives accurate results, but only on latitudes, where the accuracy of the calculations is extremely low.
According to astronomy professor Yuri Efremov, in order to avoid calculations based on the longitudes of stars, Fomenko directly falsified Ptolemy’s data and stated that the Almagest does not indicate the starting point for longitudes. Whereas it is enough to open the 7th part of book No. 11 and make sure that the Alexandrian astronomer already indicates the first zodiac sign of Aries in the coordinate system by longitude.

Unforgivable oversight

Fomenko is also very inconsistent in relation to the radiocarbon dating method. On the one hand, he questions the effectiveness of the method, on the other, he speaks favorably of some cases of its use. In particular, about the dating of the “Shroud of Turin”, he writes that it was done “with a conscientious assessment of accuracy.” However, if radiocarbon analysis had shown that the shroud was made not in the 14th century, but in the 1st century, then we would hardly expect a positive assessment from the mathematician.
The very characteristics of the radiocarbon analysis method given by Fomenko indicate his incompetence in this matter. He writes: “The method is perhaps more or less effective only when analyzing extremely ancient objects, hundreds of thousands of years old.” In fact, given that the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, it makes no sense to use it in dating artifacts older than 50 thousand years.

And the time is different, and the place is different

Many are surprised by the ease with which Fomenko postpones events for entire centuries, focusing only on a fact taken out of context and by no means indisputable. Thus, he interprets the eclipse of 431 BC described by Thucydides. e. in Athens as complete. But since, according to astronomical data, it was partial, the scientist moves it to the next convenient date, when the eclipse was actually total - 1039 AD. e., and at the same time transfers Thucydides himself to this era.
Fomenko does the same with the location of a particular event, for example, the Battle of Kulikovo. Considering that archaeologists found no traces of a serious battle on the Kulikovo field in the Tula region, and the field is not enough to accommodate thousands of troops, Fomenko comes to the conclusion that the battle took place elsewhere. He finds it in Moscow in the area of ​​​​present-day Kitai-Gorod, which allegedly proves the name of the temple built there - the Church of All Saints on Kulishi.

Play on words

According to linguist Andrei Zaliznyak, the methods of linguistic analysis used by the authors of NH are at the most primitive level. In particular, the scientist draws attention to Fomenko’s neglect of vowels. So the word “Mongols” is transformed into mougoulioi, and then megaloi, and is categorically translated as “great”.
Linguists also reveal an amateurish approach when Fomenko attempts to identify Russians with some European peoples, completely ignoring the morphology of words. As an argument for the identity of Russians with the Irish, the mathematician focuses on some similarity between the words Irish and Russian, ignoring the fact that ish is a suffix, and uss is part of the root.

Definitely a falsification

According to the “New Chronology”, the main argument of the fallacy of all traditional science is that it is based on an initially falsified history. If you believe Fomenko, then in Russia in the 17th–18th centuries there was an entire service whose only job was to rewrite history to please the Romanovs.
Only the authors of NH are silent on an important detail: in order for the fictitious history to look plausible, it is necessary not only to remove and rewrite all domestic chronicles, but also to pull off a similar scam in other states, whose chronicles reflect the events of ancient Russian history.
But Fomenko and Nosovsky go further and believe that archaeological data was also falsified. As the medievalist historian Valentin Yanin notes, the assertion that such huge material was forged maliciously is in principle impossible. As an example, he names the number of cubic meters of all cultural layers of Novgorod - about 10 million. “That’s exactly how much, if you follow Fomenko’s logic, the evil Romanovs moved. And let the Department of Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences calculate how many supplies are needed to transport such a quantity of soil from the Volga to the Volkhov,” the academician concludes.

NEW CHRONOLOGY of Fomenko-Nosovsky

NEW CHRONOLOGY of Fomenko-Nosovsky (abbr. NH), chronology of historical events of antiquity and the Middle Ages, built in 1973-2006 by Russian mathematicians academician A. T. Fomenko (cm. FOMENKO Anatoly Timofeevich) and G.V.Nosovsky (cm. NOSOVSKY Gleb Vladimirovich)(who joined Fomenko’s research in 1981) using natural scientific dating methods.
NH does not rely on the generally accepted “historical” chronology of Scaliger (cm. SCALIGER Joseph Juste)-Petavius (cm. PETAVIUS), created in the 16th-17th centuries, and differs significantly from the latter. The difference in dates between NH and the Scaliger-Petavius ​​chronology disappears after the 15th century AD, however, in terms of historical reconstructions, NH also differs significantly from Scaliger’s version until the 17th century, and in some cases later. According to NH, the history of mankind known from written sources was much shorter than is commonly believed in Scaliger’s chronology. So, for example, the most ancient events about which written evidence has been preserved belong, in accordance with the New Testament, to the 9-11th centuries AD, the Nativity of Christ - to 1151 or 1152 AD, the Trojan War, also known as the Crusades campaigns - by the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century AD, the adoption of apostolic Christianity in the Empire - by the second half of the 14th century.
In accordance with the hypothetical reconstruction of history proposed by Fomenko and Nosovsky, the era of the Ancient and Medieval world was the era of control of the entire civilized world from a single center - the capital of the Great Medieval Empire. The capital of the Empire moved from south to north over time: in the 9th-10th centuries AD. it was supposedly located in African Egypt and controlled only the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, in the 12th-13th centuries - in Constantinople on the Bosphorus, in the 14th-16th centuries - in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. At the end of its existence, in the 16th century, the Great Empire no longer covered not only North Africa and Eurasia, but also America. On the ruins of the Empire in the 17th century, all the later independent states of the East and West were formed. At the same time, the era of the Ancient World (also known as “ancient”) lasted from the 12th to the mid-14th century and was the time of the dominance of “royal”, tribal Christianity, which was very different from the now familiar apostolic Christianity. In the second half of the 14th century, apostolic Christianity defeats tribal Christianity and declares it “paganism.” This event is known as the adoption of Christianity in the Empire under Constantine the Great, aka Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy (cm. DMITRY Donskoy). Then the Christian Middle Ages begins, which lasts about 200 years - until the beginning of the 17th century. After which comes the New Time.
History of the development of the New Chronology
De Arcilla - 16th century, professor at the University of Salamanca. Information about his chronological research is very vague. It is known that in his works de Arcilla argued that all ancient history was composed in the Middle Ages.
Isaac Newton (cm. NEWTON Isaac)(1643-1727) - great English scientist, mathematician, physicist. He devoted many years of his life to studying chronology. He published a large work, “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended. To which is Prefix”d, A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great”).
Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) - a prominent French scientist, author of numerous works on philology, theology, history, archeology, and numismatics. Director of the French Royal Library. The author of several books on chronology, where he sharply criticized the entire edifice of Scaligerian history. In his opinion, most of the “monuments of antiquity” were made significantly later or are fakes.
Pyotr Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763), personal secretary of Peter I, in his book criticized the version of Roman history accepted today.
Robert Baldauf - German philologist of the second half of the 19th century - early 20th century, privatdozent at the University of Basel. Author of the book “History and Criticism” (4 volumes). Based on philological considerations, he concluded that the monuments of “ancient” literature are of later origin (created in the Middle Ages).
Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) - an English historian of the 19th century, subjected the Scaligerian chronology to serious criticism and argued that it needed to be significantly shortened.
Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (cm. MOROZOV Nikolai Alexandrovich)(1854-1946) - an outstanding Russian scientist and encyclopedist. Made a breakthrough in chronology research. Subjected extensive criticism to the Scaligerian version of chronology and history. He proposed ideas for several new natural science methods for analyzing chronology. In fact, he was the first to turn chronology into a science.
Wilhelm Kammeier (late 19th century - 1959) - German scientist, lawyer. He developed a method for determining the authenticity of ancient official documents. I discovered that almost all ancient and early medieval Western European documents are in fact later forgeries or copies. Concluded that ancient and medieval history was fake. I have written several works on this topic.
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) - psychoanalyst (born in Russia). Lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany, USA. He wrote a number of books on the topic of ancient history, where he noted some contradictions and oddities. I made an attempt to explain them using the “theory of catastrophism.” In the West, he is considered the founder of the critical school of chronology, although, in fact, he is not the predecessor of NH, since he tried to protect Scaliger’s chronology from too radical transformations.
The second stage is associated with the name of N. A. Morozov, who for the first time clearly formulated the idea that Scaligerian chronology needs a radical restructuring not only in relation to ancient times, but up to the 6th century AD. Morozov developed a number of new natural scientific methods for analyzing chronology and provided evidence in favor of his ideas. In the period 1907-1932 he published his main books on the criticism of ancient history. However, he mistakenly believed that the chronology after the 6th century AD. more or less correct and thus stopped short of reaching its logical conclusion.
The third stage (1945-1973) is the period when historical science consigns the chronological research of Morozov and his predecessors to oblivion. In Russia, the discussion about chronology stops; in the West, it is confined to the framework of Velikovsky’s hypothesis about “catastrophism.”
The fourth stage (1973-1980) is associated with the name of Fomenko. The main attention at this stage was paid to the creation of new mathematical and statistical methods for analyzing historical texts. In 1975-1979, Fomenko proposed several such new methods and, with their help, revealed the global picture of chronological redates in Scaliger’s version. In particular, he discovered three important shifts in the chronological version of Scaliger - approximately 333 years, 1053 years and 1800 years. In the period 1973-1980, Fomenko's first scientific publications on the new chronology appeared in special mathematical journals.
The fifth stage (1981-2000) is associated with the completion of the overall development of the National Economy and the historical reconstruction based on it. The results were published in a series of books on the New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky in Russian, English and some other languages. (see chronologia.org).
New Chronology Methods
Independent natural scientific dating methods used in NH are divided into three main groups.
The first group is mathematical and statistical methods for processing formalized dating information extracted from written historical sources. Based on empirical-statistical models calibrated based on reliable historical material, they make it possible to divide historical eras into pairs that are dependent and independent of each other, thanks to which it ultimately becomes possible to restore the correct chronological order of fragments of chronicles. This group of methods has a wide range of application, is resistant to distortion and is almost insensitive to local changes in sources, since it relies only on their global characteristics, which are beyond the control of scribes or chroniclers. However, mathematical and statistical methods do not allow obtaining exact absolute dates; they provide only a system of relative dating.
The second group is astronomical and calendar-astronomical methods, which have a much narrower scope of application than mathematical and statistical methods, since they require a source containing a sufficient amount of reliable astronomical information. However, these methods lead to accurate absolute dating.
The combination of relative dating obtained by mathematical-statistical methods and absolute astronomical dating lies at the basis of NK.
The third group is physical methods of independent dating (radiocarbon dating and other physical methods). In principle, they can find application in NK, but require preliminary refinement and calibration. As part of the research on NH, an analysis of the accuracy and applicability of radiocarbon and other physical dating methods was carried out. It has been shown that the results obtained using the currently generally accepted method of using the radiocarbon method for dating archaeological samples cannot be considered reliable (see also the website chronologia.org).
The first group includes the following methods:
The method of local maxima (Fomenko), based on the analysis of the volumes of chronological segments of chronicles. The idea of ​​​​using volumes for chronological purposes belongs to Fomenko, he also belongs to the formulation of the model and the development of the corresponding empirical-statistical method.
The method of numerical dynasties (Fomenko), based on the analysis of the duration of reigns in dynasties. The idea of ​​using this information for chronological purposes belongs to Morozov, who used it, but only on an intuitive level. The mathematical model and the corresponding empirical-statistical method were developed by Fomenko and applied by him to extensive historical material. As a result, a number of overlapping pairs of dynasties were identified, previously considered completely different and even belonging to eras distant from each other.
A method for organizing historical texts in time (Fomenko), based on the formulated and experimentally tested principle of attenuation of frequencies of mentions of full proper names in historical chronicles without duplicates and the principle of duplication of these frequencies in historical chronicles with duplicates. Using this method, Fomenko studied, in particular, the chronology of historical events described in the Bible. Both previously known repetitions of historical descriptions in it, as well as new, previously unknown duplicates, were discovered. The general picture of repetitions in the Bible has been revealed.
Histogram method (cm. BAR CHART) frequencies of related names (Fomenko, Nosovsky) is based on the analysis of indirect dependencies in the distribution of chronicle names. This method is applicable to both full proper and simple (incomplete) names. The use of simple proper names allows you to expand the amount of information involved and increase the accuracy of statistical conclusions. This method allows you to identify duplicates in chronicles and calculate time shifts between them. The method is especially useful in cases where there are many duplicates, and the overall picture of “repetitions in the chronicle” is quite confusing. This method, applied by Fomenko and Nosovsky to biblical and European history, made it possible to identify systems of chronological shifts in its individual parts.
The method of connection matrices (Fomenko, Nosovsky), which allows one to study dynastic lists of names in order to detect duplicates in them, as well as places where the chronicles from which a given dynastic history was compiled were connected. Like the previous one, this method is based on indirect dependencies in the distribution of names, but unlike it, it is not aimed at calculating typical shifts between duplicates, but at searching for specific segments that duplicate each other and identifying statistically homogeneous fragments. The method applied to the dynastic lists of the Ancient and Medieval world, covering the history of Europe, Asia, North Africa, and China, made it possible to detect systems of duplicates in these lists and find places of “seams” between their heterogeneous parts.
The method of questionnaire-codes (Fomenko), based on comparing two streams of biographies of rulers in order to detect statistically significant repetitions in them. The method has been effective in identifying parts of a larger chronicle that are different versions of the same shorter chronicle.
A method of correct chronological ordering of geographical maps (Fomenko), based on the development of a special questionnaire for a geographical map, reflecting its main features. A method was developed for comparing ancient maps by the number of features that correspond to geographical reality or contradict it. Using this method, it is often possible to determine which geographical maps were created earlier and which later.
The second group includes astronomical methods:
The method of unbiased dating of ancient lunar and solar eclipses (Morozov, Fomenko) was first proposed by Morozov, subsequently developed and systematically applied by Fomenko. The idea of ​​the method is that the data on eclipses contained in the original source are taken “as is” without adjustments to Scaliger’s chronology. Then the distribution in time of the obtained astronomical datings is analyzed. If this distribution reveals a pronounced condensation in a certain period of time, then the conclusion is drawn that this period is the correct dating of the era of “antiquity”. For example: the triad of eclipses described in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian Wars (cm. THUCYDIDES)(5th century BC according to Scaliger's chronology). Unbiased dating of the triad gives only two solutions: either the 11th century AD. (1039, 1046, 1057); or 12th century AD (1133, 1140, 1151).
Method for checking global chronology using the second derivative of lunar elongation (cm. ELONGATION) D"" (Fomenko), based on the idea of ​​the American astronomer Robert Newton that, using dating of ancient and medieval eclipses, it is possible to determine the dependence of the parameter D"" on time. According to modern astrophysical theory, this parameter remains approximately constant over the centuries. Therefore, if the value of D"" calculated from the dating of ancient eclipses turns out to vary significantly over time, then the totality of these datings is incorrect. The method allows us to conclude that the dating of eclipses in Scaliger's chronology is incorrect. On the contrary, the datings of eclipses proposed in NH stand up to the test of this method.
Horoscope of the Apocalypse (Morozov, Fomenko, Nosovsky). The credit for discovering the astronomical implications in the biblical Apocalypse and deciphering the corresponding horoscope (the arrangement of planets by constellations) belongs to Morozov. However, scientists were offered an insufficiently substantiated date for the horoscope he discovered (supposedly 4th century AD). A thorough study conducted by Fomenko and Nosovsky showed that the horoscope of the Apocalypse, and therefore the Apocalypse itself, dates back to 1486 AD.
Dating of the Almagest star catalog (cm. PTOLEMY Claudius)(V.V. Kalashnikov, Nosovsky, Fomenko). A method of statistical and geometric analysis of ancient star catalogs and their dating based on the proper movements of stars. The proper motion velocities of stars were only reliably measured in the 19th and 20th centuries, so this method is a completely independent method for the absolute dating of star catalogs published before the beginning of the 19th century. The method, developed in 1991-1993, was applied to a number of ancient catalogs with known “historical” dates: the ancient Ptolemaic catalog from the Almagest, the Sufi catalog (cm. SUFI Abdarrahman), Ulugbek's catalog (cm. ULUGBEK), catalog of Tycho Brahe (cm. BRAHE Quiet). The dates of the catalogs of Ulugbek (15th century) and Tycho Brahe (16th century) have been confirmed. The dating of the Almagest catalog differed significantly from the Scaligerian chronology, where it was dated to the 1st century AD. Namely, the most ancient part of the Almagest catalog, containing the basis stars for the entire catalog, was compiled from observations made between 600 AD. to 1300 AD The Sufi catalog turned out to be nothing more than a variant of the Ptolemaic catalog, reduced to a different era by precession (cm. PRECESSION) longitude The obtained result proves the fallacy of the Scaliger-Petavius ​​chronology as a whole, since the interpretation of the calendar and astronomical information of the Almagest, based on incorrect dating, is one of the cornerstones of the Scaligerian chronology.
Method of dating the ancient Egyptian zodiacs (Fomenko, Nosovsky). The Egyptian zodiacs have attracted the close attention of researchers for about 200 years, starting from the time of Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1799. They tried to decipher them in different ways, but no satisfactory astronomical dating belonging to the Scaligerian era of Ancient Egypt was obtained. At the beginning of the 20th century, Morozov showed that a number of Egyptian zodiacs can be deciphered, leading to medieval dates. However, Morozov, like his predecessors, deciphered the zodiacs only partially, discarding a significant number of “extra symbols” that, in his opinion, were not related to the astronomical content of the zodiac. This approach turned out to be wrong. In 2002, Fomenko and Nosovsky for the first time received a complete decoding of the Egyptian zodiacs, including all the symbols present on them. It turned out that the date on the zodiac was recorded using several horoscopes (locations of planets according to constellations), one of which was complete (i.e. included all the planets of antiquity) and corresponded to this date, and the others were partial, including themselves only the circumsolar planets on the days of the equinoxes and solstices of the calendar year to which the main date belonged. The discovery of private horoscopes made it possible to calculate the decoding of the zodiac and prove it thanks to the redundant information contained in private horoscopes. For example, the dates of the famous Dendera zodiacs were finally calculated (cm. DENDERA)(Round zodiac - 1185 AD, Long zodiac - 1168 AD) and zodiacs from Esna (Large Esna zodiac - 1394 AD, Small Esna zodiac - 1404 AD).
In 2003, Fomenko and Nosovsky also deciphered the Egyptian zodiacs of the “Theban type,” which were considered “very ancient” and could not be deciphered. These, in particular, include all the funeral zodiacs of the pharaohs from the Valley of the Kings that have survived to this day: Seti I (969 AD), Ramesses IV (1146 AD or 1325 AD), Ramesses VI (1289 AD .BC or 1586 AD), Ramesses VII (1182 AD), Ramesses IX (1148 AD). Deciphering the Egyptian zodiacs made it possible to more fully understand the symbolism of ancient European zodiacs, some of which were deciphered and dated by Fomenko and Nosovsky in 2003-2006.
The main provisions of the hypothetical historical reconstruction based on the New Chronology
According to NH, the written history of mankind emerges from the darkness and becomes partially known to us only starting from the 10th century. All ancient documents that have reached our time, including those today classified as “antiquity,” actually describe the events of the 10th-17th centuries. Many of them are forcibly sent into the distant past by incorrect chronology. It is important to understand that the vast majority of old documents have come to us in the late edition of the 17th and 18th centuries.
The era of the 10th-11th centuries is extremely dark, on which a very small number of surviving documents shed light. The reconstruction of the events of the 10th-11th centuries is still far from complete.
Apparently, in the era of the 10th-11th centuries, the Ancient Roman Empire arose in the Mediterranean, the cradle of the future Great Medieval Empire. The first capital of Romea was probably the city of Cairo (Babylon) in Egypt. By the beginning of the 12th century, the capital had already moved north, to the Bosphorus Strait, where Constantinople arose, also known as the Gospel Jerusalem and ancient Troy. The Roman Kingdom of the 12th century included various lands (themes (cm. FEMALES)), who had local self-government. One of them, probably the largest, was Rus'.
In the middle of the 12th century, in 1152, Jesus Christ is born (cm. JESUS ​​CHRIST). In secular Byzantine history he was reflected as Emperor Andronicus, in Russian history as Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky, and also as the Apostle Andrew the First-Called. The Mother of God Mary, the mother of Andronicus-Christ, was most likely from Rus'. His father (Evangelical Joseph) belonged to the royal family ruling in Constantinople. The family of Andronicus-Christ spent a lot of time in Rus', where they fled to escape persecution in Constantinople. This event is described in the Gospels as the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt from King Herod. In the Bible, the word “Egypt” is often used to refer to Rus'.
Returning to Constantinople and becoming king there in 1183, Andronik-Christ severely suppressed bribery and tried to make life easier for the common people, which led to the rapid development of trade and agriculture, but aroused the hatred of a certain part of the nobility. In 1185, a rebellion broke out in Constantinople. King Andronicus-Christ was captured, tortured and crucified on Mount Beikos (Gospel Golgotha), located on the Asian shore of the Bosphorus, near Constantinople (Jerusalem). Here, to this day, a huge symbolic “grave of Saint Jesus (Yusha)” has been preserved - a fenced-in plot of land, approximately 3x17 meters in size, where Christ was crucified in 1185.
After the execution of Christ in 1185, a new dynasty of Angels came to power, belonging to the same extensive royal family as Andronicus-Christ himself (in the Gospels, representatives of this family are called “Jews”). Today it is believed that “Angels” in this case is a generic name. However, most likely, in the time of Andronicus-Christ, the word “angels” meant royal officials in general. Hence the angels, the “ranks of angels” - the servants of God. After Hadronicus-Christ, “rebellious angels” came to power. Perhaps this is where the famous story in Holy Scripture comes from about Satan, an evil angel who rebelled against God and wanted to become God himself.
The execution of Christ caused an explosion of indignation both in the capital itself and in the regions of the Roman Empire, especially in Rus', the homeland of Mary the Virgin. At the end of the 12th century, at the call of the Apostle Paul, the Crusade against Constantinople began with the aim of avenging the execution of Christ. Rus' takes the lead in the campaign. A bloody war breaks out, then multiplied in the Scaligerian version under several names, in particular, as the famous “ancient” Trojan War (cm. TROJAN WAR) supposedly 13th century BC For example, the famous hero of the Trojan War Achilles is known in Russian chronicles as Grand Duke Svyatoslav Igorevich. Constantinople (Troy) was taken in 1204, plundered and burned.
After the fall of Constantinople, at the beginning of the 13th century AD, a long period of unrest ensued in the Roman kingdom. The regions separated from the capital and became independent. Civil strife broke out. One of the representatives of the royal family, Aeneas-John, a relative and disciple of Andronicus-Christ, left the destroyed capital of the kingdom and headed with his companions to Rus', where his ancestors were from. The journey of Aeneas-John is described, in particular, by the “ancient” Virgil (cm. VIRGIL (poet)) in his famous poem "Aeneid".
Arriving in Rus', King Aeneas-John discovered a powerful and rich country here, which, however, was fragmented into separate principalities ruled by rival prince-khans. Being a descendant of an ancient and respected royal family, after a long armed struggle, King Aeneas-John takes power into his own hands, unites the Russian lands under a single administration in the city of Yaroslavl on the Volga and establishes a new dynasty in Rus'. This was the famous “calling of the Varangians to Rus'” and the founding by Rurik (cm. RYURIK (prince)) Veliky Novgorod (that is, Yaroslavl). In Latin literature, these and subsequent events were reflected as the founding of Rome by Romulus (cm. ROMULUS) and Rem (cm. REM (in Rome)), descendants of Aeneas. Thus, “ancient” Tsarist Rome arose in Rus' in the area between the Oka and Volga rivers in the 13th century AD.
By the end of the 13th century, the most modern and numerous army at that time was created in Rus' (in “ancient Rome”) - a horde, based on the enormous natural wealth and resources of the country. Its backbone consisted of mounted troops - Cossacks. At the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century, under the Tsar-Khans of the Great Russian Empire, George of Moscow and his brother Ivan Kalita (cm. IVAN I Kalita) The Great Conquest was launched with the goal of restoring the Ancient Roman Empire. But in essence, a new, much more extensive Empire was created, which extended its power not only along waterways (like Ancient Romea), but also over land. The vast interior spaces of Asia and Europe, far from waterways, were first explored and annexed to the Empire.
In the later version of Russian history, created after the collapse of the Great Russian Empire, the era of the 12-15 centuries was deliberately presented in a distorted light, as the alleged “Tatar-Mongol yoke” in Rus'. According to the reconstruction of Fomenko-Nosovsky, the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” was a special, Horde era in the history of Rus', when the entire population of the country was divided into two parts - the civilian population, controlled by princes, and the permanent, non-disbanding army, the horde. At the head of the horde was a king or khan, who held supreme power in the Empire. Thus, in the Russian state of that time, two branches of power acted hand in hand: the military in the horde and the civilian in the localities. At the same time, Rus' (civilian population) paid tribute to the horde (troops) in property - tithes and blood tribute - for every tenth male child. But it was not a tribute to the conquerors, as historians believe. It was a tax on the maintenance of one’s own army - the horde and military recruitment into it. For refusal to pay tribute, the military authorities punished the population with punitive campaigns in the offending region. These were supposedly “Tatar raids on Russian regions.” The remnants of the old Russian horde were later the Cossack troops.
Thus, in the 14th century, a huge Great = “Mongol” empire emerged with its center in Rus'. It is also the “ancient” Roman Empire. At that time, it covered almost all of Eurasia and a significant part of Africa, including South Africa. Including African Egypt, the Nile Valley, where the ancestral royal cemetery of the Empire has long been located. The choice of location, among other things, was also determined by the unique conditions of Egypt. The dry and hot climate contributed to the good preservation of the remains. It was here that, after death, the Horde king-khans, their relatives, courtiers, governors, etc. were transported in embalmed form on Horde plow ships across the Mediterranean Sea - the “ancient River Styx”. Embalming itself was invented specifically in order to preserve the bodies of the dead during long transportation from places far from African Egypt. People who died in Egypt did not need to be embalmed, since mummification occurs naturally in the hot sands of Egypt.
In the 14th-15th centuries, all the numerous regions of the Empire (including those significantly removed from Rus'-Horde) were ruled by governors subordinate to the supreme Horde king-khan. Western European chronicles call the Russian Tsar simply emperor, considering him the only one in the world. They are right about this. The Russian-Horde dynasty of king-khans was reflected on the pages of Western European chronicles as the “imperial dynasty of the Habsburgs” (cm. HABSBURG)» era of the 14th-15th centuries. The attitude towards Rus'-Horde and its king-khans in the provinces of the Empire, being extremely respectful, often reached the point of deification. In some places remote from the capital, various legends and myths arose about powerful and omnipresent gods feasting on distant and inaccessible Olympus.
Our contemporary nations and nationalities probably did not exist in that distant era. They most likely emerged only in the 17th and 18th centuries, after the split of the Empire. During its existence, the Empire created several “sacred” languages, intended both for recording the Holy Scriptures and for government records. Initially these were Egyptian hieroglyphs, then Arabic, and then medieval Greek and Church Slavonic. “Ancient” Latin and “ancient” Greek were created later, during the era of the collapse of the Empire, based mainly on the Church Slavonic language. The spoken languages ​​in Rus' were Russian (that is, simplified Church Slavonic) and Turkic (Tatar) languages.
The creed of the Empire in the 13th and 14th centuries was “royal” (“tribal”) Christianity. In the 12th century, two main branches of Christianity emerged from Andronicus-Christ. The first direction is apostolic Christianity, preached by the disciples of Christ. His supporters deified Christ himself, but not his relatives or subsequent emperors. The second direction is tribal Christianity, which arose in the royal family of Christ after his crucifixion. Tribal Christianity largely inherited the spirit of previous family religions, when people worshiped the gods of their own family, their own relatives. The “royal” Christians demanded that subsequent emperors, by right of relatives of Christ, also be numbered among the gods and that they be given appropriate honors. This demand caused sharp opposition from apostolic Christians. Relations between the two branches of Christianity, initially friendly, began to deteriorate and turned into openly hostile. In the 14th century, probably after the victory of the Great Conquest, cruel persecution of Apostolic Christians by the emperors began. However, by this time, Apostolic Christianity was already a significant force, had its own hierarchy, numerous churches and monasteries, in which, in particular, almost all scientific research of that time was carried out. Apostolic Christianity, which had long remained submissive to power despite dogmatic differences, finally began to fight against it.
In 1380 in the grandiose Battle of Kulikovo (cm. BATTLE OF KULIKOVO) Grand Duke Dmitry Donskoy, aka Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, relying on apostolic Christians, defeated Khan Mamai (aka Ivan Velyaminov of Russian chronicles, aka Emperor Maxentius). The victory was ensured by new weapons invented in the apostolic monasteries in Rus'. Namely, gunpowder and cannons were invented. The first cannons were probably wooden and made from oak trunks. The inventor of cannons is most likely Saint Sergius of Radonezh (cm. Sergius of Radonezh). The discovery of a new, unheard of weapon was skillfully used by the apostolic Christians in their fight against the “heretic” emperors. At a critical moment, just before the Battle of Kulikovo, the guns were placed at the disposal of Dmitry Donskoy, who came out in support of apostolic Christianity. Opponents of Dmitry, supporters of “royal” Christianity united under the banner of Khan Mamai (Ivan Venyaminov, Maxentius of the Roman Chronicles). The main military forces of the Empire were on their side and they did not have the slightest doubt about their victory. Dmitry (Constantine the Great) could only rely on the militia. But he had firearms - cannons, which the enemy did not know about. It was the guns - the “Christian weapons” - that decided the outcome of the Battle of Kulikovo. They probably did not so much defeat the manpower as instill terror in the enemy. Dmitry's victory was perceived by his contemporaries as a miracle. Having won the Battle of Kulikovo, Emperor Dmitry Donskoy (Constantine the Great) made apostolic Christianity the state religion of the entire Great Empire.
The Battle of Kulikovo did not take place in the vicinity of Tula, as historians think, but on the site of modern Moscow. In 1380 Moscow was still a small settlement. The Kulikovo Field was located not far from the Moscow River, between the Yauza and Neglinka, near modern Slavyanskaya Square. Due to its enormous significance, the Battle of Kulikovo was reflected on the pages of numerous chronicles, including those declared today to be “ancient”. For example, in the History of Rome by Titus Livy (cm. LIVIUS Titus), in the Old Testament (in particular, as the duel between David and Goliath), in the “ancient” Aryan epic of India (as the battle on the Kuru field), in Western European chronicles, etc.
At the end of the 14th century, Dmitry Donskoy (Constantine the Great) moved the capital of the Empire from Rus' to the Bosphorus, closer to the site of ancient Constantinople (Jerusalem), where Christ was crucified. However, he did not leave the ancient Constantinople as the capital, but built a new city - Constantinople at the other end of the Bosphorus, about 30-40 km from the ancient capital of Romea. The royal court and many people arrived in Constantinople from Rus'. This event in the Scaligerian version is known as the transfer of the capital by Constantine the Great from “Old Rome” to “New Rome”. However, after the death of Dmitry-Constantine, Rus' refused to submit to Constantinople, and its own king-khans established themselves there. For some time, two dynastic branches arose - in Rus' and in Constantinople.
During this era, the Empire faced a new, unprecedented mortal danger. In the 14th-15th centuries, after the Great Conquest, a network of caravan routes was created, covering vast areas of Eurasia. This led to an unexpected and very serious test for the state. Infectious diseases have become much more widespread than before. If earlier epidemics, breaking out in one place or another, died out there, now diseases quickly spread along established caravan routes. Mass epidemics began in the Empire, the primary foci of which were in the southern regions. Vaccines have not yet been created. To stop the catastrophic spread of diseases, the Horde authorities in Rus' sent troops to the south and west with an unquestioning order to exterminate the entire population of the infected areas, to carry out a “cleansing” among the descendants of the first wave of conquerors, that is, in fact, their own brothers. The Bible describes this 15th-century campaign as the conquest of the “promised land” by the armies of Moses and Joshua. This was the second wave of world conquest that came out of Rus'. In history it is known as the Ottoman conquest.
Tension arose between the two capitals of the Empire, Veliky Novgorod (Yaroslavl) and Constantinople. The Russian-Horde khans looked with displeasure at their southern co-rulers, considering them guilty of the troubles that befell the Empire. The Russians did not like the “ancient” culture and customs, considering their “ancient” brothers to be softened, mired in pleasures, etc. Differences in faith began. War broke out. In 1453, Ottoman (Russian) troops took Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul.
Resistance that broke out in Southern and Western Europe was brutally suppressed by Ottoman troops. However, this came at a high price. Too many people were exterminated. Including the healthy population, since during the war the Cossacks were hardly able to distinguish the sick from the healthy. The tragic feelings of the people who survived this disaster were clearly reflected in the famous biblical book Apocalypse, the original version of which was created in 1486.
The Ottoman conquest (second wave) carried a very different ideology than the Great Conquest of the 14th century (first wave). If the conquerors of the first wave created “antiquity,” the Ottomans destroyed it. They believed that it was the freedom of morals of the 13-14 centuries that led to mass infectious diseases, including venereal diseases. The spirit of the Cossacks, who emerged from Rus'-Horde for the second time, was already much more ascetic and severe. Subsequently, both modern Orthodoxy and modern Islam grew out of it.
In the first half of the 16th century, the Ottoman conquest ends in complete victory. The empire reached its greatest power.
In the mid-16th century, a rebellion that broke out initially in Western Europe (the Wars of the Reformation) was spreading in the Empire. The authorities' efforts to suppress the rebellion were unsuccessful. Western European governors openly separate from the center. The rebellion takes on an unprecedented scale. Rebellious sentiments also penetrated into the tsar’s inner circle. A conspiracy takes shape in the capital, as a result of which the rebels manage to split the royal family. In Russian chronicles these events are described as the history of the “heresy of the Judaizers.” (cm. NOVGOROD-MOSCOW HERESY)": the heretic Elena Voloshanka (aka the biblical Esther), wins over Tsar Ivan III the Terrible (in fact, it was about Ivan IV the Terrible (cm. IVAN IV the Terrible) from the 16th century) and takes the place of his legal wife. The Russian Orthodox Church opposes heresy. A split arises in the state. "Zemshchina (cm. ZEMSHCHINA)"supports the old order, "oprichnina (cm. OPRICHNINA)"supports heresy. At the end of the 16th century, the schism was temporarily overcome and the heresy was defeated, but a few years later, at the beginning of the 17th century, Rus'-Horde plunged into the Great Troubles. The rebel troops, among whom there were especially many immigrants from Western Europe, march to Rus'. The old Russian-Horde royal dynasty and its immediate circle, consisting of Vladimir-Suzdal boyars, are dying. The Romanovs come to power in Moscow (cm. ROMANOV), henchmen of the rebels. A strict occupation order is being established in the country. Serfdom is introduced, in fact slavery of the bulk of the common population. Almost all aspects of Russian life are undergoing strong changes towards “Western European standards”. A widespread rewriting of history begins. In particular, the false theory of the “Tatar-Mongol yoke” in Rus' arises. The Romanovs deliberately set the peoples of Rus'-Horde against each other, driving a wedge between the Russians (Orthodox) and the Tatars (Muslims).
In Western Europe, new rulers are engaged in a fierce battle for land and influence. Heavy wars break out, known today as the "Wars of the Spanish Succession" (cm. SPANISH INHERITANCE)", then "Wars of the Austrian Succession (cm. AUSTRIAN INHERITANCE)" and so on.
In order to justify their rights to the power seized and distributed among themselves, the new rulers were forced to rewrite the history of the past. The Great Medieval Russian Empire was, if possible, erased from the pages of chronicles, many important events were deliberately pushed back into ancient times. The goal of “correcting history” was, first of all, to prevent the possibility of restoring the previous world order.
In areas of the Empire that became independent from the former metropolis, memories became increasingly foggy over time. From the common world history of the 12th-16th centuries, many, at first glance, completely independent local histories of the “great Empires” were made. The Arabs began to think that they had their own, separate from the others, Arab Empire, the Germans wrote the history of the Holy Empire of the German nation, the Chinese - the history of the Celestial Empire, the Italians - the history of the ancient Roman Empire. At the same time, various chronological errors led to the fact that reflections of the same Great Empire were assigned to different historical eras.

• 
  

The chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, which was finally created in the 16th century AD and accepted today, apparently contains major errors.
This was understood and discussed over a long period by many outstanding scientists. But constructing a new, consistent concept of chronology turned out to be a difficult task.
Beginning in 1975, a group of mathematicians, mainly from Moscow State University, began developing this problem. Interesting results were obtained, published both in scientific periodicals and in the form of separate monographs. We emphasize that the new concept of chronology is based, first of all, on the analysis of historical sources BY METHODS OF MODERN MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS and extensive COMPUTER CALCULATIONS.
The task of chronology is to correctly order events on a timeline according to the information at our disposal. This problem naturally fits into the area of ​​applications of modern mathematical statistics and information theory. The methods of purely humanities, such as history, are insufficient for solving chronological problems. The new chronology dictates a different psychological picture of the perception of antiquity. Now the word “antiquity” should be associated with the 15th-17th centuries AD, that is, with events that are 300-400 years distant from us. The expression “deep antiquity” should now refer to the 13th-14th centuries AD. And the words “deepest antiquity” are already the 11th-12th centuries AD. EARLIER 10th-11th CENTURIES A.D. THE AGE OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS IS COMING. (See the book RECONSTRUCTION).
Our analysis of chronology and history revealed a striking circumstance. Based on the mathematical methods we applied, it was proven that Scaligerian chronology, and therefore the Scaligerian history of “antiquity” and the Middle Ages, is fundamentally incorrect. Moreover, it turned out that our history up to the end of the 16th century was deliberately falsified in the era of the 17th-18th centuries.

BOOKS ON THE NEW CHRONOLOGY

Quite a lot of books have been written on the New Chronology. Let us emphasize that the New Chronology is not yet an established, rapidly developing science, and books are published as it develops. This is precisely what explains that books on the New Chronology still cannot be arranged into a single general chain that sets out everything from A to Z without repetition. Nevertheless, the authors make considerable efforts to do this. As a result, the SEMI-VOLUME "First Canon" [KHRON1]-[KHRON7] was created under the general editorship of A.T. Fomenko, which fully sets out everything that was done in the New Chronology until 2002.
The text of the SEMIVOLUME is posted in its entirety on this website (see links on the right).
Moreover, it can be searched in the box at the top of this page.
However, at present, the Seven Volume Book is far from exhausting what was done in the New Chronology.
If we talk about all the books in the New Chronology, some of them are outdated and are no longer reprinted, some repeat the previous ones in an updated and revised form, some are popular or abbreviated versions of other books, some are full-color illustrated editions.
Nevertheless, today we can highlight books that can be conditionally called the “GOLDEN SERIES”. Since 2006, they have been published in golden-colored covers (with the only exception of “The Baptism of Rus',” which was published in a dark cover). These books were written “on the fresh trail” of our research and contain ONLY NEW developments (with the exception of the edition “Rus and Rome”, about which below).
At the same time, the “golden” books (except for “Rus and Rome”) are not intended for initial study, since they require the reader to be familiar with both the basics of the New Chronology and the previously published books of the “Golden Series”.

The books of the SEMI-VOLUME and the “golden” books that continue it must be read in the following sequence:

SEMITOMNIK:
A1. Foundations of history
A2. Methods
A3. Stars
A4. New chronology of Rus'
A5. Empire
A6. Biblical Rus'
A7. Reconstruction

Further research on the New Chronology is divided into two series (B and D), which can be read independently of each other:

B5. Cossacks-Aryans: from Rus' to India
B6. Tsarist Rome between the Oka and Volga rivers
B7. Christ and Russia
B8. The conquest of America by Ermak-Cortes and the rebellion of the Reformation through the eyes of the “ancient” Greeks
B9. Lost Gospels
B10. Schism of the Empire
B12. Hercules
B13. Prophet Conqueror
B14. Old maps of the Great Russian Empire
B15. Shahnameh

The book “Moscow in the light of the New Chronology,” although it belongs to the “golden series,” but, unlike the “golden” books listed above, is dedicated not to new discoveries, but to the city of Moscow in the light of the New Chronology. It collects and organizes everything that we wrote about Moscow in our other books on a variety of occasions.

The following books are intended for initial study:

• "Rus and Rome"(there is an edition in two large volumes and another, cheaper edition in seven small ones). The contents of the SEVENTY VOLUME "The First Canon" are presented in an abbreviated, popular form.
• Series "New Chronology for Everyone". Written as a TEXTBOOK on the new chronology, covering, among other things, its most recent achievements.
  The series began publication in 2007. By 2010, 10 small-format volumes had been published. The publication continues.
• Series "New chronology. Small series". It consists of small paperback books, each of which is devoted to only one, but key issue for understanding our history. All books of the Small Series are written in such a way that they can be read independently of each other, as well as from other books on the New Chronology. This series is intended, in particular, for those who want, without spending a lot of time, to get acquainted with the essence of the matter using individual vivid examples and understand whether it is interesting to him or not.

Naturally, most of what is written in the books of the Small Series or the “New Chronology for Everyone” series can be found on the pages of the “golden” books and in the SEMI-VOLUME BOOK.
It is also natural that there are intersections between the “Small Series” and the “New Chronology for Everyone”.

A complete list of out-of-print books on the New Chronology - including those that are no longer in print - can be viewed by following the link<<Список книг по НХ (в том числе те, которые уже не переиздаются) >> .

Below on this page are presented all the books on the New Chronology that are currently on sale. At the top we post announcements of new books as they are published.

A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovsky

Rus' that was-2. Alternative version of history Maximov Albert Vasilievich

HYPOTHESIS OF NOSOVSKY AND FOMENKO

HYPOTHESIS OF NOSOVSKY AND FOMENKO

Gleb Nosovsky and Anatoly Fomenko put forward the hypothesis that the historical Veliky Novgorod is actually Yaroslavl, i.e. between modern Yaroslavl and the chronicle Novgorod one can put an equal sign: Yaroslavl = Novgorod. Even from a geographical point of view, the leap is unthinkable - 500 kilometers! What can we say about history? The foundations of its traditional version are cracking more and more at all the seams every year, sowing panic among historians resting on their laurels. However, I got excited about panic. Historians prefer to ignore alternative hypotheses. Well, it is their right to reject new ideas or simply remain silent. But at the same time, they ignore REASONED criticism of the errors of their traditional version, which, from my point of view, once again confirms: the traditional version is REALLY WRONG in many ways!

One of these fake mistakes is the situation with the chronicle Novgorod. Fomenko and Nosovsky provided a number of evidence that Yaroslavl is Novgorod. This evidence can be divided into two groups: evidence that modern Novgorod-on-Volkhov could not be the Great, as traditional history claims, and linking the chronicle Novgorod with Yaroslavl.

Finding the truth in this matter is of fundamental importance for the entire ancient Russian history; it began with Novgorod. Therefore, special attention must be paid to consideration of this issue. It turned out that I had collected a lot of textural material in favor of the hypothesis of Nosovsky and Fomenko. But before we begin to present this evidence, let us briefly review the material cited by these authors in support of their hypothesis.

So, first of all, it should be noted that large-scale excavations, which have been ongoing in Novgorod for more than fifty years, have not led to any significant discoveries. The birch bark letters found there did not give anything significant to history, since at their core they represent only everyday records. The psalter, found there in 2000, is unlikely to be as ancient as the chief archaeologist of Novgorod, V. L. Yanin, immediately told the whole world. At the time of writing these lines, Nosovsky and Fomenko had not yet made their judgment about this find, but I think it will not differ from my opinion.

Nosovsky and Fomenko quite rightly note that “Novgorod has never really been a major trading center... It is difficult to find another city located so poorly in terms of trade.” Historians cannot say through which seaport Novgorod trade passed. The only optimal port from a geographical point of view could be St. Petersburg, but the latter was founded only three centuries ago.

Where did the “Great Road” pass, connecting Novgorod with North-Eastern Russia? “There are still difficult, swampy places there.” For half a thousand kilometers from Novgorod, both towards Moscow and towards Kyiv, “there are no old historical centers.”

In Novgorod itself, archaeologists still cannot find the so-called Yaroslav's Court - the place where the famous Novgorod veche gathered. True, Academician Yanin proposed a certain territory, but, as he himself said, “not a single paved or trampled area was found on it.” How does Yanin explain such strangeness? It’s simple: they say, the Novgorod veche consisted of only three hundred (!) people.

The topic of Yaroslav’s court was mentioned in passing in the book “Russia That Wasn’t-2” by Burovsky, who sharply attacked the hypotheses of Nosovsky and Fomenko, accusing them of ignorance. Here is one of his remarks: “A dispute between a professor and a student is still possible, mainly for educational purposes.

And here there is such an abyss of ignorance that it is difficult to compare with a seventh grader. How can you explain anything to a person who doesn’t know the most basic material?! You will tell him: “At Yaroslav’s courtyard it was found...”. And he will bulge his eyes: “So there is no Yaroslav’s courtyard?!”

What is the “ignorance” of Nosovsky and Fomenko? Not taking the word of the luminaries of our historical science, they simply asked their opponents to provide convincing evidence that this particular territory in Novgorod is the famous Yaroslav’s Courtyard. If there is no such evidence, then this place is unlikely to have been a Novgorod courtyard. Logical? It turns out that no: this is an “abyss of ignorance”!

Nosovsky and Fomenko give several examples of the geographical discrepancy of present-day Novgorod with the routes of movement of the princes according to the chronicles. By the way, I have expanded this list, but more on that below.

And finally, according to the authors of the hypothesis under discussion, back in the 16th century, “the town on the Volkhov did not even have its own name, but was called an impersonal neighborhood. I cannot agree with the last statement of the respected Nosovsky and Fomenko. The fact that the residents called their city so ironically and contemptuously only testifies to its shabbiness. Yes, Novgorod-on-Volkhov was a small and provincial city. But that didn’t stop him from having his own story, and more on that a little further.

In support of their hypothesis about Yaroslavl as the true Veliky Novgorod, Nosovsky and Fomenko provide a number of serious evidence. Thus, Yaroslavl for a long time was the largest shopping center, located at the intersection of the North Dvina and Volga waterways. Even after the center of trade with Europe moved from Arkhangelsk to St. Petersburg, Yaroslavl still continued to play a prominent role in domestic trade. But Novgorod-on-Volkhov, even having received access to Europe through St. Petersburg, could not dispose of this gift of fate.

Here is a brief summary of the main arguments presented by Nosovsky and Fomenko. As you can see, there are not many of them. Now let's look at a deeper level of evidence that Yaroslavl is that famous chronicle Veliky Novgorod.

From the book What Century Is It Now? author

G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko (Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics) Analysis of the books “Antifomenko” and “History and Antihistory” Criticism of the “New Chronology” by Academician A.T. Fomenko 1. Introduction In December 1999 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University

author

Hypothesis of A.T. Fomenko If you carefully read books on the history of different nations, you will find a lot of absurdities and “inconsistencies” with the dating of various events in World History. As a rule, historians do not notice them; they got used to the texts, “got used to them.” But when

From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an amateur author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

Hypothesis of A.T. Fomenko A.T. Fomenko expressed an amazing hypothesis. Under the name of Tsar Ivan the Terrible there are four different tsars: Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1533-1553), Ivan V = Dmitry Ivanovich (1553-1563), Ivan VI = Ivan Ivanovich (1563-1572), Ivan VII = Semyon Bekbulatovich (1572-1584 ).Years are indicated in brackets

author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

Hypothesis of A. T. Fomenko If you carefully read books on the history of different peoples, you can find a lot of absurdities and “inconsistencies” with the dating of various events in World History. As a rule, historians do not notice them; they got used to the texts, “got used to them.” But

From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an Amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

A. T. Fomenko's hypothesis A. T. Fomenko expressed an amazing hypothesis. Under the name of Tsar Ivan the Terrible there are four different tsars: Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1533–1553), Ivan V = Dmitry Ivanovich (1553–1563), Ivan VI = Ivan Ivanovich (1563–1572), Ivan VII = Semyon Bekbulatovich (1572–1584 ). In brackets

author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2.7b. The second reconstruction option: review of Dmitry Donskoy's troops on the Moscow Polyanka, on the right bank of the Moscow River, Babiy Gorodok and Babyegorodsky lanes on Polyanka (A.T. Fomenko, T.N. Fomenko) The Moscow Maiden Field is located on the LEFT bank of the Moscow River. To get there

From the book Where Are You, Kulikovo Field? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

2.12b. Another reconstruction option: Nepryadva is the Moscow river Naprudnaya or Neglinka. Perhaps the Yauza was also called Naprudnaya (A.T. Fomenko and T.N. Fomenko) A.T. Fomenko and T.N. Fomenko formulated a hypothesis according to which the chronicle Nepryadva is the NAPRUDNAYA river,

From the book New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky in 15 minutes author Molot Stepan

New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky in 15 minutes

From the book History with a Question Mark author Gabovich Evgeniy Yakovlevich

PREFACE BY G. V. NOSOVSKY AND A. T. FOMENKO The book by E. Ya. Gabovich, which lies before the reader, contains a lot of interesting material concerning criticism of the chronology of history in the West. Much of what is written in the book is new for the Russian reader, since

author Molot Stepan

3. Conclusions following from the New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky There are a lot of them, we will give only a few main ones in the following

From the book New Chronology of Nosovsky-Fomenko in 1 hour author Molot Stepan

4. The fight against the New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky. Professional mathematicians Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky made a scientific revolution in perhaps the most important area - in the area of ​​human knowledge about himself and his past. This revolution appears to be

From the book To Lie or Not to Lie? – II author Shvetsov Mikhail Valentinovich

From the book When was Kievan Rus baptized? by Tabov Jordan

Preface by A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky to the book by Jordan Tabov “When Kievan Rus was baptized” The book “When Kievan Rus was baptized” is not the first book on chronology written by the Bulgarian mathematician Jordan Tabov. In 2000, a translation was published in Russian

author

Preface by A.T. Fomenko This publication is published in a new edition made by the author. It is noticeably different from the previous ones. Before you is the first volume of the seven-volume “Chronology” (the seven-volume set is divided into 14 books). Volume 1. NUMBERS AGAINST LIES. - A.T. Fomenko.Volume 2. Book 1: ANTIQUE IS

From the book Numbers against lies. [Mathematical investigation of the past. Criticism of Scaliger's chronology. Shifting dates and shortening history.] author Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich

Addition History of the New chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky and the fight against it G.V. Nosovsky and A.T. Fomenko. First of all, about the very term “New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky”. He may seem immodest. But the point is this. In 1995, the title of the book “New Chronology and

From the book Tsarist Rome between the Oka and Volga rivers. author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

Appendix New chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky and the fight against it First of all, about the very term “New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky”. He may seem immodest. But the point is this. In 1995, the title of the book “New Chronology and Concept of the Ancient History of Rus' and England

With this material we open a new series of articles by writer and publicist Egor Kholmogorov

Ch.I. New chronology of "New Chronology"

In online discussions, there is the well-known “Godwin’s Law” - as the discussion grows, the probability of using the argument “you are Hitler” tends to one. I think it’s time to introduce a similar “Law of Fomenkization of Discussions” into RuNet.

It is formulated as follows: “As the Internet discussion in which historical arguments are used grows, the likelihood of a commentator appearing with the statements “The entire chronology is incorrect, all manuscripts are forged, all chronicles are false, proven by scientists, not liar historians, but real mathematicians” tends to unit."

Most often, the law is implemented immediately when the discussion begins. Like Voldemort in his name, Fomenkovites immediately fly wherever the word “history” is mentioned, and the commentary about “fake Rome” or “fake Romanov historiography” is one of the first to appear.

Even teachers in schools and universities sometimes fall into new chronology and waste the precious time of their students not on acquiring positive knowledge, but on promoting the idea of ​​“falsification of history.”

Fomenkovism has acquired numerous imitations for more refined circles who do not want to eat the “battle of Kulishki.” Suffice it to mention the texts of the famous writer and Internet troll Dmitry Galkovsky about the “fakeness” of birch bark letters. Even non-Fomenkovites often talk about “fake history”, and the horizon of fakery is moving closer and closer, now for some only the 19th century is genuine.

The “new chronology” has turned into a serious social problem, if not a disease. It interferes with the dissemination of historical knowledge in society, it extinguishes interest in the past of Russia and Russians, it prevents the development of a healthy national identity of Russian people based on true history.

It can hardly be deceptive that the Fomenkovites accompany this destructive activity with a drumbeat about the fact that Rus', as a Horde, once ruled the world, Ermak conquered America, and the Russian Tsar-Khans are buried in Egypt. The “Empire” fictionalized by Nosovsky does not have any national, civilizational, or religious identity; it turns into a hodgepodge of peoples, languages ​​and religions. There is nothing Russian in the “Empire” of the Fomenkovites - it is a globalist-postmodernist empire of our time thrown back into the past.

Fomenkovism is an intellectual and spiritual disease that needs to be treated. In the series of articles we bring to your attention, we will first outline what the key theses of Fomenko-Nosovsky are, then we will trace what stages the “new chronology” went through in its development, then we will analyze, using specific examples, the methods of manipulating consciousness used by Fomenko-Nosovsky and, finally, we will formulate a systemic response to the challenges of the “new chronology”.

Key postulates of the “new chronology”

1. It is argued that there was no antiquity; the idea of ​​it was formed during the Renaissance with the help of forgeries or by attributing texts of the 16th-17th centuries to a much earlier time.
2. It is argued that our understanding of antiquity is obtained by doubling the characters and historical events of the Renaissance. That is why world history has such a supposedly “unnatural” appearance: highly developed culture of antiquity - decline of culture in the Middle Ages - revival of ancient culture by humanists and imitation (in fact, its creation anew).
3. It is argued that the modern chronology of historical events is incorrect; it was created by two scientists Scaliger and Petavius ​​at the end of the 16th - mid-17th centuries, most likely for malicious purposes. According to Fomenko, it is not confirmed by modern astronomical data. A classic example of such a discrepancy is the eclipse described by Thucydides and attributed by traditional chronology to 431 BC, and by Fomenko to 1039.
4. Accordingly, it is argued that human history is much shorter than we think. It begins no earlier than the 11th century, and the historical process we know acquires its modern outlines... here the data jumps, since in order to defend their theory, Fomenkovites have to declare an increasingly larger section of world history false, right up to the end of the 19th century.
5. It is argued that the texts on the basis of which our ideas about antiquity and the Middle Ages are formed are either forgeries, some of which were created by Italian humanists in the 15th-16th centuries, or the reproduction of duplicates of historical chronicles, rewritten with other names, dates and details. The newest version of NH, contrary to previously made statements, says that the ancient authors are genuine, but we simply understand their texts incorrectly, since we are under the spell of the “Scaligerian” chronology.
6. It is argued that the fact of falsification of historical chronicles is allegedly proven by a unique mathematical and statistical model for the analysis of narrative texts developed by Fomenko, showing that “dynastic flows”, that is, the terms of reign and the main events of the life of monarchs in historical chronicles of different times and origins coincide, which means Before us are the same characters, reflected and duplicated in different chronicles. Thus, the streams of early and late Roman emperors are supposedly identical, where Pompey corresponds to Diocletian, Augustus to Constantine, Caligula to Julian the Apostate. The Palaiologan and Plantagenet dynasties coincide. The Rurikovichs after Alexander Nevsky and the Habsburgs who ruled Germany, etc., coincide.
7. It is argued that the global “falsification” of world history discovered by Fomenko covers up the true facts that formed the basis of its own historical myth, which began to be actively developed from the moment when Gleb Nosovsky joined Fomenko as a co-author. This myth is based on a global conspiracy theory. There was a Great Empire “Rus-Horde”, which was ruled by Russian-Mongolian king-khans, and its military class was the Cossacks. This empire covered Eurasia, Africa, Ermak-Cortes conquered America for it, its religion was Christianity, based on the veneration of Christ Andronicus Komnenos, who was killed in Constantinople-Jerusalem, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and so on were gradually separated from this religion. In the 16th century, a separatist revolt in the West began against this empire, now called the Reformation, then power in the Empire was seized by the evil Romanovs, who destroyed the memory of the true past, falsified the entire history and made Russia a colony of the separatist West. The last resistance movements of the imperial soldiers were the Cossack uprisings of Razin and Pugachev. Western separatists and the Romanovs carried out a total falsification of all history, sending the chronicles of events of the recent past into the distant past, forging and reprinting all books with false dates. The enemies formed a myth about the confrontation between Russia and Turkey, Orthodoxy and Islam, in order to prevent the restoration of the Empire. Only fragments of information have survived to us, like maps on which Rus' is designated as “Tartaria,” and Fomenko and Nosovsky are digging out for us these grains of genuine information from under a shroud of lies.

New Chronology "New Chronology"

The history of the “New Chronology” went through 4 significantly different stages.

1. Nikolai Morozov. 1900-1930s Masonic fantasy.

At this stage, revolutionary and freemason Nikolai Morozov (1854-1946), who spent 23 years in the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses, formulated a general concept of denying the authenticity of ancient history, based on the subjective interpretation of a number of astronomical data.

Photo: www.globallookpress.com

Morozov stated that the biblical books are zodiacs, that is, a record of the location of the constellations at the time the books were compiled, and began to calculate the dates when exactly such zodiacs could be seen in the sky. Morozov rejected all ancient literature, saying that it was falsified in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He was the first to express the thesis that the early Roman emperors were copies of the later ones. However, Morozov considered the biblical books not to be falsifications, but to be an encrypted record of astronomical phenomena, on the basis of which he transmitted them.

In his works “Revelation in a Thunderstorm and Storm” and “Christ,” Morozov transferred Christ from the 1st century to the 4th, identified him with St. Basil the Great and stated that he was not crucified, but subjected to “pounding,” and the “Apocalypse” was composed by St. John Chrysostom It is not difficult to notice that Christianity was at the forefront of Morozov’s attack, and the main thing he wanted to achieve was to discredit religious faith.

Moreover, in general, Morozov’s constructions are a typical product of the scientistic occultism widespread at the beginning of the twentieth century, which was represented by such different figures as the Bolshevik “god builders” - the red vampire A. Bogdanov and the head of the People’s Commissariat of Education Lunacharsky, the occult decadent Bryusov.

Morozov believed that world history was driven by a secret order of astrologers, and he himself tried to revive alchemy on the basis of Mendeleev’s periodic law - transforming some substances into others by changing the composition of the atom. Academician Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov rightly called this “chemical fantasies.”

2.Mikhail Postnikov. 1960-1970s Mathematicians joke.

Soviet mathematician M.M. Postnikov (1927-2004) became interested in the works of Morozov in the 1960s, willingly read extensive lectures about them, and tried to organize discussions with historians, who, however, avoided these discussions. And not so much because of the wildness of the ideas, but because of the amateurish level of their presentation. Postnikov himself quotes the review of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, a man quite capable of appreciating fantasy and unorthodox theories: “We, historians, do not meddle in mathematics and ask you, mathematicians, not to meddle in history!”

Postnikov’s main achievements in the field of “new chronology” was the formulation the principle of continuous evolutionary growth of knowledge, which, in his opinion, is contradicted by the historical failure of the “dark ages”, and this, in his opinion, meant that the entire period of brilliant cultural flourishing in antiquity was fictional and falsified during the Renaissance, and history began from a low level in III-IV centuries AD, as Morozov taught.

In addition, Postnikov developed the method of “dynastic flows” - to compare data on the duration and nature of the reigns of representatives of different dynasties of different times in order to isolate overlapping areas. In this way, Postnikov, in his opinion, proved not only that the early Roman Empire was a phantom duplicate of the later one, but also that the Spartan kings were a reflection of the rulers of the late Byzantine Mystras, located in the same place.

Postnikov’s degree of historical competence is extremely low, as he asserts the falsification of certain works of ancient authors, but, as a rule, incorrectly, with a late shift, he names the dates of their first printed editions. His intellectual tools are extracts from popular science books on the history of Soviet publication.

Based on Postnikov’s lectures, another mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko, became acquainted with the new chronology, and at a certain point they created a joint group with Postnikov on the “new chronology”; one of their joint texts was even published by Yuri Lotman in “Proceedings on Sign Systems” of the University of Tartu, which caused a scandal at the level of the Party Central Committee and the Academy of Sciences.

Postnikov compiled his three-volume work “A Critical Study of the Chronology of the Ancient World,” reproduced by INION in 1977 (published by M.: Kraft, Lean, 2000), but he did not receive the glory of a discoverer. She all went to Fomenko, who broke up with him.

If Postnikov remained an orthodox Morozovite, starting his alternative history from late antiquity, then Fomenko went for a radical revision of Morozov’s concept, beginning a new stage in the history of the “new chronology”. At the same time, in Fomenko’s publications one can still find excerpts from Postnikov’s work, given, as a rule, without any indication of the original source. For example, in a huge compendium on the “new Chronology” - “Rus and Rome: New Chronology. Russian-Horde Empire" (vols. 1-2 M.: AST, 2007) Postnikov is not mentioned never.

III. Anatoly Fomenko. 1980s - early 1990s Sect "Andronikos-shinrikyo"

Anatoly Fomenko, while retaining the basics of Postnikov’s argumentation and methodology, significantly radicalized their conclusions. Not only ancient history, but also the entire medieval history was demolished. Fomenko stated that he had developed methods for statistical analysis of narrative texts, which prove that most historical chronicles are corrected duplicates of each other with duplicating characters. His “global chronology” claimed to explain the origin of the entire variety of pictures of historical events from only four original chronicles, which were recombined and rewritten, reflected in each other.

Since Fomenko’s works began to appear during the crisis of Soviet historical science with its scholastic Marxist schemes and extreme dullness of presentation, Fomenko’s theory received a warm reception: firstly, it fit into the big narrative of exposing everything and everyone, which took place under the slogan “they hid from us,” secondly, it was especially warmly received by “techies”, as it created the illusion that they understood history better than “those lousy humanities scholars.”

And since it was at this moment that the real social default of the techies occurred - institutes and factories of the military-industrial complex were closed, salaries were not paid, Fomenkovism was one of the forms of ressentiment of this class, which suddenly lost its place in society and self-esteem. In essence, it was a form of escape from history, and indeed from reality in general, similar to the spread of rigid totalitarian sects during the same period - the white brotherhood, Aum-shinrikyo, etc. The very concept of Christ declaring the Byzantine emperor Andronikos Komnenos a usurper, murderer and pedophile could not alienate society only in such vaguely ignorant times as the era of perestroika and the early post-Soviet period.

However, Fomenko’s problem was that he introduced predominantly negative, nihilistic content into the “new chronology” - the destruction of the old narrative, framed by many graphs and implicated in criticism of such an esoteric and incomprehensible text as the “Almagest” of Claudius Ptolemy. Fomenkovism sorely lacked its own positive myth, its own narrative, which appeared with the coming to the fore of Fomenko’s constant collaborator, Gleb Nosovsky.

IV. Gleb Nosovsky. 1995 - present vr. "MMM" folk history

Mathematician Gleb Nosovsky published works on the “new chronology” already in the 1980s and tried to re-date the Council of Nicaea and Easter. As a parishioner of the Old Believer Church (from which he was excommunicated after the publication of works that were obviously incompatible with Orthodoxy), he showed a keen interest in religious issues.

His name is associated with the transformation of the “new chronology” from a destructive parahistorical theory into a full-fledged “folk history” with all its elements - a grand narrative, folk etymologies of names and titles, the revelation of secret enemy conspiracies, miraculous transformations of characters, confusion of history and mythology, when in one thread the Trojan War, the Nibellunglied and the policies of the Habsburgs are analyzed.

Gradually, this folk-historical content in the “new chronology” is growing - in fact, nihilistic historical criticism is now used only as a prelude to the theory of the “Romanov conspiracy” against Russian history, from under the cover of which the authors get us the “true facts” that Rus' this is both the Horde and Rome, that Ermak and Fernand Cortes are one person, that the Arab coins found on the territory of Rus' are Russian coins.

At its core, Nosovsky’s concept is a radical Fomenkized transposition of Lev Gumilyov’s Eurasian concept, popular in the 1980s and 1990s, about the organic coexistence of Rus' and the Golden Horde, about the Eurasian union against the West, etc. Himself prone to historical mythologization, Gumilyov would probably be pretty annoyed to learn that his complex schemes for establishing the proximity and interconnection of Rus' and the Horde were replaced by their crude identification to the extent of Batu - this is the “father” ataman, and Dmitry Donskoy - Tokhtamysh.

Monument to Dmitry Donskoy. Photo: Natalia Sidorova / Shutterstock.com

During this period, the “New Chronology” actually turned into a commercial cult, similar to many sects and built on the principle of a “pyramid” - it is necessary to continuously maintain the interest of readers, and for this to come out with more and more new revelations, to reveal more and more secrets, to cover everything new and new areas. In addition, increasing the amount of material and absurd statements to an impossible degree makes it possible to almost completely paralyze criticism, since the subject of the dispute is blurred and a single point of reference is lost. What yesterday was a “falsification” today turns out to be a “secret message”, which contains signs of truth that only need to be deciphered. But if this “message” reveals any facts that reveal the falsity of Fomenkov’s hypothesis, then these are, of course, late interpolations. Hence the method of actual spam, when Fomenkovism attracts more and more topics and statements that supposedly prove its main theses.

In Fomenkov’s concept, a “boost game” began in terms of rhetorical flirting with patriotism, they say, only Fomenkov’s version of history reveals the true greatness of Rus', and those who disagree with it are participants in a Russophobic conspiracy. The fact that we are no longer talking about any Rus' at all, that Fomenkovism is destroying it, the readers, stunned by the pseudo-Slavophile chatter, do not even think about. This stage, when the “new chronology” exists as an ever-expanding factory of quasi-historical myths, continues to this day.

Followers of the “new chronology”, as a rule, are divided into two distinct types, even if they do not admit it to themselves - into Fomenkovites And Nosovites. Representatives of the first type are more interested in the theory of falsification of antiquity, falsity of chronology, and a skeptical attitude towards historical sources. Most of the epigones of Fomenkovism also, as a rule, take the first, nihilistic position. Representatives of the second type are more interested in the myth of the former great Empire, the search for information about it encrypted in certain sources that have come down to us.

It is important to understand that Fomenkov’s and Nosov’s parts of the “New Chronology” fundamentally contradict each other both in general spirit and in methodology. One represents historical nihilism, the other historical myth-making.

For example, within the framework of Fomenkov’s destructive methodology, it is “obvious” that Herodotus, Josephus, as well as other ancient historians, are a falsification of the Renaissance. At the same time, within the framework of the Nosov historical myth, it is no less “obvious” that Herodotus is a real author who lived in the 16th century, who can serve as a valuable source of information from the “Empire”, if interpreted correctly, the problem is not a fake, but incorrect interpretation of it by the “medieval scholastics”. Nosovsky draws information from Josephus Flavius ​​with both hands, for example, he finds from him a story about Stenka Razin.

Within the framework of co-authorship, whose constructions claim to be scientific and true, such opposing models could not coexist. But, since NH is a commercial cult in which the truth of the authors is least of all interested, most of Fomenko-Nosovsky’s publications are a centaur text, where two contradictory methodologies and historical mythologies live in adjacent chapters. However, due to higher productivity, the “Nosovskaya” part of this centaur is gradually spreading out at the expense of the Fomenkovskaya one.

In the next article we will talk about the methods of manipulation of consciousness, up to direct falsifications, used by the authors of the “New Chronology” to attract adherents to their sect.