Part 3.
Scythia and the Great Migration. The colonization of Europe, Africa and Asia by Russia, or the Horde, in the XIV century.
Chapter 9.
The Slavic conquest of Europe and Asia. A rare book of Mauro Orbini about the "Slavic Expansion".
6. Where did Orbini conduct his research?
We can relate to the indignation of the readers, who might think that all of the above was invented by Orbini and therefore completely unworthy of any trust due to his partiality. The “Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary” reports his Dalmatian origins, after all, also claiming him to be the “forefather of historical science in Yugoslavia” ([797], page 931). What else could one expect from a Slav? A shameless panegyric to his fellow Slavs, of course. Mediaeval political agitprop, in other words.
We can counter as follows. As it is plainly visible from Orbini’s book, it was written in Italy and its language is Italian. First and foremost, it is based on the sources found in Italian libraries, all of which are named in Orbini’s work, qv below.
Therefore, the characteristic given to Orbini by the “Encyclopaedic Dictionary” is somewhat strange; all that we learn about him is that he was a Dalmatian and the “forefather of historical science in Yugoslavia”. Thus, the “Dictionary” associates his work with the Slavic Balkans exclusively, whereas Orbini’s book clearly states that he had been working in Italy for a long time and may have been an Italian, after all.
Let us voice the following hypothesis. Orbini was the Archimandrite of Ragusa, qv above. Could the authors of the “Encyclopaedic Dictionary” have become confused by the existence of two cities bearing the same name – the Sicilian Ragusa and the Balkan Dubrovnik, which was also called Ragusa in Latin? See [797], page 1087.
Could this strange desire of the authors of the “Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary” to associate Orbini with the Slavic Balkans exclusively be deliberate? After all, what could one expect from a staunch Slavonic nationalist and the author of numerous inanities unworthy of being published again? Telling the readers the truth – namely, that Orbini had lived and worked in Italy, as well as the fact that his book was written in Italian, would instantly expose the book as a mediaeval work of a Western historian concerned with the Slavs. Such XVII century evidence is very scarce, after all.
7. Orbini was aware that historians would not like his work.
Orbini’s book was written in the second half of the XVI century. The book was published in 1601 ([797], page 931). That was the epoch of the famous Trident Council in Italy. As we have mentioned quite a few times, the Catholic Church was busy canonising its chronology and conception of world history in this very epoch.
Orbini must have been a cleric of the Catholic Church; nevertheless, his book is blatantly at odds with the point of view that was being introduced around that time, further to become consensual. Therefore, even the Catholics did not unanimously support the works of Scaliger and his school.
Orbini can be ranked as the de facto opponent of Scaliger. He harboured no false hopes and was perfectly aware that his work was most likely to encounter a negative reception. He openly says so in his book.
“Should any other nation try to contradict this true description out of spite and hatred, I call upon the historiographers as my witnesses, attaching a list of their names. Many of their historiographical works confirm the facts related herein” ([617], page 5).
Orbini was correct in his assumption. The attitude towards his book is reflected by the “Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary” ([797]) perfectly well; we have already mentioned this fact. However, in the beginning of the XVIII century, which is when his book was published in Russian (at the direct order of Peter the Great, as we have already mentioned) the Scaligerite translations couldn’t have withheld from meddling with Orbini’s text. It is hard to find another explanation of the fact that the alphabetical list of sources ends abruptly after the letter M in the Russian translation ([617]) – in the middle of the page and right after a comma to boot. The remaining half of the lists is nowhere to be found.
Orbini’s text is continued after the comma, and it begins from a new paragraph, which isn’t quite what one expects to be preceded by a comma, after all – as if there was nothing strange about this abrupt truncation of the bibliography.
What we see is clearly a typographical error, but hardly of a random nature. After all, neither the translator, nor the typesetter could have accidentally thrown out several pages. After all, the first half of the list occupies four and a half pages in [617]. We shall quote the whole list, since Orbini’s mind-boggling facts were all taken from the sources contained therein.
Orbini’s bibliography is all the more remarkable due to the fact that most names that we find are unknown to us today for some reason. Where are these books now? After all, Orbini was using them at the end of the XVI century. Could all of them have been “destroyed in conflagrations”? This may well be the case, only the “conflagrations” in question must be the fires of the XVII-XVIII century that consumed the books that the Occidental Catholic Church had found heretical.
And yet each of the names from the list of Orbini stands for a book, or even a couple of books.
We must also point out that the Russian translation of Orbini’s book made in 1722 is rather imprecise and also abbreviated. Therefore, in one of the annexes to the present volume we reproduce the full bibliography from the original Italian edition of Orbini’s book ([1318]), as well as the complete translation of several chapters from his book.
8. The list of sources used by Orbini.
According to Orbini, many of his sources came from “the great library of His Highness, the Prince of Urbino in Pesaro” located “at the very heart of Italy” ([617], page 5). Moreover, Orbini provides a full list of the authors whose works he had studied ([617], pages 6-10). The list of authors is prefaced in the most noteworthy manner by Orbini himself: “A list of historiographers . . . some of which are not considered acceptable by the Roman Church . . .” This is a good explanation of why the authors in question are unknown to us today. Their works must have been deliberately destroyed in the campaign of the XVII-XVIII century launched by the Latin Catholic Church in order to destroy all the books it considered heretical.
At the same time, some of the mediaeval sources mentioned in Orbini’s list are known to us perfectly well. See Annex 1. Nowadays we believe that they comprise the whole volume of the mediaeval authors and their works; however, they are but an insignificant minority in Orbini’s list. Could this mean that the sources available to us today amount to a fraction of what Orbini had access to in the XVII century? This might give the readers some idea of how quickly written information might vanish.
[The authors provide the Russian version of Orbini’s list; the original can be found in Annex 1 to the present book. All the names are given in Russian transcription and in accordance with the Cyrillic alphabetical order; the list does indeed end abruptly and contain a number of omissions – Trans.]
Let us reiterate that the majority of mediaeval authors included in Orbini’s list (and each of them must have written more than just one book) are unknown to us today. In particular, two of the historians mentioned by Orbini, Jeremy (Ieremia) the Russian and Great Ivan the Goth were obviously of Russian origins; nothing is known about either of them today.
Incidentally, Orbini doesn’t mention a single solitary Russian historian out of the many authors that are presumed to have lived and worked before the XVI century. This is easy enough to understand – they must have been born much later, and their “ancient oeuvres” were apparently written in the Romanovian epoch. As we demonstrate in CHRON4, the legendary Nestor, credited with writing the “Povest Vremennyh Let”, is one of their midst. Orbini, an encyclopaedist, doesn’t know anything about him for some reason. Although the Russian list of authors ends with M, neither Nestor himself, nor his famous chronicle get a single mention anywhere in Orbini’s book – both the Russian translation and the Italian original ([1318]).
9. Orbini’s book uses Western European materials.
Nearly all of the sources listed by Orbini are Western, which is perfectly natural, given that he had really lived and worked in Italy. The “Balkan version” of his biography as suggested by the “Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary” would make this circumstance look very odd indeed.
Orbini’s book is therefore a purely Western chronicle. We keep on emphasising this fact since the modern readers might find it too partial and blatantly pro-Slavonic and pro-Eastern. This is hardly the case, since the author wrote in Italian and used Western sources.
Our reconstruction makes it perfectly clear that the book describes real events of the Middle Ages.
One shouldn’t assume that the Slavs conquered the West almost every century and for two millennia on end, which is what Orbini reports in his work. He was already confused by the arbitrarily extended chronological version created in the XVI-XVII century; the correct chronology had already been forgotten for the most part in his epoch. If we are to return the events described by Orbini to their proper chronological positions, all the numerous Slavic conquests that he refers to shall turn out to reflect a single historical period, and a relatively short one, at that – the time when the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, which had indeed been Slavic for the most part, became the dominant power in Europe, Asia, Africa and America.
Despite the eventual decomposition of the Great Empire, the memory of the grandiose historical colonisation became multiplied in different chronicles. This is reflected in Orbini’s oeuvre as the numerous phantom conquests of Europe by the Slavs, allegedly going on for centuries on end.
10. Our point of view on Orbini’s book.
According to our conception, the book of Orbini describes the multiple duplicates of the “Mongolian” (or the Great) Conquest of the XIV century scattered all across the historical scale starting with the very beginning of the new era. All of them are misdated, whereas the XIV century original has nothing Slavic about it anymore. Historians of the Scaligerian school portrayed the XIV century conquest as the invasion of savage nomads from the distant deserts near the borders of the modern China.
This is why Orbini’s book happens to be a heavy read and leaves one with a chaotic impression – quite inevitable, since, as we realise today, it contains multiple renditions of the same sequence of events under different names and dated to different epochs.
Nevertheless, it is a mine of interesting information. We shall only cite a few examples.
11. The use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the Western Europe as reported by Orbini.
Orbini writes: “From that very time [or the epoch of Cyril and Methodius, the inventors of the Cyrillic alphabet – Auth.], there are still some priests from the ranks of the Liburno Slavs [meaning that they still existed at the end of the XVI century – Auth.] subordinate to the Archduke of Noritia who read the liturgy and other divine texts in their native language, possessing no knowledge of Latin; even the very rulers of Noritia were known for using Slavic letters in the epistles written to their subjects, the likes of which can be seen in the Church of St. Stephen in Vienna” ([617], page 38).
Vienna is in Austria. Therefore, Cyrillic alphabet was still used by the Austrians in Orbini’s epoch – and this is just one of the examples provided by Orbini.
12. Orbini on the Slavic Goths.
One of the chapters of Orbini’s book is entitled “On the Slavic Goths”. This is what he tells us:
“In the ancient times . . . the Slavic Goths had no external foes that they could fight, and so they fought among themselves. Then they set forth from Scandinavia [or New Scythia – Russia, that is, qv below – Auth.], their original native land, and assaulted the Ulmerug, driving them away from their lands, which were conquered under the leadership of King Betikh” ([617], page 83).
The above is a rather explicit reference to the “Mongolian” (or the Great) conquest under the leadership of Batu-Khan (a. k. a. Ivan Kalita, or Caliph, as we already know). Seeing as how he is mentioned in this passage, the conquest must indeed be great.
Indeed, Orbini reports that later on the Goths, “led by King Philimir [apparently, Timur – Auth.] went on towards Scythia, which was known as Ovin, then stopped to fight the Spallian nation. Having defeated them, the Goths divided into groups. One of them conquered Egypt [sic! – Auth.], whereas another, led by King Amal [Prince Maliy, or “the junior prince”? – Auth.] journeyed Eastwards. The rest of them turned Westwards, led by Valt” ([617], page 83).
This must be a description of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest led by Batu-Khan, which is presented as a Slavic conquest. This is perfectly right – it had been predominantly Slavic, or, rather, Russian, as we demonstrate in CHRON4.
In another instance Orbini lists various Slavic tribes, among them the Burgundians, the Dacians, the Swedes and the Finns, and reports the following: “When all these tribes left Scandinavia [New Scythia, or Russia – Auth.], their common homeland, all of them, apart from the Illirians and the Thracians, were calling themselves Goths” ([617], page 80).
“The Goths, the Vandans and the Visigoths [the West Goths – Auth.] . . . only differed from each other by their name. Everything else about them had been exactly the same – their skin was white, and their hair, yellow. They were tall, and they all had common lows and a common faith, and also a common language known as Gothic. Nowadays . . . one cannot deny that the Slavs are of the same origin as the Goths . . . The nation of the Vandals conquered all the lands that lay between the German Sea and the Mediterranean . . . Therefore, the Muscovites, the Russians, the Poles, the Czechs, the Cherkassians, the Dalmatians, the Istrians, the Carvatians [Croatians – Auth.], the Boshnaks [Bosnians – Auth.], the Bulgarians, the Rascians and their neighbours were known under a multitude of names, but their origins were Vandal, and they shared a common language” ([617], page 80).
Let us make a brief excursus for the readers familiar with our mathematical and statistical analysis of the Bible, qv in CHRON1 and CHRON2. As we have seen, Orbini says that the Western campaign of the Slavic Goths, or the “Mongolian” campaign of the Russians, was led by a certain Valt, or Balt ([617], page 83). Could he be the Biblical King Balthazar, or Balta-Czar, Czar of the Balt (Valt)? The Baltic Sea might also have been named after him.
As we have already mentioned in CHRON1 and CHRON2, the version of the Bible available to date is most likely to have been written in the Middle Ages, and some of the books contained therein were edited in the West. This Oriental conqueror known as Balta-Czar, perceived by the editors of these books as a menace from the East, must have transformed into Balthazar the conqueror.
13. Orbini on the Russian Slavs, or the Muscovites.
In the chapter entitled “On the Russian Slavs, or the Muscovites” ([617], pages 68-76) Orbini reports a number of facts that can also be explained perfectly well by our conception. His general idea is that the Slavic conquest of the world began from a land called Scandia. He does not give us any particular information concerning its whereabouts. This must be why later commentators accused Orbini of being the author of a theory about the Scandinavian origins of the Slavs. However, Orbini has nothing to do with this confusion. Below, in the chapter that deals with mediaeval geography, we shall tell the reader that Scandia is merely another name of Scythia. However, Scythia was a vast land, and its borders are rather vague. Still, Orbini’s text gives us the opportunity of localising Scandia, or the ancient homeland of the Slavs, with much greater precision.
As Orbini tells us about the Slavic nations, he says that only the Russian Slavs, or the Muscovites, “remained in their homes, whereas all their comrades and kin set forth towards the German Sea and the Danube . . . since the Slavs conquered the entire European Sarmatia and a part of Asia, setting forth from Scandia. The Slavic settlers spread all across the lands that lie between the Northern Ocean [or the Arctic Ocean – Auth.] and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the Adriatic, and between the Great Sea and the Baltic Ocean . . . The Russian Slavs have always lived in European Sarmatia, and remain there until this day, having gathered many new lands by either chasing the neighbouring nations away or making them live by their laws” ([617], page 68).
Orbini describes the “Mongol and Tartar invasion” in pretty much the same terms as we do in CHRON4. Basically, Orbini’s text contains nearly every piece of relevant information that we have related, but it needs to be extracted from his convoluted text. Romanovian historians were finding it “hard” for obvious reasons. However, now that we are capable of reconstructing the more or less veracious picture of history, albeit roughly, with the use of completely different methods pertaining to natural sciences in general and mathematical statistics in particular, as related in CHRON1 – CHRON3, we are surprised to discover that Orbini already says it all.
As we proceed with our attentive study of Orbini’s texts, we keep coming up with data that we can only decipher today.
Orbini mentions the close relations between the Russians, the Muscovites and the Goths: “The Russians . . . were the military allies of the Goths, accompanying them in every campaign; Europe and many other lands were laid waste as a result” ([617], page 70).
In CHRON4 we already mentioned that the Goths can be identified as the Cossacks, also known as the Tartars in mediaeval sources. It is perfectly obvious that the Goths, or the Cossacks, took part in every Russian military campaign.
14. Orbini on the Huns and Attila as a Russian warlord.
As Orbini describes the borders of the Russian state, he reports Ugaria, or Ugra, to be a Russian province. Today we know it as Hungary. Orbini adds that this land is the birthplace of the Huns, and tells us how the Russians set forth from this province and conquered many of the “best lands in Europe” led by Attila ([617], page 68).
Therefore, the Huns and their famous chieftain Attila can be identified as the Russians. Some might think this to be over the top and clearly a fantasy of Orbini’s – however, Sigismund Herberstein, a historian of great authority and the author of the book entitled “Notes on Muscovite Affairs” ([161]), reports the exact same thing. As we mention it in CHRON4, Chapter 5:2.2, Herberstein mentions Yougra in his list of Russian provinces (Suzdal, Kostroma, Perm etc). He writes: “Russians aspirate this name, pronouncing it as ‘youhra’ (and call the natives of this land Yuhrichi). It is the very Yougra that the Hungarians came from, conquering many European lands led by Attila. The Muscovites are very proud of this name, seeing as how their alleged vassals had once devastated the greater part of Europe” ([161], page 163).
Are we to accuse Herberstein of fantasizing as well?
Therefore, the claim made by Orbini cannot be waved aside as a figment of his imagination. There’s more to it – and our reconstruction provides an excellent explanation of said claim. Let us quote the text of Orbini for the sake of completeness:
“The Russian Kingdom begins from the River Don and the Meotian Sea in the East; it covers the entire territory between Lithuanian and the rivers Pevtse and Polna, from the Prussian Livonia and Poland in the West; from River Tir, or the Dniester, and the Sarmatian Mountains in the South; this territory includes Yougoria, or Yougra, the province whence the Huns originate – the ones that conquered Poland and many other European lands led by Attila; the Russians are very proud that their subjects once conquered the most beautiful lands in Europe” ([617], page 69).
In fig. 9.4 we see an ancient portrait of Attila from the famous Cosmography of S. Munster, allegedly published in 1550. We must pay attention to the Cossack (or Ottoman = Ataman) turban on Attila’s head, which is in perfect correspondence with our reconstruction.
The Vandals, who devastated Rome in the alleged year 455, were also Slavic in origin. Orbini cites the “Vandal-Slavonic-Italian Glossary” as proof that the Slavs and the Vandals were related ([1318]). This glossary is reproduced in the Annexes; the similarities between the Russian and the Vandal words are as striking as they are numerous. It is very characteristic that this exceptionally fascinating fragment of the book was omitted from the Russian edition of 1722 for some reason ([617]).
15. Hungary in the title of the Russian Czars.
The full title of the Russian Czars, before and under the Romanovs, contains the term “Yougorian”, or “Hungarian”. In particular, we find it in the title of the Russian Czar cited in [617], page 76, and many other sources as well.
Upon comparing this fact with the evidence of Herberstein and Orbini as quoted above, we are once again confronted by the standard mediaeval notion concerning the former unity of Russia and Hungary.
16. Orbini on the campaigns of the Russian Muscovites in the epoch of the “Antiquity”.
Orbini writes the following about the military campaigns of the Russians that he classifies as “ancient”:
“When Pompey the Great was fighting Mithridates, the King of Pontus, the Russians [also known as the Muscovites, as Orbini reports above, qv in [617], page 68 – Auth.], led by their leader Tasovaz, or Tasius, dealt a great blow to the King of Pontus, being the allies of the Roman Kingdom . . . In the epoch of Vespasian, they crossed the Danube, slaughtered two regiments of Roman soldiers and entered Mesia, killing Agrippus, the mayor of the city and the country’s ruler; ever since that time they have been living in Illirian Mesia, which they call Rascia [Russia – Auth.]” ([617], pages 69-70).
Thus, under Pompey the Great, who had lived in the alleged I century B. C., and under the Roman Emperor Vespasian, whose lifetime is dated to the alleged I century A. D., the Muscovites, or the Russians, don’t merely exist, which is an utter impossibility in Scaligerian history, but also actively partake in the life of the Roman Empire – at times figuring as its allies, and occasionally also defeating the Roman regiments, or legions. This must be a reference to the internecine wars inside the Horde.
However, Orbini, a contemporary of Scaliger, doesn’t seem to be confused by contradicting Scaligerian chronology quite as blatantly. This once again proves to us that in the XVI-XVII century a great many historians still disagreed with Scaliger; some of them had still remembered the correct version of history.
17. Orbini on the “Finns, or Fennes, a Slavic tribe”.
This is the name of one of the chapters from Orbini’s book. It doesn’t require any commentary from our part. However, we might be asked whether “Orbini’s Finns” are the very Northern nation known to us under that name today. Apparently, they are: “The Slavic Finns are the northernmost nation of the world; the land they settled in is barely inhabitable by humans” ([617], page 109).
18. Orbini on the “Slavic Dacians”.
See [617], page 110. No commentary is required.
19. Orbini on the “Norman Slavs”.
See [617], page 111. Here we find it difficult to refrain from commenting. Orbini is referring to the very Normans, or Vikings, that we know as the legendary conquerors of the Western Europe. Nowadays they are dated to the period between the end of the VIII and the middle of the XI century ([797], page 220). In particular, they conquered France, also invading Britain, Italy, Spain etc. Orbini relates the conquest of France by the Slavic Normans for the most part.
Apparently, the Normans were Slavic, and this fact is actually known to historians. Let us turn to M. Fasmer’s “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language ([866]) and consider the entry “Russ” (the old word for Russia). We see that in the Middle Ages the Greek word Ros was used for referring to the Normans, whereas the Arabic word Rus stood for “Normans in France and Spain” in the Middle Ages ([866], Volume 3, page 522).
Nowadays this mediaeval name of the Normans (“Russes”, which is how their contemporaries used to refer to them) is explained with the aid of the so-called “Norman theory”. Let us remind the reader that, according to this “theory”, the word “Russ” came from Scandinavia with Ryurik, who is claimed to have been from Scandinavia by the proponents of this theory. Above and in CHRON4 we have already discussed the “Norman theory” at length. Many historians consider it antiscientific today, qv above. We agree with that. However, as we demonstrate in the present book, the “Norman theory” owes its existence to the incorrect interpretation of certain data contained in the mediaeval Russian chronicles. Some falsification was also thrown in (see CHRON4). In reality, the name “Russ” was never borrowed by the Russians from anyone. Below we demonstrate that the very word “Scandinavia” was once a name used for referring to mediaeval Russia, or some part thereof, by foreigners. Therefore, if we are to mention borrowed names, Scandinavia is of Russian origin and not vice versa.
Once we restore the authentic mediaeval meaning to a number of names and events, we begin to understand the real meaning of the evidence contained in the ancient chronicles. The real meaning of many ancient names has either been forgotten or distorted, and they are used for referring to something completely different nowadays. In many cases, these new meanings were introduced for a reason. Having created its own version of the ancient history, the Scaligerian school started to interpret many of the ancient names in the manner that suited its needs. The new Scaligerian interpretations of the old names were introduced together with this version of history.
Thus, we have found out that the mediaeval Greeks and Arabs directly claimed the Norman conquest of the Western Europe to have been started by the Russians. This must have also been understood by many of the XVIII century historians, hence the necessity to plant the “Norman theory”. Now we can see that it was one of the cornerstones supporting the entire Scaligerian conception.
20. Orbini on the Amazons – “the famed Slavic warrior women”.
Nowadays the Amazons are usually considered to be legendary characters from the “ancient” Greek mythology, and known as female warriors who fought the mythical “ancient” Heracles and demonstrated great valiance in the Trojan War.
On the other hand, we have already been confronted by a number of direct references to the fact that the name “Amazons” pertained to the wives of the Cossacks, or the Goths (see CHRON4).
What does Orbini tell us? He makes a great many references to the Amazons. This is how he begins his narration: “The fame of the Slavs is also complemented by the valiance of their women, most of all the Amazons, who were the wives of the Sarmatian Slavs from the region of the Volga . . . Some writers report them [the Amazons – Auth.] to have been wives of the Goths, and to have fought Aurelian Caesar alongside their husbands, clad in men’s attire.
However, the Gothic and Sarmatian women have always belonged to the Slavic nation . . . The Amazons have travelled all across Asia Minor, conquered Armenia, Galatia, Syria, Cilicia and Persia . . . They built many cities, towers and strong citadels . . . among them – the famed cities of Smyrna and Ephesus . . . The Greek kings, terrified by the might of the Amazons, sent Iraclius [Heracles – Auth.], the foremost warlord of their time, to battle against them. Then the Amazons fought the Greeks alongside the Trojans [took part in the Trojan War – Auth.] under the leadership of Panthesilea, remaining a strong force until the very epoch of Alexander the Great” ([617], pages 119-120). Until the XV or the XVI century as per our reconstruction, that is.
“Cynana of Macedon, also a Slavic woman and the sister of Alexander the Great . . . went into battle and fought against the foes, slaying Caria, the Queen of Illiria, by her own hand” ([617], page 121).
These events of the XIV-XVI century must have become reflected in the “ancient” Greek myths, familiar to us from our schooldays. Those myths were actually compiled in the XV-XVII century Greece.
We remember from the previous section that the Amazons were occasionally reported to inhabit the Baltic coast. Why would that be? Orbini provides a clear answer.
He tells us the following: “In the time of the war between Ringon, King of the Swedes, and Harald, King of Denmark, the wives of the Slavs [or the Amazons – Auth.] fought alongside Harald as his allies” ([617], page 121).
This is how the Cossack Amazons left their trance in the history of the Baltic regions. We can clearly see that the Cossack women went into battle together with their men, and were considered formidable warriors.
