Part 5.
Ancient Egypt as part of the Great “Mongolian” Ataman Empire of the XIV-XVI century.
Chapter 17.
The Trojan War of the XIII century and Pharaoh Ramses II. “Ancient” Egypt of the XIII-XVI century.
9. The Trojan War of the XIII century, or the war of 1453 that ended with the conquest of Czar-Grad.
First of all, let us turn to the events of the XIII century A. D. Bear in mind that the matter is as follows according to our reconstruction. There was a great war comprised of several battles. One of the warring parties was Rome, or Troy of the XIII century, in other words - Romea or Byzantium, which must also have included African Egypt. This was obviously the party that included the Trojans. The other party was the Goths, or the Hittites - Russia, or the Horde and its Cossacks.
As a result of the Trojan War, the Goths = Hittites and the Tartars conquer Czar-Grad and become Trojans, after a manner, becoming the masters of the legendary Troy, or Troitsa (Trinity). The war must have eventually resulted in a truce signed between Russia and Troy. This was the very truce that had held two powerful nations together for several centuries up until the XVII - Russia, or the Horde, and the Ottoman = Ataman Empire, later known as Turkey, allowing them to form the Great = “Mongolian” Empire several decades later, in the first half of the XIV century.
Historians themselves write that in 1261 the army of the Nicaean emperor that took Constantinople consisted of “Mongols” and the Turks. This is, for example, what we find in the textbook of G. L. Kurbatov: “The Byzantine Army [of the second half of the XIII-XIV century - Auth.] . . . consisted of mercenaries for the most part - the Turks and the Mongols” ([455], page 174).
All of this is reported in the “ancient” Egyptian chronicles, as we should expect. Indeed, we learn of the following:
“A great war broke out between Egypt [Mizraim - Auth.] and the land of the Hita. The King of the Hita gathered his allies to stand against Egypt. Among them were the following kings and nations:
Aratu, or Arad [the Horde - Auth.],
Khilibu, or Khaleb [Lipetsk - Auth.],
The lands around the rivers of Nakharain [the Nogai Horde, qv above - Auth.],
Katsaudan (Gauzanitis, or Gozen) [the Don Cossacks - Auth.]
Maluna [Prince Mal - Auth.],
Pidaza [? - Auth.],
Leka (Ligii) [? The Spartan Laconians? - Auth.],
Dardani (Dandani) [Dardanelles or Don-Don - Auth.],
Masu [the Massagets, a famous Slavic tribe. See [388], page 155, for instance - Auth.],
Kerkesh (Gergesei?) or Keshkes, Kir-Kamosh (Karkemish) [Cherkassian Cossacks, or the People of Georgiy (Gyurgiy) - Auth.],
Akerit [KRT = Kerch? - Auth.],
Anau-Gas (Ienisus) [Cossacks of Ivan, given that GUZ = Cossacks - Auth.],
Mushanat [Meshech = Moscovia - Auth.],
which are called ‘nations from all over the land, from faraway reaches over the sea to the land of Hita’. The battle prepared under Kadesh was a world war in every sense of the word” ([99], page 467).
Therefore, we see that Russia, or the Horde, came from the land of Hita.
Apart from that, Egyptian artwork depicts a nation that is unknown to the Egyptologists, allies of the Canaan (Khan) nation with turbans on their heads ([99], page 470). Namely, “turbans, or the kind of headdress worn by the Persians today” ([99], page 470). Turbans were worn by the Cossacks in the Middle Ages. We have discussed this at length already, qv in CHRON4.
A great battle was fought at Kadesh, ending with the victory of Ramses. The military action is described in detail in [99], so we shall withhold from delving into the military particularities presently.
Just like the Trojan War, which was immortalised in numerous poems, the most famous being the heroic poem of Homer, the Battle of Kadesh was also described in the special “ancient” Egyptian heroic poem of Pentaur ([99], page 475). This must be one of the first versions of Homer’s poem created in the late XIII - early XIV century and not any earlier.
Moreover, it is possible that the “ancient” Egyptian account of the Battle of Kadesh includes references to the more recent events of the XV century, which is when the Ottomans, or the Atamans, captured Czar-Grad = Troy in 1453. This year marks the final fall of Byzantium.
10. Three peace pacts famous in Scaligerian history as reflections of one and the same pact signed between Russia and the Ottomans in 1253 or 1453.
In the present section we shall discuss the idea that the pact between Pharaoh Ramses and the Goths of the alleged XIII century B. C., the pact between the Greeks and the Russians of the alleged IX-X century A. D. and the pact between Syria and Egypt of the alleged year 1253 A. D. are most likely to be reflections of the same pact signed in the XIII century or later as a result of the Trojan War (or, alternatively, in 1453, after the conquest of Czar-Grad).
10.1. The name “Turks” is rather ambiguous.
The name Turk (or TRN/TRK unvocalised) as encountered in mediaeval history is most likely to be associated with the Tartars first and foremost, and also with Czar-Grad, or Troy. Nowadays the Turks are usually considered to be the nations that reside in Asia Minor, the Balkans and the environs of Constantinople. However, there were numerous battles fought in these parts, and so the name TRK/TRN must have referred to different nations in different epochs. In the XIV-XVI century it must have been associated with the name Troy, or “Troitsa” (“Trinity”), which may be the origin of the name “Turkey”. Later it may have given birth to such names as Thracia etc.
These are the origins of the names of the Trojans, the Seljuk Turks and the Franks. Apart from that, TRK/TRN stood for dynastic names, such as Pharaoh and Tarquins, which were also associated with Troy, or Czar-Grad, in one way or another.
The Seljuk Turks come to the Czar-Grad arena in the alleged XI-XIII century ([797], page 1186). They must be the very Tartars of the XIII-XVI century. It is presumed that the Seljukid dynasty came to existence in the alleged XI century and was named after the leader Seljuk, who is said to have lived in the X - early XI century. The Seljuk Turks “conquered a part of Central Asia, most of Iran, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Iraq, Armenia, Asia Minor, Georgia and several other territories in the 1040’s - 1080’s. They have attained their greatest political influence in 1072-1092 under Melik-Shah . . . Before the XIV century, the Seljuks controlled the Konian [the Khan’s - Auth.] Sultanate” ([797], page 1186).
We are of the opinion that the passage in question refers to Byzantium of the XII-XV century. In the XIV century the Ottomans, or Atamans emerge on the historical arena. They come from Russia, or the Horde, and conquer Czar-Grad.
The inhabitants of Asia Minor were also known as Greek, and Byzantium, or Asia Minor, was referred to as Greece. Turkey is located in Asia Minor to date. During the Russian and Turkic “Mongolian” conquest, Slavic and Turkic peoples of the Horde, or Russia, invaded Asia Minor. They settled here and became known as the Turks. The Tartars, the Chuvash and certain other nations residing in Russia are known as Turkic nowadays, since their language is related to that of the Turks. However, they must have brought it to Turkey in the first place, during the “Mongolian” conquest. This is how the Ottoman = Ataman Empire came to existence in Asia Minor; it is common knowledge that a very important part in its life was played by the Slavs for a long time, qv in CHRON4.
Therefore, “Turks” is a very ambiguous historical term. It must have referred to different nations in different epochs. Basically, in the XVII-XIX century the Turks were the inhabitants of Asia Minor.
10.2. The peace pact signed between the Hittites and Pharaoh Ramses in the alleged XIII century B. C.
Brugsch tells us the following: “When the peace pact was signed with the nation of Hita, Egypt did not make the borders of the Hita nation any smaller, content with maintaining a superiority over it” ([99], page 485).
Moreover, they “signed a peace pact which was much discussed in that epoch, since the epistles dating therefrom contain numerous innuendos and indications at the friendship between the two great nations of Asia and Africa” ([99], page 489).
“The text of the pact between Hitasir [Hittite Czar, or Gothic Czar - Auth.] and Ramses II has reached us written on a slab of stone located near the external side of the South-Eastern wall of the Karnak Column Hall of Seti I . . . the text of this pact was made public first by Champollion and then by Brugsch”, according to Vlastov ([99], page 489).
According to Brugsch, “historical information about this union has reached us in clear and understandable terms, notwithstanding a number of lacunae” ([99], page 489).
The fact that Champollion was the first one to make the text of the pact public instantly makes us suspicious. We remember the eyewitnesses’ reports of Champollion’s “scientific work” conducted with the aid of a hammer and chisel. Hence the obvious question. Where do the “lacunae” come from? Could it be that the winds erased some of them selectively? This is unlikely, since, as it turns out, in some cases the only parts of the text that perished had initially contained names. Therefore, the destruction was purposeful. It is most likely that we are confronted with the labours of Scaligerite purists such as Richard Pocock and Champollion.
Here is an example of an “ancient” Egyptian inscription: “Then the Pharaoh’s envoy stood before the king named . . . and brought forth the envoys of the Great King Hitas Hitasir” ([99], page 490). The dots correspond to a chiselled-off name, which we aren’t likely to ever find out. The same is true for many other cases.
This is how the pact between the Egyptians and the Hittites begins, signed in the alleged XIII century B. C. According to our reconstruction, it is the pact signed between the Russians and the Greeks in the IX-X century and also the pact between the Russians and the Ottomans signed in 1253 (or even 1453), written on the stones of the “ancient” Egypt:
“Hitasir, the Great King of the Hita, signs a pact with Ramessu Miamun, the Great Ruler of Egypt [Mizraim, or, apparently, Muscovite Rome - Auth.] today so that there might be a close alliance and bonds of friendship between them forever. May he be my ally and friend! I will be his ally and his friend forever . . . May there never be any hostility between us” ([99], page 491).
10.3. A peace pact signed between Syria and Egypt in 1253 A. D.
As we have already mentioned, in 1253 a peace pact was signed between Syria and Egypt ([99], page 745).
Since we have already discovered that Syria of the “ancient” Egyptian chronicles is likely to identify as Russia, or the Horde, and that the “ancient” Egyptian history is in particular the history of the XIII century of the new era, one gets the idea that the pact of 1253 A. D. between Syria and Egypt and the “ancient” Egyptian pact between Ramses II and the Hittite King Hitasar are most probably the same thing.
The dating of 1253 A. D. offered by the Egyptologists for the pact between “Syria” and Egypt appears to be correct, and might be replaced for 1453.
The pact must have been famous enough in its epoch to leave many traces, some of which are discovered today. It turns out that such traces were also left in Russian chronicles.
10.4. Peace pact signed between the Russians and the Greeks in the alleged IX-X century A. D.
The famous pact with the Greeks was signed by the Russians in the alleged IX-X century A. D. It is covered in detail in the “Povest Vremennyh Let” ([716]). The 400-year shift inherent in Russian history, which was discovered in CHRON4, superimposes the middle of the XIII century A. D., or the epoch of 1253, exactly over the earliest days of the Russian history - roughly 862 A. D., which is when Ryurik’s reign began in Russia.
We learn that the famous pacts with the Greeks were signed under the first Russian rulers - Oleg, Igor and Olga. In each case the chronicle quotes the entire text of the pact (qv in [716], for instance). Three such pacts are mentioned, all of them being very similar to each other.
It would be interesting to compare their texts to the “ancient” Egyptian record, which refers to the same event of the XIII century A. D., as we now understand. Of course, the Russian and the “ancient” Egyptian texts do not coincide word for word, but they appear to be similar enough in general.
1) Both deal with promises of friendship, mutual military support and issues of extradition and punitive measures against fugitives and criminals.
2) In both cases the pact is offered by the Russians ([716] and [316], Volume 1, pages 82-91) or the Hittites (Goths) - see [99], page 489), which identify as the Russians according to our reconstruction.
3) In case of the Povest Vremennyh Let, each of the following pacts was signed to confirm the previous ones. Similarly, the “ancient” Egyptian record reports the following words of the Hittite king: “The right and just pact that existed in the times of Sapa-Li-Li, Great King of the Hita, and the pact that existed in the times of Mau-Tan-Er, Great King of the Hita, my brother, shall also be observed by myself” ([99], page 491).
Just like the pacts between the Russians and the Greeks, it continues the tradition of the two pacts that preceded it.
10.5. The Greek Saint Mamas and the "ancient" Pharaoh Miamun as mentioned in the pact.
4) The "ancient" Egyptian party is represented by Pharaoh Ramessu, also known under the nickname "Miamun" ([99], page 490). The Greek party makes numerous references to St. Mamas in Greece in the context of the pact signed between the Russians and the Greeks ([362], Volume 1, page 92). Apparently, Mamas and Miamun are two slightly different versions of the same name.
Another name we encounter in the "ancient" Egyptian pact is Tartiseb ([99], page 490). This was the name of the Hittite (or Gothic) envoy at the Pharaoh's court. The name is conspicuously similar to the word "Tartar".
10.6. A list of cities mentioned in the pact between Ramessu and the King of the Hittites.
The pact was ratified by sutekhs from several Hittite (Gothic) cities ([99], page 494).
The word "sutekh" is similar to the Russian word for "judge", "sudia". Incidentally, the custom of attaching several seals of several cities to documents was very popular in Novgorod the Great; every decree issued by this city bears a variety of seals ([8], Volume 1 and [759], page 59).
Let us now consider the Hittite (or Russian, as we realise) cities mentioned in the "ancient" Egyptian text of the pact. Unfortunately, many instances will remain beyond our understanding, since the list was also subjected to the hammer and chisel treatment by Champollion, Richard Pocock or one of their colleagues. The remnant of the Egyptian lettering is quoted by Brugsch in [99], page 494.
1) "Sutekh [or the judge - Auth.] of the City of Tunep [Daphne]" ([99], page 494). As we have already mentioned, this city is most likely to identify as Tana, or Azov.
2) "Sutekh of the Land of Hita". This is the Land of the Goths, or the Russians (the Cossacks).
3) "Sutekh of the City of Arnem". Possibly, a judge from Armenia.
4) "Sutekh of the City of Tsaranda. This may be a reference to the Czar of the Anti (one of the old Slavic tribes). In particular, this was mentioned by Orbini (qv above and in [388], page 155).
5) "Sutekh of the City of Pilka". Could this be a Polish judge (cf. "Polska", the Polish for "Poland").
6) "Sutekh of the City of Hissan". The name resembles Khios or Khio - one of the old names of Kiev, a famous city ([517], page 262). See Chapter 6.
7) "Sutekh of the City of Sarsu". This must be one of the Sarays, which were abundant in Russia - SAR-atov, SAR-ansk, Chebok-SAR-y etc.
8) "Sutekh of the City of Khilibu" (Khaleb?) We have already mentioned the fact that Khaleb = Aleppo must be another name of Lipetsk, an old Russian city, or the Russian word for "bread" ("khleb").
9) "Sutekh of the city . . ." The name has been chiselled off.
The following few lines have been chiselled off as well. Richard Pocock? Champollion? Or somebody else?
10) "Sutekh of the City of Sarpin". Another Saray, or, possibly, Serbia.
11) "Astarte of the Land of Hita" - the land of the Goths (or the Russians - Cossacks, to be more precise).
12) "God of the Land of Tsaya-Khirri" (?)
13) "God of the Land of Ka . . ." (the rest is destroyed).
14) "God of the Land of Kher . . ." (the rest is destroyed).
15) "Goddess of the City of Akh . . ." (the rest is no more. Apparently, the deity failed to please yet again).
16) "Goddess of the City of . . . [destroyed] . . . and the land of A . . . [destroyed] . . . WA".
17) "Goddess of the Land of Tsaina" (?)
18) "Goddess of the Land of . . . [destroyed] . . . NAT . . . [destroyed] . . . ER".
19) "Deities of the Hills and Rivers of the Land of Hita, Gods of the Land of Katsaudan (Gauzanitis)" ([99], page 494. Vlastov adds that the land in question "is mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy (V, 18); it is considered to identify as one with Strabon's Migdonia" ([99], page 494).
We have already mentioned the fact that Katsaudan is likely to have belonged to the Don Cossacks, whereas Migdonia identifies as the Mongolian Don, or the Great Don.
10.7. The Baptism of Russia as described in the "ancient" Egyptian texts.
Brugsch writes: "The scribes of the Pharaoh's court . . . express their joy at the great event, which is the signed peace pact. Their letters . . . are filled with mirth over the end of the war, and the unification of the Kemi [Mizraim, or Egypt - Auth.] and Hita into a single nation of brothers. In their magniloquent and vain Egyptian exaggerations they go so far as to presume that King Ramessu took the place of a deity for the nation of the Hita and the 'Circle of Tongues', or Kati [Katai, a. k. a. Scythia - Auth.]" [99], page 496).
The allegedly antediluvian stones of the "ancient" Egypt appear to be relating the story of the famous Baptism of Russia. It is emphasized that "Roman Jesus" became a deity for the nation of the Hita (the Goths). The "ancient" Egyptian record associates the Baptism with a signed pact.
The Russian "Povest Vremennyh Let", after describing and quoting the pacts signed between Russia and Greece under Oleg, Olga, Igor and Svyatoslav also refers to the Baptism of Russia. Let us remind the reader that the event in question is believed to have taken place in the X century under Vladimir, after his campaign to Byzantium. Why do the "ancient" Egyptian chronicles date this event to the XIII century of the new era, according to our reconstruction?
In is possible that in the XII century Western Russia was the first to get baptised together with the Balkans, and that the Eastern Russia, or the Horde, underwent the Baptism later, in the XIII century, which is the very epoch we are concerned with currently. The time interval between the two baptisms may have led to the chronological shift inherent in the history of Russia, when the two baptisms were confused for each other.
Alternatively, the "ancient" Egyptian texts may have a layered nature, mixing the events of the XII-XIII century (the Baptism of Russia) with those pertaining to the XIII century exclusively, such as the pact signed between Russia, or the Horde, and the Ottoman = Ataman Empire.
10.8. The Cossack circle in the "ancient" Egyptian descriptions.
Let us once again turn to the description of Russia's Baptism in the "ancient" Egyptian transcription. "Ramessu became deity for the nation of the Hita and the 'Circle of Tongues', or Kati" ([99], page 496.
Since Katai identifies as the Horde, or Cossack Russia, qv above, the identity of the "circle of tongues" mentioned in the "ancient" Egyptian records becomes perfectly clear - it is the Cossack Circle, or Council, known perfectly well to this day.
10.9. The Baptism of Russia and the marriage of the Great Prince and the Romean princess.
We know it perfectly well from Russian history that the Baptism of Russia was accompanied and associated with the marriage of Great Prince Vladimir and the Greek Princess Anne. The "Povest Vremennyh Let" reports that the baptism was made a prerequisite for the marriage of Vladimir and Anne by her brothers, the jointly ruling emperors Basil and Constantine ([362], Volume 1, pages 130-131).
And so, what do we see in the "stone chronicles" of the "ancient" Egypt? Immediately after the pact between Ramessu and the Hittites, "Ramses was so friendly with his contemporary, the King of Hita, that there were even family ties between them. According to the memorial stone table installed in the Temple of Ibsambul . . . Pharaoh Ramses married the daughter of the King of Hita" ([99], page 496).
Nowadays it is difficult to understand the details of whether a Russian Great Prince married the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor, or whether the contrary took place and a Byzantine married the daughter of the Russian Czar. Nevertheless, the actual marriage is registered in both sources.
