Part 1.
Russia as the centre of the “Mongolian” Empire and its role in mediaeval civilization.
Chapter 3.
Vestiges of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire in documents and on the artefacts found in Europe and Asia.
7. N. A. Morozov’s input into historical science is great; however, his pro-Western theory is erroneous.
Above, in Annex 1 to CHRON4, we cite the most interesting ideas from N. A. Morozov’s work on Russian history ([547]). We believed it expedient to acquaint our readers with N. A. Morozov’s point of view, since this part of his oeuvre was only published recently. On the other hand, after having conducted an independent research of the problem, we came to the unambiguous conclusion that some of N. A. Morozov’s hypotheses about Russian history are manifestly erroneous.
In particular, his primary hypothesis about the Occidental origins of the “Mongol and Tartar yoke” in Russia as a result of its conquest by the Western European crusaders is completely wrong in our opinion.
We are aware of the fact that our conception explicitly contradicts the concept about the allegedly indubitable supremacy of the Western Europe over Russia and all things Russian, which has taken root over the time of the Romanovian reign. This misconception even managed to take in N. A. Morozov, which is why he never managed to understand Russian history as it is. His tremendous experience in the field of analyzing the “ancient” history critically revealed a great many facts to him, yet he could not explain them. The realisation of this fact must have kept him from the publication of his manuscript on the history of Russia ([547]).
The “pro-Western” delusion of Morozov is easy enough to understand – he wasn’t the only one by far to have fallen under its influence instilled in our minds by the “Romanovian education”. We can easily relate to the fact that many of our readers would find it easier psychologically to consider the Russian state a product of the Western crusader conquest. It could be discomforting, yet easy due to the sheer force of habit.
The reverse postulation – namely, the fact that Russia was the very Great (or Mongolian) Empire that conquered a great many countries at some point in time, is a lot more difficult to get accustomed to psychologically.
8. The Western European countries and their fear of the “Mongols and Tartars”.
Mediaeval Western sources dated to the epoch of the XIII-XV century nowadays speak of the terrible menace to the West presented by the “Tartar and Mongol invaders” based in Russia. As we realise today, all of them were written later, in the epoch of the XVI-XVII century.
This fear is voiced in numerous Hungarian, German and English documents. We have cited many related materials above, in CHRON4, Chapter 18:16. For instance, while referring to the “Tartars and the Mongols”, English chroniclers do not conceal their terror in the face of the nations of Gog and Magog impending over the Western Europe.
All of these Western European writings (dated to the XIII-XV century today and more likely to date from the XVI-XVII century in reality) give the impression of a deep, almost physiological, antagonism between the “Western nations” and the “Mongols”. The military power of the “Turks” and the Russian “Mongols” was perceived as the most terrifying thing of all. According to our reconstruction, the forces in question were the united armies of Russia, or the Horde, and the Ottoman (Ataman) Empire.
After the ascension of the Romanovs in Russia, the fears of the Westerners have abated to a great extent. However, these emotions were very pronounced in the XVI-XVII century.
)
)
In figs. 3.36 and 3.37 we reproduce the ancient engravings from Sigismund von Herberstein’s Notes on Muscovite Affairs allegedly dating from the XVI century ([161]). In the first one, which we already reproduced in CHRON4, we see the Russian Czar receiving an envoy. The Czar, or Khan, is wearing a huge turban with a feather on his head and a luxurious mantle, which clearly makes him look like an Oriental ruler. In the second engraving he appears to be taking part in some campaign – we see faraway camps in the field. The Czar is sitting on his throne, and there is a crown with escallops on his head. He is wearing heavy plate armour, likewise his coterie. This engraving is most noteworthy, since nowadays only the Westerners are depicted in this manner (under the assumption that Russians had never possessed such armaments, wearing hides, gowns and leather helmets, complemented with the odd occasional hunting knife, usually of a foreign origin). The enormous manufacturing facilities of Tula and the Ural region were presumably incapable of making heavy armaments – just nails and horseshoes.
One must note that after the Romanovian censorship of the XVII-XVIII century the surviving authentic portraits of the Russian Czars wearing heavy plate armour and turbans have become perceived as extremely uncanny. Millerian historians have painted an altogether different picture of the Russian rulers of the XIV-XVI century, much more primitive and even savage to some extent.
9. The Great = “Mongolian” conquest resulted in a westward migration of geographical names.
9.1. The Volga and the Bulgarians.
N. A. Morozov was perfectly correct to note that “in the Bible, the Volga is reflected as the river Phaleg. The Greeks confused the Walachians and the Bulgarians (or Volgarians, as they were known in Byzantium), which shouldn’t surprise us, since both names are derived from the word Volga. ‘Bulgarian’ means ‘Volgarian’, whereas ‘Walachian’ is a corrupted version of “Vologi”, or the inhabitants of the Volga region. Nicetas Acominatus in his rendition of Bulgarian history before 1206 always uses the term ‘Walachian’” ([547]).
Apparently, in the epoch of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest of the XIV century, mediaeval Bulgaria was named after the Russian river Volga (and the Volga Bulgars).This could have happened in the very first stage of the “Mongolian” imperial expansion and the conquest of the lands that lay the closes to the Russian borders. Later on, after the decline of the Empire in the XVII century, the name Bulgaria (or “Volgaria”) lingered on the Balkan peninsula, which is where we can observe it to this day.
9.2. On the names of the rivers (such as the Don, the Danube, the Dnepr and the Dniester).
We have already mentioned the fact that the name Volga was given to many rivers and derives from the word “vlaga” (“water” or “moisture”). The name Don is of an even greater interest. Today it is usually associated with just one river – the modern Don in Russia. However, in CHRON4, Chapter 6:2.12 we demonstrate that the name was also used for referring to River Moskva. Furthermore, it turns out that the word “don” simply stood for “river” – and still does in many languages.
This fact is known well enough to many linguists. The Etymological Dictionary of M. Fasmer ([866], page 553) report that the names “Don” and “Danube” are synonymous, and also stand for “river” in many ancient languages – not just the Slavic:
Turkish: DON = Tan = “great river”,
Ancient Indian: DANU = “oozing liquid”,
Ancient Avestan: DANU = “river”,
Ossetian: DON = “river”.
As for the Slavic languages, M. Fasmer reports that many Russian dialects still use the word “dunai” (the Russian for “Danube”) in the meaning of “a creek” – in the Olonets region, for instance, whereas the same word stands for “a deep river with steep banks” in Polish, whereas in Latvian “dunavas” means “a small river or a spring” ([866], page 553).
In general, rivers named “Dounayets”, which is basically the same name as “Don” or “Danube” could be found all across Russia in the XIX century – namely, the provinces of Kursk, Smolensk, Ryazan, Kostroma, Mogilyov, Vyatka, Tomsk, Chernigov, Vitebsk etc. They may still exist. Furthermore, we have Dunae in Lithuania and Dunaec in Poland ([866], page 553).
Thus, the word “Don” had simply stood for “river”. Therefore, chroniclers must have used the word in question in the same meaning, which implies that a great many rivers may have been referred to as “Don” in chronicles. We are therefore faced with a multitude of “Dons”.
Apart from that, the names “Dnepr” and “Dniester”, which rank among the largest European rivers, are also derived from the word “Don”, likewise the Danube (Dunai), which is merely a slight modification of the word in question. All of the above is explicitly stated in M. Fasmer’s Etymological Dictionary ([866], page 518).
The first two letters of all these names (DN) can therefore be translated as “river”. This is by no means a hypothesis of ours, but rather a fact known well to the specialists. Linguistic debates merely concern the meaning of the suffixes – PR in “Dnepr”, STR in “Dniester”, and so forth ([866], page 518).
Coming back to the Volga, one must point out that in Hungarian chronicles, for instance, it is referred to as “Ethul id est Don”, or “River Ethul” (“Ithil”).
According to the perfectly justified observation of N. A. Morozov, the tribe of Dan as mentioned frequently in the Bible must have simply referred to the Slavs residing in the regions of the Don or the Danube.
Moreover, it is known quite well that in mediaeval texts the Slavs were often called “Danes”; now we realise that the word in question can translate as “people living near rivers”. Russian names of the Cossack regions are all derived from the names of rivers – Yaik, Don, Kuban, Dnepr, Irtysh etc.
9.3. The hussars, the Khazars, the cuirassiers and the Czar-Assyrians (or Sar-Russians).
According to N. A. Morozov, “linguistic relics . . . allow for the formation of the hypothesis that the Hungarian [and Russian – Auth.] hussars are the descendants of the Khazars.
However, there are more obvious traces. Apart from the Hussars (Khazars) there were also armoured cuirassiers. Where does their name come from? Let us recollect the fact that mediaeval rulers strived to, and actually did, keep armies of foreign mercenaries by their side in order to facilitate the suppression of uprisings among their subjects. We shall realise that the cuirassiers, or armoured horsemen, were of a foreign origin. Their name, as well as the very word cuirass, is also foreign in origin and resembles ‘Cyrus of Assyria’, or ‘Army of the Assyrian Czar’” ([547]).
It is most likely that the word “cuirassier” as used for heavily armoured mounted troops in Europe is a linguistic relic of the conquest of the Western Europe by the invader army of Russia, or the Horde.
It is possible that a number of the “Sar-Russ” (“Czar-Russian”) regiments stayed in the colonised European territories for a long time as military garrisons, or the “western group of forces” of the Horde, left in Europe to maintain order and ensure regular tribute payments to Russia, or the Horde. See more details in Part 3.
Let us once again emphasise that the names Syria = Assyria = Ashur famous in the “ancient” history and mentioned in numerous sources, including the Bible, transform into “Rus” or “Russia” when reversed (in the Hebraic or Arabic fashion, for instance).
9.4. The actual identity of the Khazars.
It turns out that a direct identification of the Khazars can be found in a work of the early XIX century by Georgiy Koniskiy, Archbishop of Byelorussia, entitled History of the Russians, or the Lesser Russia ([423]).
Having analysed a number of old documents, G. Konisky came to the conclusion that historians are incorrect in their understanding of the origins of the Khazars, the Pechenegs, the Polovtsy etc. He is of the opinion that all these nations are Slavic in origin, and the wars between them were “civil feuds of the Slavs disputing the borders of their domains . . . and conflicts between their Princes; the errors of the historians are explained by the multitude of names borne by the same nation” ([423], page 2).
Georgiy Koniskiy reports the following: “Eastern Slavs were known as Scythians or Skitts [Scots in the British version, as mentioned in CHRON4, Chapter 18:11 – Auth.] . . . their cousins in the South were called Sarmatians . . . or Russians (Rousnyaks) due to the colour of their hair [“roussiy” stands for “fair-haired” in Russian – Trans.], the ones that lived near the Northern coasts were known as Varangians . . . and the ones in the middle received their names from their ancestors, sons of Japheth: Rosses and Roxolans after Prince Rus, as well as Muscovites and Moschs after Prince Mosoch, whose nomads lived in the area of River Moskva. Hence the name of the Muscovite Kingdom, which eventually became the Kingdom of Russia.
The Slavs invented even more names for themselves:
The Bulgars lived in the region of River Volga;
The Pechenegs were baking their food [“bake” is “pech” in Russian – Trans.]
The Polyane and the Polovtsy lived in the fields [“pole” is the Russian for “field” – Trans.]
The Drevlyane lived in the woods, among the trees [the Russian for “tree” is “derevo” or “drevo” – Trans.]
The Kozars were all those who rode horses and camels, invading the lands of their neighbours; this name was eventually given to all the Slavic warriors recruited from their midst to guard the borders of their homeland. They also made their own armaments, whole clans of them.
However, whenever they would leave their lands in times of war, civilians provided them with necessary support, collecting money between themselves; this tax would later receive the indignant name of “tribute to the Kozars. These warriors . . . were renamed Cossacks by Constantine Monomakh, the Greek Czar, and have kept this name until this very day” ([423], page 3).
We have thus come up with the following picture.
1) The name “Kozars” (or “Khazars”) is the ancient name of the Russian Cossacks – the name of Kazan in particular and the whole Kazan Kingdom in general must be another derivative. The legendary Khazars didn’t disappear anywhere, as assumed in Romanovian history. They still inhabit their former territories under their own name of the Cossacks. As a matter of fact, certain historians are convinced that the Don Cossacks live on the territory formerly inhabited by the Khazars, whom they are supposed to have massacred completely. We are of the opinion that no such massacre ever took place – the Khazars still inhabit the same lands as the Cossacks.
2) The Khazars, or the Kozars, were Slavic – to a large extent at the very least.
3) The Pechenegs and the Polovtsy were Slavic as well; the latter can be identified as the Poles. We suggested this as a hypothesis in CHRON4, and now we see it mentioned as a fact in a source dating from the early XIX century. Let us remind the readers that we mention this in reference to the Tartar and “Mongol” conquest, when the Pechenegs, the Polovtsy, the Tartars and the Russians all fought between themselves. According to G. Koniskiy and our hypotheses voiced earlier on, the wars in question were civil feuds of the Slavs. Once again we see that the notorious “Tartar and Mongol invasion” was merely the unification of the Russian lands under the authority of the Eastern “Horde” dynasty of Rostov, Suzdal and Yaroslavl.
4) Georgiy Koniskiy describes the structure of the ancient Russian state as divided into civilians and warriors, or the Horde – civilian populace and the Cossacks, in other words, which is in perfect concurrence with our reconstruction of Russian history.
5) G. Koniskiy decribes the “Kozar Tribute” as the tax required for the sustentation of the army, which had once existed in Russia. We also formulated this as a hypothesis in CHRON4, pointing out that the mediaeval Russian military tax was the very “Tartar tribute”, or tithe. Our reconstruction explains the “strange” assertions of Koniskiy’s, who states it quite plainly that the army tax in Russia was indeed known as the “Kozar tribute” (or Cossack tithe). It has to be said that Old Russian had the word “kazachye” (literally, “the Cossacks’ own”) which stood for “taxation” or “tribute”. This important fact is recorded in the Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII Century ([787], page 19).
We can therefore see that the Tartar tribute, the Kozar tribute and the Cossack tithe can all be identified as one and the same thing.
9.5. Slavic names on the map of the Western Europe.
The name of the Tatra Mountains could have appeared after the conquest of the Czech lands by the “Tartars”, or the Russian Cossacks from the East.
Furthermore, one gets the impression that the mediaeval Great = “Mongolian” Empire had comprised the entire Europe as well as Russia and Turkey in the epoch of its maximal expansion.
This is the reason why there were many towns and cities with Slavic names in mediaeval Prussia, whose very name (P + Russia) speaks volumes of its former proximity and relationship with White Russia. Moreover, there are many such names on the territory of the modern Germany formerly known as Prussia. It suffices to study any map of the German North – for instance, the area adjacent to Berlin, the former capital of Prussia (P + Russia).
In order to represent this effect quantitatively, T. N. Fomenko did the following in 1995. She took a detailed modern map of Germany (“Deutschland, Germany, Allemagne, Germania. Hallwag AG, Bern, Switzerland), which indicates 14841 towns and cities – approximately fifteen thousand, that is.
Out of those, she selected the names that sounded distinctly Slavonic – Kieve, Kladen etc. It turned out that there are 920 such names on the territory of Germany, slightly less than a thousand, which comprises 6.2 per cent of all the names.
This number is large enough. It is curious that the majority of Slavic names are concentrated on the territory formerly known as Prussia, or P-Russia, which is another proof of close ties that existed between Russia and P-Russia in the Middle Ages.
It is also known that in the twentieth century, under the regime of the National Socialists, many Slavic names of towns and villages in the North of Germany and the area formerly known as Prussia were deliberately replaced by more “German-sounding” ones in order to obliterate every trace of the former unity of Germany (as Prussia) and Russia. It would be interesting to conduct a similar study of a map of the pre-war Germany, or, better still, a XIX century map of Germany and Prussia. We haven’t managed to do it so far.
Other Western European countries also have many names that sound Russian or Slavic. This was noticed a long time ago, and many scientific publications were made on this subject. Many such examples from all across the Western Europe were collected by the famous Russian historians A. D. Chertkov ([956]) and A. S. Khomyakov ([932]).
Let us add a number of our own observations thereto. For instance, the famous Lake Geneva is also called Lake Leman on modern Swiss maps (Lake Geneva being its second name). The similarity with the Russian and Ukrainian name for “bay” (“liman”) is truly striking (see [223], Volume 2, page 651).
The very name Geneva might be derived from the Slavic word for “new”, “novoye”. This may be implied by the name of the city as transcribed on an old stone exhibited in the Museum of Archaeology, which is situated in the basement of the ancient Cathedral of St. Peter in Geneva. One of the present book’s authors, G. V. Nosovskiy, saw this stone personally in 1995. The inscription says “NAVAE” (the rest is impossible to decipher). The modern notice plate claims the name to be the name of the city transcribed as “Genavae” – however, there’s no sign of the first two letters, although this part of the stone is in a good condition.
The initial name of the city may have indeed been Navae (“New”), the prefix “Ge” being a more recent addition – for instance, as the abbreviation of the word “gorod” (“city”). The old name of Geneva could therefore have translated as “New City”, or G-Navae in brief.
NOV is presumed to be a common Indo-European root (Latin: novum, nova; French: neuf, neuve; German: neu; English: new etc).
There are many such examples. For instance, the name Vienna may have derived from the Slavic word for “crown” (“venets”). Another version is that it derives from the name of the Slavic tribe of Venedes, qv in Part 3.
The same might apply to the name Venice as a possible derivative of the name “Venedes” (or “Vendians”). The latter is mentioned in Fasmer’s Etymological dictionary (see [866], “Venden”). This hypothesis is confirmed by the Old Russian name of the Venetians – “Veneditsi” ([866], Volume 1, page 290).
One must also consider the toponymy of the rivers Rhone and Rhine.
Certain scientists (for instance, A. S. Khomyakov and A. D. Chertkov – see [932] and [956]) claimed that the region of the Rhone was populated by the Slavs, and that the modern inhabitants of that area are their descendants. It would be noteworthy to look up the name of the river in a Russian etymological dictionary. Fasmer’s Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language reports the following ([866], Volume 3, page 501).
“Ronit” and “Ronyu” means “to spill” in Serbian and Church Slavonic, as well as virtually every other Slavic language, and “to flow” in Slovakian. There was also the Upper German word “rinnan” (“rinnen” in modern German), which also translated as “flow”; the same word meant the same thing in the Gothic language. Also cf. the English word “run” (in the meaning of “flow”).
All these words are ideal for the name of a river. Let us emphasise that this root is nowadays the most common for the Slavic languages in particular – this is confirmed by the Indo-European Etymological Dictionary by Y. Pokorniy ([1347], Volume 1). It turns out that the French form of the name Rhone (Rhône) corresponds to the Greek name Eridanos, or simply Jordan ([1347], Volume 1, page 334). The same word family includes the Greek name of the Volga – Ra ([1347], Volume 1, pages 334 and 336), likewise the Russian word for “river” (“ryeka”). See [1347], Volume 1, page 331.
The name of the Rhine in Germany must also be related to the above.
The part of France that borders with Spain (slightly to the West from the estuary of the Rhone) was given as Roussillon on the maps of the XVIII century ([1018] and [1019]). “Russian Ilion”, or “Russian Troy”, perhaps? Or, alternatively, “Russian Lions”.
Therefore, the XIX century historians may have been correct in their claim that the region of Rhone was once populated by the Slavs, as well as many other parts of the Western Europe.
After the fall of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire in the XVII century, the territory of the Western Europe was cleared from its Slavic inhabitants to some extent, but by no means completely. Their former areas of residence fell under the influence of France, Germany etc. The Slavic past was largely forgotten.
Some of the Slavs, who were pushed back to the East in the XVII-XVIII century, returned to the territory of the modern Russia and rejoined with their ethnic cousins, having brought over certain relics of the Western culture – in particular, Latin words, names and customs.
