Has history been tampered with? The Mongols was just another name of ancient Russian army

Has history been tampered with? According to the official version of history, Russia remained under the political and military yoke of the Mongols for many centuries on end.
The term "Mongol" is usually assumed to have always meant the same thing - however, this turns out to be incorrect; the modern interpretation is of a relatively recent origin. Bear in mind that Mongolia didn't exist as an independent state until the early 20th century! The word "Mongol" simply meant "Great One" - its association with the nomadic tribes hailing from the steppes north of China is a later invention. But why did it have to be invented?

The reason is simple - the actual "Mongol conquerors of Russia" never existed. The yoke theory was created by the court historians of the new Russian dynasty - the Romanovs. It has served the end of justifying the Romanovs' claims for the throne and demonising their longtime adversaries - the Horde, or the professional Russian army, which remained fiercely loyal to the old Russian dynasty, deposed and finally destroyed by the Romanovs as a result of a conspiracy. The savage invaders and torturers of the Russian land that we read about in history textbooks were the protectors of the state in reality - and ethnic Slavs for the most part. Small wonder historians still cannot find a single trace of the mythical Mongol capital - no such capital ever existed anywhere near the Gobi Desert.

The Mongol Horde identified as the Russian army are extremely hard to swallow for any Russian - yet they are just the tip of the iceberg called New Chronology, which is a radical reconstruction of world history in general and a brainchild of Anatoly Fomenko, one of today's leading mathematicians and by all means a scientist to be taken seriously. His sensational fundamental work entitled: "History: Fiction or Science?" is finally available in English - the ice cold facts and the rock hard scientific evidence concealed underneath that glossy cover portraying Jesus pinioned to the Big Ben can, and eventually will, sink the entire paper fleet of consensual history.

How many historical documents are counterfeit?

We shall never know just how many historical documents are in fact counterfeit. History in general goes hand in hand with the history of forgeries; countless chronicles as well as works of art and literature have been considered authentic for centuries before becoming denounced as counterfeit. A presumed fragment of Cicero's "De Consolatione" discovered by the famous humanist scholar Sigonius only became identified as a work of the latter two centuries after the death of the author -- we would probably still believe in Cicero's authorship of said fragment if it hadn't been for the discovery of Sigonius' written confession.

Similar examples are rather abundant -- the "Thespian poet Lucius Varus" who turned out to be a 18th century Dutch scientist by the name of Heerkens plagiarizing from the 16th century Venetian author Corrario, the German "translation" of a Phoenician history tractate by a student named Wagenfeld in the 19th century, "classical" texts sold to the Leipzig library by a certain Schennis in the 1920's and so forth. Think of just how many remain undiscovered -- after all, the larger part of the iceberg always remains underwater.

However, there may be an equal amount of valid historical documents in existence that were declared forgeries due to their being at odds with the official history. Anatoly Fomenko, the prominent mathematician, was the first to apply natural scientific methods to historical data, coming up with a revolutionary theory which implies a radical revision of history as we know it. This theory finally explains such historical oddities as the existence of Christian tabernacles in the pagan town of Pompeii and the Ottoman Turks referred to as "Persians" in mediaeval documents. It is rendered in Fomenko's fundamental work entitled: "History: Fiction or Science" which is finally out in English. "Sensational" is a very mild term -- this book is heretical, controversial and clearly subversive -- but even the most uncanny ideas it contains are all backed up by statistics, astronomy, and brilliant logic. Fomenko's book may infuriate you since it contradicts everything you were taught in school, but once you're through with it, your view of history shall never be the same again!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• masonic
• historical
• cabal
• war
• campaign
• biblical
• medieval
• china
• india
• burma
• jerusalem
• illuminati
• timeline
• conspiracy
• english
• french
• roman
• battle
• fight
• priam
• hector
• troy
• bow
• sword
• sea
• arrow
• ship
• weapon
• helene
• horse
• race
• king
• tartars
• logic
• fact

[juska555]

What a bullshit...

[Jannok120]

This video is a perfect of psedueohistory/pseudoarcheolog­y at it's worst form.

[kenstarr2009]

@VendPrekmurec O da, nashi jazyki otshen' pochozhi drug na druga. Ved' slova: dverki, kalitka, dveri, Veda, vedenije, vrata - imejut to zhe znatshenije v RUSSKOM jazyke, kak i v SLOVENSKOM, potomu potshti vsjo ponimajetsja bez perevoda, prosto inogda proiznoshenije razlitshajetsja. I bogi byli obshije u nashich predkov. :-)

Az boga vedaja glagolju dobro jest' zhizn'! SLAVA VSEM SLAVJANAM!

[VendPrekmurec]

@kenstarr2009 lol ja(z) sem te razumel 90% :D Ako govorish o Vedski iztoriji, tada su bili slaveni nosiltsi Vedske kulture, i doshli iz Arja-Vrata (vrata = dverki, kalitka, brame, duri - doors) ili "Arijska Vrata - Dverki (Krishnovo mesto je bila Dwarka (dveri u mojom jeziku i dverki v Ruskom)

Veda eshche danes (segodnaya) u Slovenskom jezike znachi "Veda" (znanje - abstraktno vedenye - znanje ili mudrost) - i Rig Veda kak "Rek Veda" (Veda Rechi, rekov )

:)

[kenstarr2009]

@VendPrekmurec Venedy, kak nositeli samogo "tshistogo" vida Arijskogo jazyka, vozmozhno, byli izolirovany v kakoj-to mere ot ostal'nogo mira, potomu i upominanija o nich pojavilis' okolo 2000 let nazad. A "zatvoRnitshestvo" vozmozhno pomoglo sochranit' "tshistotu" jazyka. Potomu on tak pochozh na Sanskrit.

Eto prosto mojo videnije istoriji Venedov i Slavjan, mojo mnenije, ja mogu oshibat'sja. Istina gde-to rjadom :-)

P.S.:Ja ispol'zoval latinitzu, napisal po Russki, dumaju - vsjo ponjatno.

[kenstarr2009]

@VendPrekmurec Vtoroje kazhetsja bolee verojatnym, po krajnej mere mne. Tshast' Arijev ushla na Vostok, a drugaja tshast' ostalas' v Jevrope i stala potomkami Venedov, a zatem i vsech Slavjan kak potomkov Venedov. I ne tol'ko Venedov.

Navernjaka ne vse Ariji stali Venedami, kto-to stali Latinami, kto-to Grekami, Germantsami, Irantsami-Persami. Naverno, IE yazyki pojavljalis po puti sledovanija Arijev kak posledstvije usvojenija i assimiljatsiji drugimi narodami Arijskogo jazyka.

[kenstarr2009]

@VendPrekmurec Nu a jesli verit' etoi istoriji, to polutshajetsja, tshto Slavjane est' odno iz dvuch:

1) Oni - potomki Arijev, zavojevavshich Indiju i vernuvshichsja obratno v Jevropu. Togda stranno to, tshto kak oni mogli "nezametshennymi" projti obratno v tsentr Jevropy i stat' Venedami, chotja takoje mozhno dopustit'. No nashi geny ne imejut nitshego obshego s genami Indusov, a oni navernjaka byli by u vozvrashentsev.

2) Oni - potomki Arijev, kotoryje ne poshli v Indiju, a ostalis' "doma".

[kenstarr2009]

@VendPrekmurec Ja prosto dumaju, tshto naverno, Ariji ne nazyvalis' Slavjanami 3000 let nazad i ran'she, kogda oni vtorglis' v Indiju. Oni prosto govorili na protoarijskom jazyke, obshem dlja vsech indojevropeiskich narodov. I pamjatnik etomu protoarijskomu jazyku jest' Sanskrit. Nu a Slavjane est' samyje blizkije k Proto-Arijam po jazyku. Ofitsialnaja istorija nastshityvajet okolo 2000 let Slavjanskoj istorii, natshinaja s Venedov. Ne znaju, naskol'ko mozhno jei verit'.

[kenstarr2009]

@VendPrekmurec Oh yeah, i just wasn't right about Sanskrit. I'd just thought about comparing a lot of words of Latin and some Germanik languages, i.e. English, German-Deutshe and Norse. And even Greek. It's really, a lot of words in these languages are some like Russian.

But when i'd compared Russian to Sanskrit, then i've seen, that Sanskrit is more look-like Russian, than Latin and Germanik, because you were right.

[VendPrekmurec]

@kenstarr2009 because Sanskrit - or more correctly Sam-Skrt or Sam-Skrit - "self-hidden" was artificially created from Prakrit - "pra" means still today "old - grand" in slavic and Krit means "covered" - the language which was covering areas, described in Maha-Bharata; maha is old slavic word for "great" or "raz-mah, mak", similar as old greek (also close to old Slavic and Sanskrit) and Bharata or Rata means "war" in Slavic...

This "Great war" happened 6000-5000Bc - when biblical hisTORy starts