HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? ● BOOK 6

The Issue with Troy

Anatoly Fomenko

THE ISSUE WITH TROY

By Anatoly Fomenko

Book 6 of History: Fiction or Science? series.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the publisher. Critics are welcome, of course, to quote brief passages by way of criticism and review.

Anatoly Fomenko asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

Translated from Russian by Mikhail Yagupov

Design & layout: Paul Bondarovski

Project management: Franck Tamdhu

On the cover: A miniature from the Chronique de la Bouquechardière by Jean de Courcy (ca. 1470).

Copyright © 2003-2015 Delamere Resources LLC

Published by Delamere Resources LLC

2016 print edition

20% discount for purchase directly from Publisher’s website:

http://history.mithec.com

Your promotional code: new chronology

Volume 1:

Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics, eclipses and zodiacs

Volume 2:

The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts

Volume 3:

Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs

Volume 4:

Russia. Britain. Byzantinium. Rome

Video from Wikipedia

Overview of the e-Series

History: Fiction or Science?

by Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy

Book 1:

The Issue with Chronology

Book 2:

Astronomy vs. History

Book 3:

The Apocalypse Seen by Astronomy

Book 4:

The Issue with Dark Ages

Book 5:

The Issue with Antiquity

Book 6:

The Issue with Troy

Book 7:

The Issue with Russian History

Book 8:

The Horde From Pacific to Atlantic

Book 9:

The Issue with Mongols

Book 10:

The Issue with Ivan the Terrible

Book 11:

The Issue with Tamerlane

Book 12:

USA Has Issues with Maps of 18th Century

Book 13:

The Issue with Czar’s Helmet

Book 14:

The Issue with Russian Tartary

Book 15:

The Issue with British History

Book 16:

Crusades and Exoduses

Book 17:

Maps and Coins vs. History

Book 18:

Swords and Mantles Tell History

Book 19:

The Testament of Peter the Great

Book 20:

The Issue with Baptism of Russia

Book 21:

The Issue with Chinese Astronomy

Book 22:

The Great Wall Of China Hoax

Contents

About the author

From the publisher

1. Identifying the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C. as the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. with a 1053-year shift

2. The parallelism between the Gothic War of the alleged VI century and the Nika rebellion that took place in the same century

3. The Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C. superimposed over the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D.

3.1. The first accounts of the Trojan War: their presumed authorship, as well as geographical and temporal origins

3.1.1. The general conception of chronological shifts

3.1.2. The strange fate of Homer’s epic poems

3.1.3. Dares and Dictis – the “alleged participants” of the Trojan War

3.1.4. The mediaeval troubadours and the Franks telling us about the Trojan War

3.1.5. The ruins of a small mediaeval fortification that Heinrich Schliemann suggested to refer to as “the remnants of the ancient Troy”

3.2. The tale of the Trojan kingdom. A rough comparison of the Trojan War to the Gothic War

3.3. The legend of a woman and the casus belli of the Trojan War

3.4. The beginning of the war

3.5. The fall of Naples (the “New City”) = the fall of Troy. The mediaeval aqueduct and the “ancient” Trojan Horse

3.6. The “ancient” Achilles = the “ancient” Valerius. The “ancient” Patroclus = the “ancient” Brutus

3.7. The “ancient” Achilles = the mediaeval Belisarius. The “ancient” Hector = the mediaeval Gothic king Vittigis

3.8. The “treason” of the “ancient” Achilles = the “treason” of the mediaeval Belisarius

3.9. The “ancient” Troilus = the mediaeval Gothic king Totila. The “ancient” Paris = the “ancient” Etruscan Larth Porsenna

3.10. The end of the war

3.11. Other legends of the Trojan War

3.12. What is it about the Trojan chronicles that surprises the present day historians the most?

3.13. How similar are the respective descriptions of the Trojan and the Gothic War?

3.14. Other erroneous datings of the Trojan War

3.14.1. Phantom reflection of the Trojan War in the alleged III century A.D.

3.14.2. The Christian dating of the Trojan War

3.14.3. The datings of the Trojan War as offered by Hellanicus and Damastus

3.14.4. The Judean dating of the Trojan War

3.14.5. The Scaligerian dating of the Trojan War

3.15. The table of heroes who had fought in the XIII century war (Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic) and their phantom doubles

4. The Great Triad of Kings in Roman history: Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The parallelism with the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War

5. The rebellion of Spartacus as a vague and fragmented reflection of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War of the XIII century A.D.

6. A general picture of the 1053-year chronological shift

6.1. The identification of the First Roman Empire (Livy's Regal Rome) as the Third Roman Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D. and the 1053-year shift

6.2. Identifying the Second Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century as well as the Habsburg Empire of the XIV-XVII century. Two shifts – of 1053 and 1400 years, respectively

6.3. Empire of the X-XIII century. The parallelism between the X century war and the “ancient” Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War

6.4. The “ancient” Second Roman Empire in the X-XII century A.D. and the XIII-XVII century A.D.

6.5. Identifying the Third Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century as well as the Habsburg Empire of the XIV-XVII century. A 720-year shift and a 1053-year shift

6.6. War of the XIII century as the original reflected in the “ancient” Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War

What mainstream historians say about the New Chronology?

Overview of the e-Series

Bibliography

About the author

- Fomenko, Anatoly Timofeevich (b. 1945). Full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics. Solved Plateau’s Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems. Laureate of the 1996 National Premium of the Russian Federation (in Mathematics) for a cycle of works on the Hamiltonian dynamical systems and manifolds’ invariants theory. Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry. Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chronology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.

From the publisher

The consensual localization for Homer’s Troy is Hisarlik near the Hellespont straits. Herr Heinrich Schliemann used this hypothesis for solemnly baptizing as “Troy” the 100 by 100 metre excavation site of a minuscule ancient settlement (such ones abound there) that he had discovered near the Hellespont, where he announced the finding of gold of Priam artefacts that he himself designed and manufactured by Paris jewellers. Schliemann’s excavation of nine levels of archaeological remains with dynamite was constructive for supporting Homer’s Iliad, but somewhat destructive for any significant historical artefacts, including the level that is presumed to be the historical Troy. We are grateful to Hollywood time-machine who made an excellent documentary Troy confiring it all irrefutably. Herr Schliemann (1822-1890) was a German businessman-adventurer of Indian Jones mold. Hissarik should be renamed from Troy into Schliemannstadt.

The material of The Issue with Troy book crowns scores of years of meticulous and extensive research performed by the eminent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko and his colleagues. This book is also the 6th volume in History: Fiction or Science? e-series, the fundamental oeuvre that exposes and expounds the numerous inveracities of the traditional version of history.

The e-series History: Fiction or Science? contains data and conclusions that aren’t anything short of revolutionary. The alternatives offered to classical history are stunning, unorthodox to the extent of being labelled heretical by virtually every scholar of history, and daring enough to be considered preposterous at first sight, although this impression never lasts longer than it takes one to read a few pages attentively.

The author dissects every historical age and analyses the data from every source imaginable – consensual chronology takes a good beating, and it goes rapidly downhill from there. The Issue with Troy is actually the result of creation in XV-XVII centuries of events that never happened by misdating mediaeval events by hundreds and thousands of years and presenting them as very ancient ones.

Franck Tamdhu

July 2015

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened

told by people who weren’t there.

George Santayana,

American philosopher

(1863-1952)

Be wary of mathematiciens, particularly when they speak the truth.

St. Augustine

History repeats itself; that’s one of the things that’s wrong with history.

Clarence Darrow

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell, 1984

1.

Identifying the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C. as the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. with a 1053-year shift

The parallelism defined by the chronological formula T = X + 300 that we have already been following over a span of 200 years continues well into the VI century A.D. Remember that a comparison of dates with the aid of this formula is equivalent to a rigid chronological shift forward in time by about 1053 years. In fig. 2.27 we see a rough scheme of the new parallelism that we are about to relate herein.

Fig. 2.27 The parallelism between the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. and the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C. A chronological shift of 1053 years.

1a. The Tarquinian War. King Servius Tullius (according to Livy).

■ 1b. The Gothic War. King Theodoric the Goth.

1.1a. The Tarquinian War. Servius Tullius is the last king who died when the Regal Rome had still existed ([482]). According to Livy, “he had involved himself in affairs of peace… created the canon law, and there is a rumour amongst his offspring calling Servius the founder of the system of social estates and degrees… he had also founded the census, an institution that is most beneficial for the state” ([482], Book 1:42). Also: “even his kind and modest successor had found it hard to compete with his glory… which was also amplified by the fact that the reigns based on law and order had ended with him” ([482], Book 1:48).

■ 1.1b. The Gothic War. Theodoric had been the last emperor of the Third Empire in the West. His death in the alleged year 526 marks the beginning of a period of anarchy in Italy. Theodoric’s policy in domestic affairs, as we have already mentioned in Chapter 1 of Chron2, was famous for its flexibility. He was the founder of the Ostrogothic kingdom, patronized arts and sciences, gave foreigners and Romans equal rights and instigated some great migrations ([579] and [196]). Caracalla, his double in the Second Empire, performs similar feats, qv in Chron2, Chapter 1.

1.2a. The Tarquinian War. A shift forwards by 1053 years (following the formula T = X + 300), the death of Servius Tullius falls on the year 518 A.D. ([482]). We shall replace all of Livy’s ab urbe condita datings with the “new era” T-datings by the formula T = X + 300.

■ 1.2b. The Gothic War. Theodoric dies in the alleged year 526 A.D. If we compare this date with 518 A.D. for Servius Tullius, we shall see that the difference only equals 8 years. By the way, this is precisely the difference between the general time span covered by the Regal Rome and the Third Empire. What we thus see is a very good correlation of dates with the 1053-year shift taken into account.

2a. The Tarquinian War. Events that follow the death of Servius Tullius. The Tarquins come to power. The tale of Tullia and Lucretia according to Livy.

■ 2b. The Gothic War. Events that follow the death of Theodoric the Goth. The Ostrogothic dynasty of the Amalings coming to power. The tale of Amalasuntha and Matasuntha.

2.1a. The Tarquinian War. After the death of Servius Tullius, the power is inherited by his daughter Tullia and her consort Lucius Tarquin the Proud ([482], Book 1, pages 80-81; also [269], page 9. Many Tarquins group themselves around Tullia, Lucius Tarquin the Proud being one of them – their leader, after a manner ([482], Book 1). Let us point out the similarity between the names Tullia and Julia which we are about to study as a pair.

■ 2.1b. The Gothic War. After the death of Theodoric, the empire falls into the hands of his daughter Amalasuntha and the Amaling dynasty of the Ostrogoths. This dynasty is the double of Livy’s Tarquinian clan. A large group of the Ostrogoths forms a party of avid supporters around Amalasuntha ([695]). The Ostrogoths constitute a clan impenetrable for the outsiders, likewise the Tarquins. Due to the parallelism between the Second Empire and the Third, Amalasuntha’s double in the Second Empire is Julia Maesa, qv in Chron2, Chapter 1. Her name (Julia) is similar to the one used by Titus Livy – Tullia. We must also emphasize that the name Amalasuntha can be a derivative of “Amala-Santa”, or St. Amal (or Alan, if we are to consider the flexion of N and M).

2.2a. The Tarquinian War. The reign of the Tarquins (between the death of Servius Tullius until the fall of Lucius Tarquin the Proud) equals 25 years. Tarquin the Ancient, the stranger who came to Regal Rome, may be an ancestor of Tarquin the Proud. According to [482], he is a foreigner. The name Tarquin is possibly a derivative from Terra Aquilonius, or “the northern land” ([237], page 88). Also, if we are to read the name Tarquin backwards – in the Hebraic or Arabic fashion – we shall get “Neukrat” (spelt phonetically); this may be a variation of “Nov-Grad”, or “Novgorod” (the New City). In this case, the name Tarquin may apply to someone from the New City. A propos, the Latin dictionary ([237]) fails to provide a translation for the name Tarquin for some reason. One also has to note that Tarquin the Proud fights a war with either a city or a state by the name of Ardea ([269], page 9). It might be a reflection of later mediaeval events – the war between Italy and the Horde, Ardea being a possible variation of the latter’s name.

■ 2.2b. The Gothic War. The period when the Ostrogoths had been in power, begins with the death of Theodoric and ends with their final rout in the alleged year 552, thus equalling 26 years. We see a substantial propinquity between the values 25 and 26. One also has to mention that the Ostrogoths came to the Third Empire as a foreign nation, unrelated to the Italians. This is, what the famous mediaeval author Procopius tells us, at least. His book (The Gothic War – [237]) is a source that we shall be making numerous references to hereinafter. Now, the Goths presumably came to Italy from the North – “a northern land”. This indication concurs well with our suggestion that the name Tarquin really stood for “stranger from the North”. What we get in this case is that the last king of the First Empire (according to Livy), L. Tarquin the Proud, is a collective personality that fills the entire “northern” dynasty reignant in the alleged years 526-552 A.D. All these events are most likely to reflect what happened much later, in the Middle Ages – qv in Chron6.

2.3a. The Tarquinian War. The Tarquins are soon to be banished from Rome, qv below. Their name without vocalizations is transcribed as TRQN. One should bear in mind that there is a similar name Torquatus, translating as “Laurelled for Battlefield Valiance” ([237]). The name of the ruler preceding the Tarquins had been Servius. Thus, we have a pair of “key names” for this epoch – “Servius” (or Severus), and TRQN (without vocalizations).

■ 2.3b. The Gothic War. Shortly before the death of Theodoric, there were reports of repressive sanctions against Boetius and Symmachus, cf. with the prompt ousting of the Tarquins, qv above. The full name of Boetius turns out to contain the family names Torquatus Severus ([64], pages 45-46). Therefore, we learn of the existence of two powerful clans in the epoch of Theodoric and before him, in the alleged VI century A.D., by the names of Severus and Torquatus (or TRQN?). Also, the word Severus may be related to the Russian “Sever”, or “North” and mean “Stranger from the North”.

2.4a. The Tarquinian War. The clan of the Tarquins as described by Livy may be referred to by the unvocalized root TRQN (see discussion above).

■ 2.4b. The Gothic War. The Franks take part in the Gothic war of the alleged VI century as the allies of the Goths. Considering the flexion of F and T, the word “Frank” (FRNK, or TRNK without vocalizations) may be related to the unvocalized root of the name Tarquin, or TRQN. One should also remember a similar unvocalized version of the word Pharaoh (or “Faraon” in Russian) – TRN, which can also be found in the Bible as related to this epoch. Ergo, we can be relatively certain of the following: in both wars, Tarquinian as well as Gothic, the enemy of Rome was known by the name of TRQN or TRNK – therefore, Tarquins = Goths = Franks = People from the North (People from the New City). We shall also learn that there is also a superimposition of the mediaeval Franks over the “ancient” Persians (PRS unvocalized) to be taken into account. France still reads FRNC (or TRNK) unvocalized, whereas the name of its capital is Paris, or PRS without vocalizations, likewise the words Persia and Prussia. Unvocalized PRS could also be used for referring to P-Russians, or White Russians (cf. with modern Byelorussians).

2.5a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Tullia hands the state over to Tarquin ([482]). This reign is still considered to belong with the dynastic sequence of Regal Rome, Tarquin being the last ruler of the First Empire. However, the Tarquins shall soon be dethroned and banished ([482]).

■ 2.5b. The Gothic War. Amalasuntha (and her double in the second empire – Julia Maesa) hands power over to her son, Amalaric the Goth. This reign also belongs to the sequence of the Third Empire, since Constantinople recognized Amalasuntha (and Amalaric) as rightful rulers in the West of the Empire ([196], Volume 1). However, the Goths were soon chased away from Italy.

2.6a. The Tarquinian War. We see Lucretia next to Tullia. Both women are married into the Tarquinian clan, the former being the wife of Tarquin Collatine, and the latter espoused to Tarquin the Proud. Both women are of noble (royal) birth ([482]). They actively get involved in all proceedings concerning the throne of Rome. Livy tells us nothing about any other women from this epoch ([482]).

■ 2.6b. The Gothic War. We see Amalasuntha accompanied by her sister Matasuntha. We see a similar pair of “reflections” in the Second Empire – Julia Maesa and her daughter Mamea. All these pairs of women belong to royal families, and are extremely eager to take part in ruling the Empire. We know nothing about any other prominent Italian women of that epoch ([695]). Thus, “a pair of politically active women” happens to be a unique detail characterizing both wars – Gothic and Tarquinian. We shall observe a similar situation in other duplicates of the XIII century war (Gothic = Tarquinian). We shall use the term “Legend of a Woman” for referring to this scenario in brief.

2.7a. The Tarquinian War. Lucretia commits suicide. Tullia is banished; we know nothing of her further fate ([482], Book 1:58, pages 93-94).

■ 2.7b. The Gothic War. In the alleged year 535 Amalasuntha is assassinated, likewise her Second Empire double – Julia Maesa, whose daughter Mamea was murdered as well. Matasuntha, or Mamea’s double, is also reported killed ([196] and [695]). We see that if we’re to compare the First Empire to the Third, Lucretia and Tullia swap their respective places as related to the pair or their duplicates – Amalasuntha (or Julia Maesa), and Matasuntha (Mamea). However, the fact of murder is represented in both duplicate Empires. In fig. 2.28 we can see what is presumably an ancient portrait of the Gothic queen Amalasuntha.

Fig. 2.28 “Presumably, the portrait of Queen Amalasuntha” ([196], Volume 1, page 310, ill. 60).

2.8a. The Tarquinian war. Tarquin Sextus (Tarquin Junior from the clan of the Tarquins, or TRQN) is reported to have brought Lucretia to ruination ([269], page 9). He is supposed to have raped her, qv in [482], pages 1:58-59). Lucretia stabbed herself to death afterwards, unable to survive the dishonour (ibid). We shall encounter this story of “a woman brought to ruination” in many other duplicates, or reflections of this notorious mediaeval war.

■ 2.8b. The Gothic War. In the alleged year 534 Amalasuntha gives Theodahad the Goth a royal title, however “kept all the actual power in her hands… Theodahad had been a sworn foe of Amalasuntha… as soon as he had had it [the crown – A. F.] in his hands, he didn’t have to wait too long with his revenge upon the princess” ([196], Volume 1, page 318). Theodahad banishes Amalasuntha to an island, where she is murdered – allegedly at his orders.

2.9a. The Tarquinian War. The death of Lucretia sparked the fuse of the well-known Tarquinian war of the alleged VI century B.C., which resulted in the exile of the Tarquins from Rome ([482]).

■ 2.9b. The Gothic War. The casus belli of the Gothic war in the alleged VI century A.D., a very well-known event, had been none other but that of Amalasuntha’s death. The exile of the Goths from Italy can be regarded as the main result of the war ([196] and [695]). This subject of a well-known war following the ruination and dishonour of a well-known woman shall recur in many more phantom reflections of this war as encountered in the “Scaligerian history textbook”. This is what this “legend of a woman” is based upon in the first place.

3.a. The Tarquinian War. The beginning of the Tarquinian war in the alleged VI century B.C. The exile of the Tarquins from Rome (according to Livy).

■ 3b. The Gothic War. The beginning of the Gothic war in the alleged VI century A.D. The exile of the Goths from Rome (according to Procopius).

3.1a. The Tarquinian War. When the news of Lucretia’s death spreads all over Rome, animosity towards the entire clan of the Tarquins flares up instantly. Junius Brutus assembles a large crowd at a Roman forum; according to Livy, “Brutus had made the infuriated crowd strip the king [L. Tarquin the Proud – A. F.] of all power and banish him together with his wife and children” ([482], Book 1:59). The Tarquinian war commences.

■ 3.1b. The Gothic War. When the news of Amalasuntha’s murder reaches Emperor Justinian I, who rules in the East of the Empire, he gives orders for Roman and Byzantine troops to invade Italy in order to banish the Ostrogoths ([196], Volume 1, page 319). The land forces of the Roman troops led by Mundus attack the Ostrogoths together with the fleet of the famous warlord Belisarius that moves towards Sicily (ibid); said events mark the outbreak of the Gothic war.

3.2a. The Tarquinian War. A short while later, Tarquin Sextus, the offender of Lucretia and the main instigator of the Tarquinian war, gets killed ([482], Book 1:60, page 97). It happens in the following manner: Tarquin Sextus flees, and on his way into exile some personal enemy murders him in what is said to be an “old vendetta” ([482], Book 1).

■ 3.2b. The Gothic War. After the passage of a year since the murder of Amalasuntha, Theodahad, the de-facto initiator of the Gothic war, is killed ([196], Volume 1, page 327). After the exile of the Goths, “Theodahad flees… to Ravenna. Some Ostrogoth… a personal foe of Theodahad, had ambushed the latter while he was underway and strangled him” ([196], Volume 1, page 327).

3.3a. The Tarquinian War. A great part in the ousting of the Tarquin kings was played by the eminent Roman Lucius Junius, some of Marcus and also a Brutus ([482], Book 1:60, page 97; also [72], page 206). He had led this Roman uprising, which resulted in a coup. “His was the glory… of the one who had banished King Tarquin the Proud” ([482], Book 1, page 98). The roots of his full name without vocalizations are transcribed as N MRK BRN LC – the “consonant skeleton” of the names Junius, Marcus, Brutus and Lucius.

■ 3.3b. The Gothic War. We learn of the activities of an eminent Roman that take place around the same time as the Ostrogoths fled from Rome – in the alleged years 533-538. It was none other but Pope (Pontifex) John II Mercury son of Projectus from the Hill [?] of Celius” ([196], Volume 1, pages 315, 325, and 335). This pope had been head of the Roman church in 532-535, and so he must have played an important part in the events of this epoch. However, we haven’t managed to find out about any details of his “biography”. His unvocalized name transcribes as follows: N, MRCR, PRCT, CL for John, Mercury, Projectus and Celius. If we are to look towards Livy’s text for a comparison, we shall see that what we have is most probably the same name written in two different ways. Really, Junius = John, Marcus = Mercury, Brutus = Projectus, and Lucius = Celius. This is a perfect example of the mediaeval chronicle duplication mechanism. Two mediaeval chroniclers – Titus Livy and Procopius in our case – were deciphering the meagre remnants of the ancient documents that they’d had at their disposal, trying to reconstruct the past. One of the documents contained a rather lengthy unvocalized name. Titus Livy and Procopius vocalized it in two different ways, and so the same mediaeval character became duplicated in the two well-known tractates – one by the “ancient” Livy, the other by the “mediaeval” Procopius; the names used by the two authors, albeit differently, possess an obvious similarity.

3.4a. The Tarquinian War. Lucius Junius Brutus, son of Marcus, is one of the most famous Romans in the entire history of the “ancient” Rome. Memories of this historical personality can be found in Roman literature up until the foundation of the Second Roman Empire, qv in the books of Plutarch, for instance ([660]).

■ 3.4b. The Gothic War. John Mercury, the son of Projectus from the Hill of Celius, is one of the most famous Roman pontiffs. Some of his monuments remain in Rome to this day; one has to clarify here that only a limited number of Popes can boast having their names recorded in one way or another on the monuments that have survived until our age. However, one finds all sorts of references to John II (532-535) everywhere in mediaeval Roman history ([196], Volume 1, page 335).

3.5a. The Tarquinian War. Livy calls Lucretia, the woman whose death had led to the Tarquinian war, a Roman woman ([482], Book 1). He emphasizes her inflexible Roman will of iron. She is supposed to have addressed all those who surrounded her with a patriotic speech right before her death (ibid). What we have here is the portrait of a “true Roman woman” painted by Livy – one that subsequently became a canonical role model.

■ 3.5b. The Gothic War. History considers Amalasuntha, the double of Lucretia, to have belonged to the Amaling dynasty of the Ostrogoths. The Amaling clan had allegedly been extremely partial to Roman culture and traditions, unlike other Gothic kings who had reigned after Amalasuntha ([196], Volume 1, page 327). Therefore, one of the chroniclers (Titus Livy, for instance) could have easily called this royal woman Roman. Vittigis becomes King of the Ostrogoths after the death of Amalasuntha, and “tramples the hereditary rights of the Amaling clan” ([196], Volume 1, page 327).

3.6a. The Tarquinian war. Junius Brutus and Publius Valerius lead an uprising aimed at overthrowing the rule of the Tarquins in Rome. The Tarquinian king is declared deposed. Livy tells us that “the liberator [Brutus – A. F.] had received a warm welcome in the camp, whilst the children of the king were cast out” ([482], Book 1:60, page 97).

■ 3.6b. The Gothic War. The Byzantine and Romean troops enter Italy. Pope John Projectus II, the double of the “ancient” Junius Brutus, happens to be in Rome at this time, whilst the approaching Roman troops are led by Belisarius, the double of the “ancient” Valerius. His troops entered Rome right after Vittigis, King of the Goths, had fled the city. “Romans were overjoyed to see the Greeks, and welcomed them as liberators… Belisarius entered Rome on 9 December 536” ([196], Volume 1, page 329).

3.7a. The Tarquinian War. Livy tells us that “when the tidings [of his exile – A. F.] had reached the camp [of king Tarquin – A. F.], the king headed towards Rome in order to suppress the uprising, somewhat confused by the spontaneity of it all ([482], Book 1:60, pages 96-97).

■ 3.7b. The Gothic War. Having received the news of Belisarius invading Rome, the king of the Ostrogoths (Vittigis) sent his troops towards the capital of Italy. “In early March of 537 Vittigis approached the walls of Rome with so many Goths near him that they could barely fit into one’s eyesight” ([196], Volume 1, page 339).

3.8a. The Tarquinian War. Livy tells us that “the gates were shut before Tarquin, and he was declared an exile” ([482], Book 1:60, page 97). One would think that a battle at the walls of Rome would ensue, since King Tarquin, who had arrived in order to stifle the revolt, qv above, would hardly turn back confused at the news of his being deposed. However, Livy tells us nothing of King Tarquin’s reaction to the loss of throne for some reason ([482]). He just tells us that Tarquin heads away from Rome. This is the so-called “Exile of the Kings” which marks the end of the Tarquinian rule in the “ancient” Rome. Furthermore, Scaligerian history considers this to have been the end of all royal power in Rome – until the foundation of the Second Roman Empire, at least.

■ 3.8b. The Gothic War. The gates of Rome are shut in front of Vittigis, King of the Ostrogoths. The Goths try to storm the walls of Rome, but fail and begin a siege ([196], Volume 1, pages 348-363). This siege of Rome is supposed to have been a breakpoint in the history of mediaeval Italy, since the Goths did not succeed, and Vittigis was forced to retreat from Rome in 538. Ferdinand Gregorovius tells us the following: “This siege of Rome that became immortalized in history lasted a whole year and nine months; over this time the Ostrogoths took part in 59 battles and were finally forced to turn away from Rome” ([196], Volume 1, page 363). Scaligerian history considers this moment to mark the end of Gothic rule in Rome ([196]).

3.9a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, a certain Roman by the name of Publius Valerius (Lucius Valerius Publicola – see [269], page 10) actively participates in the ousting of the Tarquinian kings from Rome. He is one of the most famous historical figures in the “ancient” Rome, qv in [482], book 2:1, page 101. Valerius is a prominent Roman military leader who had led Roman troops when they had fought the Tarquins. There are many legends concerning his life; he is a national hero. After the death of Brutus, he became the primary figure in the epoch of the Tarquinian war ([482]).

■ 3.9b. The Gothic War. A Romean (Roman) by the name of Belisarius plays a major part in chasing the Goths away from Rome. He is a famous military leader of the Middle Ages ([196], Volume 1). By the alleged year 535 “Belisarius had already succeeded in dethroning the Vandals in Africa… and was free… to conquer Italy… Justinian decided to unite the Eastern and the Western part of the empire once again… fate had given him one of the greatest warlords in history to make this plan a reality” ([196], Volume 1, page 319).

3.10a. The Tarquinian War. The full name of Valerius is as follows: Lucius Publicola Valerius, son of Valusius ([482], page 206; also [269], page 10. The unvocalized skeletons of the names Valerius and Valusius are, respectively, VLR and VLS. This could stand for Valerius + Lusius (Lucius). We see his full name to be formed by the consonants VLSR. The term “son” may have been introduced later, when various scribes vocalized the consonant bases of names they found in ancient documents.

■ 3.10b. The Gothic War. Unvocalized name of Belisarius (Velisarius) is BLSR (or VLSR, if we’re to bear in mind the flexion of “B” and “V”). It coincides with the “skeleton” of consonants for the names Valerius and Valusius from Livy’s book. It goes without saying that all such phonetic analogies mean little per se; however, they become more important when they appear “in all the right places” of our step-by-step comparison involving the “ancient” history and its mediaeval original superimposed over each other in the manner described by the rigid formula T = X + 300. Thus, Belisarius (Velisarius) = VLSR, likewise Valerius-Valusius = VLSR. A propos, the name of Belisarius sounds similar to the Slavic “Velikiy Tsar”, or “The Great King”.

4a. The Tarquinian War. The war between the Tarquins and Rome in the alleged VI century B.C., or the Tarquinian war, according to Livy.

■ 4b. The Gothic War. The war between the Goths and the Romans, or the Gothic war of the alleged VI century A.D., according to Procopius (see fig. 2.27).

4.1a. The Tarquinian War. Junius Brutus is one of the key characters who had taken part in the ousting of the Tarquinian kings from Rome. We have already identified him as Pope John Projectus from the alleged VI century A.D. The two military leaders – Valerius and Brutus – lead the Roman troops into battle against the Tarquins. Junius Brutus commands the Roman cavalry and gets killed in a battle ([482]). His name is very similar to John.

■ 4.1b. The Gothic War. We see the famous general John beside Belisarius, a leader of the Roman (Romean) troops. He was known under the alias of “The Cruel General” ([196], Volume 1, page 358). He leads the Roman cavalry as well as Livy’s “ancient” Junius Brutus. General John was made legendary by taking Vittigis, king of the Goths, captive. Therefore, General John appears to be a chronological continuation of Pope John in a way, playing his part in the history of the Gothic war. General John was killed in one of the battles with the Goths ([695], page 273). However, Procopius mentions several Johns here, obviously confused by their respective identities. These “multiple Johns” may have transformed into a single unified image of the “ancient” Junius Brutus as described by Titus Livy.

4.2a. The Tarquinian War. All the Taquins act as a single united clan in this war, forming a dynasty of sorts: Lucius Tarquin the Proud, Tarquin Sextus (Junior), Lucius Tarquin Collatine etc.

■ 4.2b. The Gothic War. The Goths also form a union and act as a single dynasty in the war. Their kings had been elected from this closely-bound group for a rather brief but intense period – Vittigis, Uriah, Ildibald, Totila and Teia ([196], Volume 1).

4.3a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, after the exile of the kings from Rome, the institution of consulate came to existence. More specifically, Romans had adopted the custom of electing consuls for the period of a year. This is a well-known institution that had existed in Rome for several centuries up until the middle of the alleged VI century A.D. ([72] and [482], Book 2:11, pages 98-99).

■ 4.3b. The Gothic War. In the middle of the alleged VI century A.D. the Italian consulate ceases to exist ([196], Volume 1), see fig. 2.27. Immediately after this, the very same “consulate” appears in Livy’s “ancient” Rome, right before 544 A.D. = year 244 ab urbe condita + 300 years. The year 245 ab urbe condita is considered to be the first year of the “ancient” Roman Republic and the consulate ([72]).

Commentary. Gregorovius reports the following when he tells us about the alleged VI century A.D.: “Decius Theodore Pauline was the last consul of Rome in 534… he is famous for nothing else but being last in the long line of Roman consuls” ([196], Volume 1, pages 319-320). Thus we see that after a shift of 1053 years according to the formula T = X + 300, Livy’s “ancient” consulate begins where it is supposed to have stopped existing in the Western Third Empire, according to the Scaligerian chronology. At the same time, Scaligerian history of the mediaeval Rome keeps showing us “traces of the consulate”, as Scaligerite historians coyly name them, starting with the exact same VI century A.D. – see [196], Vol. 1. In spite of the efforts made by certain historians to “bury the mediaeval consulate” in post-VI century Rome, they have to admit every now and then that certain mediaeval consuls “did in fact exist in Rome”. However, no complete list of them has reached our day for some reason, notwithstanding the fact that the lists of the “ancient” consuls from the Republican and Imperial “ancient” Rome have miraculously survived ([72]). According to our reconstruction, these documents are the “mysteriously missing” mediaeval lists of the Roman consuls from the Middle Ages, which have been arbitrarily displaced into “deep antiquity” by learned historians. As a result, mediaeval history of the XI-XIV century has became a lot poorer, obscured by artificial darkness.

4.4a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, in the year 245 ab urbe condita (or 545 A.D. considering the 1053-year shift) the “ancient” P. Valerius, the double of the mediaeval Belisarius, was made consul. Valerius and Brutus are the first consuls in a long line of their “ancient” colleagues, whose lists have survived for the most part ([482], Book 2:1, page 101; also [72], page 206).

■ 4.4b. The Gothic War. After the first stage of the war with the Goths had been over, Belisarius was called away from Italy to fight the Persians. He returned to Italy around the end of 543 – beginning of 544 ([196], Volume 1, page 319). We see that the date given by Livy virtually coincides with the mediaeval date after a 1053-year shift. Belisarius is the first consul in mediaeval Rome after the exile of the Goths, or one of the first in the long line of mediaeval Roman consuls whose lists “haven’t survived” ([196], Volume 1).

4.5a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Valerius, the “son” of Valusius, was consul for three consecutive years in 245, 246 and 247 ab urbe condita. He was then suspended from consulate ([482], Volume 2:15, page 120; also [72], page 206. A 1053-year shift of the dates forward in time shall give us the years 545, 546 and 547 A.D.

■ 4.5b. The Gothic War. Belisarius returns to Italy for another 3 or 4 years in 544-548 A.D. In the alleged year 548 Belisarius leaves Italy when Emperor Justinian I calls him back ([196], Volume 1, pages 401-402). When we compare this information to what Titus Livy tells us, we see that the two time intervals in question coincide in length as well as their positions on the absolute axis of time after a 1053-year shift of the “ancient” datings forward.

4.6a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Valerius, the leader of troops, had remained alive for some time after his suspension from the consulate in 248 ab urbe condita (or 548 A.D. after the application of the 1053-year shift). He died in 251 ab urbe condita, or 551 A.D. if we’re to shift the dates forward ([482], Book 2:16, page 122).

■ 4.6b. The Gothic War. After his withdrawal from Italy in the alleged year 548 A.D., the eminent warlord Belisarius had remained alive for some time. He died around the alleged year 561 A.D. – however, this information is rather vague ([64], page 84). If we’re to compare it to Livy’s, we shall see that the date of his death, the alleged year 561, is separated from the year Valerius died (551 A.D.) by a mere 10 years, which really isn’t all that much considering the size of the 1053-year chronological shift. Apart from that, we are to bear in mind that all the previous chronological landmarks of their “biographies” concur with each other perfectly after the application of the abovementioned rigid shift according to the formula T = X + 300.

4.7a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, despite the suspension of his consulate in 248 ab urbe condita (548 A.D. with the shift forward equalling 1053 years) and his inability to partake in the affairs of the state, Valerius-Valusius had nevertheless served as consul for yet another year, shortly before his death in 251 (551 A.D. considering the shift), qv in [482], Book 2:16. This “restoration of rights” occurs immediately before the death of Valerius ([482]).

■ 4.7b. The Gothic War. Despite his withdrawal from Italy in the alleged year 548 A.D. and accusations of treason, qv below, Belisarius manages to “restore his good name; he had soon been released, with his ranks restored and part of his estate given back to him” ([64], page 84). All of this is very similar to what Livy tells us about Valerius, or Valusius. This “restoration of rights” happens a short while before the death of Belisarius. “He had received some of his estate back; however, putting it to any use was already beyond his power, since Belisarius had died shortly” ([64], page 84). A rather obvious parallel with Livy’s description.

4.8a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Valerius died in great glory. “P. Valerius had died; everyone had deemed him the first of men in times of war and peace alike, and his glory was truly great” ([482], Book 2:16, page 122).

■ 4.8b. The Gothic War. Belisarius dies laurelled with the glory of a national hero. “Having performed a multitude of feats that put him amongst the heroes of ancient times, the great warlord died” ([196], Volume 1, page 402). This characteristic is unique amongst the characters of the Gothic War epoch (the alleged VI century A.D. – see [196]).

4.9a. The Tarquinian War. It is amazing that Valerius (Valusius), the only truly great military leader of the epoch, should die in poverty. Livy tells us that “P. Valerius had died… his glory was great, but his means were so meagre that there was nothing left for his burial, which was financed by the treasury” ([482], Book 2:16, page 122).

■ 4.9b. The Gothic War. Virtually the same is told of Belisarius. The only famous warlord from the epoch of the Gothic war also dies in poverty – he couldn’t make any use of the estate that was returned to him, either – he dies “in such disfavour and obscurity that proverb made him symbolize the vanity and impermanence of human felicity” ([196], Volume 1, page 402). All of Belisarius’ possessions were confiscated after his arrest ([64], page 84).

4.10a. The Tarquinian War. Livy tells us that “Valerius, who had been in favour, didn’t just provoke envy [after the victory over the Tarquins – A. F.], but also fell under suspicion twined with a horrendous accusation… Rumour had it, he aimed for the throne… and had been building a dwelling on top of the Vellius, allegedly an impenetrable fortress… These rumours as well as the fact that the folk trusted them infuriated the very spirit of the consul [Valerius – A. F.]… Having called the citizens together, he ascended the dais” ([482], Book 2:7, page 108). Valerius proceeded to utter an inspired speech, refuting the accusation of willing to seize power. Livy quotes his following tirade: “Will no valiancy suffice… to make you respect it without ever considering making it tarnished by suspicion? Need I, a sworn enemy of kings, be in fear of being accused that I want regal power?” ([482], Book 2:7, page 109). This characteristic is unique; we have found no other consul in Livy’s work who was accused of anything like that over all the time of the “ancient” republic’s existence up until the alleged I century B.C.

■ 4.10b. The Gothic War. In the course of the Gothic War, Belisarius also becomes accused of treason. The Goths had supposedly offered him the crown of Italy so as to separate Belisarius from Justinian I and secure the support of his mighty army. Vittigis, King of the Ostrogoths, was defeated by Belisarius in the alleged year 539, which is supposed to have been the time when the Goths offered him the royal crown ([196], Volume 1, page 372). Towards the end of the alleged year 539, before Belisarius’ departure from Italy, Ildibald, the new king of the Goths, “sends emissaries… to tell Belisarius that he, Ildibald, shall himself come and lay his royal robes at the feet of Belisarius, if the latter keeps his promise [sic! – A. F.] to become crowned as king of Italy” ([196], Volume 1, page 373). However, “Belisarius deceives the Goths and hands the crown over to the Emperor [Justinian – A. F.]” ([196], Volume 1, page 372). After that, “reluctant to rise against the emperor, he travels to Byzantium calmly with his laurels of a hero” ([196], Volume 1, page 373). However, the very circumstance that Belisarius allegedly promised the Ostrogoths to be crowned king of Italy had led to his arrest and the confiscation of his property ([64], page 84).

Let us thus highlight the key points of the events related in order to make the parallelism even more obvious.

*1a) The great warlord Valerius is accused of treason (intent to seize royal power).

■ *1b) The great warlord Belisarius is accused of treason (intent to become crowned King of Italy).

*2a) The charge against Valerius may have been based on some real fact.

■ *2b) The accusation of Belisarius was based on a real fact, namely, his acquiescence to take the crown of Italy in his negotiations with the Goths.

*3a) Valerius becomes withdrawn from his consulate; Livy’s description suggests that he had fallen into disfavour.

■ *3b) Belisarius is called away from Italy as a result of a treason charge. His arrest follows; he falls from grace with the Emperor.

*4a) Valerius tries to refute the accusation in a speech given before the Roman public.

■ *4b) Belisarius may have tried to refute the accusation upon his arrival to the New Rome; however, we know nothing of the process, if there was one.

*5a) During the “trial of Valerius” a bill about “withdrawing the one who attempts to seize regal power from the protection of law, and confiscating all of his property” becomes ratified ([482], Book 2:8, page 109). This may be the reason why his estate was sequestered, likewise his “death in poverty”.

■ *5b) The property of Belisarius had been confiscated, and he had died in poverty.

*6a) According to Livy, “the consul [Valerius – A. F.] had suggested a number of bills that didn’t just free him from accusations of plotting to seize royal power, but also… changed the direction of the process drastically, having made him a popular favourite instantly” ([482], Book 2:8, page 109). Valerius was made consul once again.

■ *6b) Belisarius was pardoned, with his former ranks returned and his former glory untarnished once again.

*7a) All of these events take place in 245-256 ab urbe condita, or 545-546 A.D. (considering the 1053-year shift of datings forward).

■ *7b) The events in question took place in the alleged years 544-548 A.D. Belisarius was called away from Italy due to a treason charge in 548; we see a perfect concurrence with the “ancient” dates after shifting them forward by 1053 years.

4.11a. The Tarquinian War. The Tarquinian War continues. The Tarquins are located at some distance from Rome, and keep raiding it from time to time. In the years 243-244 ab urbe condita (or 543-544 A.D., if we’re to consider the 1053 year shift) Tarquin the Proud, king of the Tarquins, sends a missive to Rome addressed to the Roman Senate ([482], Book 2:3, page 102).

■ 4.11b. The Gothic War. The Gothic War rages on. The Goths are located at a distance from Rome, and raid the capital periodically. In the alleged year 543 A.D. Totila, the new king of the Goths, sends a “missive to the Roman Senate” from Naples ([196], Volume 1, page 476. We see a very good concurrence with Livy’s “ancient dates”.

4.12a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, the Senate was visited by the “royal envoys [of king Tarquin – A. F.] whose demands included the requisition of property – not a single word was uttered about the return of the kings. When these claims were heard by the Senate, their discussion took several days” ([482], Book 2:3, page 102). The senators obviously took their time. Livy explains that “they were afraid that the refusal to pay tribute might serve as casus belli, whereas their conceding to the terms would aid the Tarquins greatly, providing them with the means necessary for military actions” ([482], Book 2:3, page 102).

■ 4.12b. The Gothic War. Totila the Goth accuses Romans of being ungrateful to the Goths in his message to the Roman senate. However, he doesn’t say a single word about their intention to return to Rome as rulers. Totila’s epistle contains no military claims. The full text of this mediaeval document is cited in [196], Volume 1, pages 376-377. In particular, Totila does not demand the exile of the Romean Greeks from Rome. The Goths delivered their letter via captive Romans ([196], Volume 1. General John forbade to reply to Totila’s missive. Then Totila addressed Romans with several more missives, which were of just as peaceful a nature ([196], Volume 1, page 377; also [695]).

4.13a. The Tarquinian War. Tarquin’s envoys addressed the young people of Rome asking them for support. Livy tells us that “they secretly plotted a coup in order to restore the royal rule… negotiating for the royal family to be admitted into the city under the cover of night” ([482], Book 2:3-4, page 102). As a result, a conspiracy emerges in Rome, one that involves many distinguished Romans. However, the conspiracy becomes uncovered, and the conspirators arrested, tried and executed ([482], Book 2:5, pages 104-105).

■ 4.13b. The Gothic War. The same is happening during the Gothic War. “The public read these proclamations, which could be encountered in virtually every part of the city, in great agitation. The Greek rulers suspected collusion between the Arian priests and the Goths” ([196], Volume 1, page 377). It is supposed that the organization of this conspiracy could be aided by Cethegus, Head of the Senate (ibid). However, the conspiracy was discovered, and the conspirators banished from Rome (ibid).

4.14a. The Tarquinian War. Livy tells us the following: “Having received the news [of the unsuccessful conspiracy and the execution of the plotters – A. F.] Tarquin… decided to prepare for open warfare” ([482], Book 2:6, page 106). Livy refers to this leader as to “Tarquin” and not L. Tarquin the Proud almost everywhere he mentions this war, thus collecting all of the Tarquins under a single name.

■ 4.14b. The Gothic War. The unsuccessful conspiracy and the exile of the cabal are followed by a military campaign launched against Rome by Totila the Goth in the alleged years 543-544 A.D. ([196], Volume 1, page 377). Let us emphasize that the Goths were a very close-knit group as seen in the course of the war, and their leaders are warlords rather than kings bound to a permanent place of residence ([695]). The clan of the Goths is the double of the Tarquinian clan.

4.15a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, “Tarquin begins to perambulate the towns and cities of Etruria” ([482], Book 2:6, page 106). He is alleged to have begged the Etruscans to help him conquer the Roman throne back. This is most probably a reference to the movement of Tarquin’s troops occupying Etruria. Livy also tells us that “these negotiations proved successful”; thus, Tarquin heads forth accompanied by his allies, who “followed Tarquin to support his claims for the throne and wage war upon the Romans” ([482], Book 2:6, pages 106-107).

■ 4.15b. The Gothic War. In the Gothic War Totila decided to “seize several cities of Etruria, Picenum and Emilia first” ([196], Volume 1, page 378. One has to point out that Procopius may relate more details of the events in question than Livy. Totila doesn’t just “perambulate Etruria” with pleas for help – he takes over it and recruits soldiers for his troops ([196], Volume 1).

4.16a. The Tarquinian War. In the years 244-245 ab urbe condita (or 544-545 A.D. with a shift of 1053 years), the troops of Tarquin and his allies approach Rome ([482], Book 2:6). The battle of Rome begins. Livy writes that “the Tarquinians… chased away the Romans who came out against them” ([482], Book 2:6, page 107). However, the Romans, in turn, defeated the allies of the Tarquinians.

■ 4.16b. The Gothic War. We learn that “in the summer of 545 Totila fixes his camp at the walls of Rome” ([196], Volume 1, page 378). We see ideal concurrence between the dates of Procopius and those given by Livy (see the account of 544-545 A.D. as cited above). The battle of Rome ensues. Belisarius turns back, and the Goths enter Rome “in full calm” ([196], Volume 1, page 385). This retreat of Belisarius had saved the Roman troops.

4.17a. The Tarquinian War. For some reason, the Tarquins have not used the opportunity given to them by this victory over the Romans. The Tarquins withdrew from Rome all of a sudden. Livy claims this to have been a miracle. Allegedly, a loud voice was heard in the night, one that claimed victory to favour Romans ([482], Book 2:7, pages 107-108). The Tarquins “scattered in terror” as soon as they had learnt of this.

■ 4.17b. The Gothic War. The Goths also fail to take advantage of their victory and leave Rome in the most bizarre fashion. According to Gregorovius, “the most peculiar thing is that Totila hadn’t gathered all of his resources in order to capture Porto, so as to get the war over and done with” ([196], Volume 1, page 391). The matter is that Belisarius and his troops were in Porto at the time.

4.18a. The Tarquinian War. Livy tells us that after the sudden retreat of the Tarquins “following the dawn which brought no sight of enemy, the consul P. Valerius had gathered his armour and returned to Rome triumphant” ([482], Book 2:7, pages 107-108). This happened in 245 ab urbe condita, or 545 A.D. considering the shift of 1053 years.

■ 4.18b. The Gothic War. In the course of the Gothic war, shortly after the sudden retreat of the Goths, “Belisarius… accompanied by the rest of his troops, enters the city [Rome – A. F.]… As soon as the great warlord had entered the land that brought him glory, his genius and his fortune returned to him, their power doubled” ([196], Volume 1, page 396). Although the Goths had tried to return, they were thrown back immediately ([196], Volume 1, page 397). “This happened in the spring of the year 547” ([196], Volume 1, page 396). The battle of Rome had lasted from 545 to 547 A.D. Yet again we see a perfect concurrence of Livy’s dating (545 A.D.) with that of Procopius (545-547 A.D.).

4.19a. The Tarquinian War. As we have already mentioned, Livy ascribed the victory of Valerius over the Tarquins to a miracle – namely, the voice of the god Sylvan from the Forest of Arsia, which presumably made the enemies of Rome flee in terror ([[482], Book 2:7, page 108).

■ 4.19b. The Gothic War. Gregorovius draws our attention to a similar scenario in his rendition of the Gothic war according to Procopius: “Everyone was deeply amazed by the defeat of the Goths in Rome that had been half open, as well as the success of Belisarius’ resistance, even the inhabitants of faraway towns and villages” ([196], Volume 1, page 398).

4.20a. The Tarquinian War. After the first unsuccessful battle of Rome (the first battle after the exile of the Tarquins from Rome), the Tarquins ask king Porsenna for assistance ([482], Book 2:9, page 111). The unvocalized name of Porsenna transcribes as PRSNN. One has to remember that TRQN (the Tarquins) and PRSNN (Porsenna) are allies in this war. We must point out that Porsenna might be a derivative of P-Rasena or P-Rusena. Let us remind the reader that Raseni had been the name used by the Etruscans to refer to themselves, qv in our discussion of this topic as seen in Chron5. This concurs perfectly with the references to Porsenna as the “king of the Etruscans” made by the “ancient” historians of Rome ([269], page 186).

■ 4.20b. The Gothic War. After the first unsuccessful battle for Rome (the first one fought after the exile of the Goths from Rome), Totila, king of the Goths, seeks the assistance of Theudebert I, a Frank ([196], Volume 1, page 398). We already mentioned the fact that the unvocalized root of “Frank”, or TRNK, is similar to TRQN as referred to by Livy. Also, the parallelisms that we have discovered often identify the Franks as the Persians, or PRS unvocalized. Remember that Paris = PRS; therefore, the Parisians could well be the Evangelical Pharisees. PRS could also have stood for “Prussians” or P-Russians (White Russians). Bear in mind that in the Gothic war the Goths (doubles of TRQN – Tarquins) and the Franks (doubles of PRSNN – Porsenna) also act as allies. It also has to be mentioned that the unvocalized name TRNK as used for referring to the Franks (the Goths) could also have been synonymic with “Turks”, or “Tartars”. This may be a reflection of the events dating to the epoch of the Ottoman Empire.

4.21a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, king Larth Porsenna decided to aid the Tarquins and joined them on their conquest of Rome. This is the second campaign against Rome ([482], Book 2:9, page 111). The united troops of Porsenna and the Tarquins soon approach Rome. The Roman Senate is frightened that “the common Romans might be frightened into letting the Kings enter the City and accepting peace” (ibid). It is possible that Livy is really referring to a campaign launched against Rome by the joined forces of TRQN-TRNK (the Turks?) and PRSNN-PRSN – P-Raseni, or P-Russians (the White Russians). The name of King Porsenna, which is Larth or L-Art may refer to the “Mongolian” Horde, or Arta.

■ 4.21b. The Gothic War. In his description of the Gothic War Procopius tells us nothing of whether the Franks had taken part in Totila’s second Roman campaign. Furthermore, Theudebert is supposed to have given the basket to Totila, who had tried to marry his daughter ([695]; also [196], Volume 1). However, a few years earlier, the Frankish troops led by Theudebert did take part in the war, fighting alongside the Goths. Theudebert I of the Franks had aided the Gothic king Vittigis when the latter was waging war against the Romans and invaded Italy. However, Vittigis retreated upon hearing the threats made by Belisarius ([196], Volume 1).

4.22a. The Tarquinian War. Livy dates the second Roman expedition of the Tarquins to the year 246 ab urbe condita, or 546 A.D. considering the 1053-year shift forwards. Valerius is the leader of the Roman troops and he fights Larth Porsenna (L-Horde PRS) – see [482], Book 2:9, page 111.

■ 4.22b. The Gothic War. The second Roman campaign of the Goths is dated to the alleged years 548-549 A.D. In 540-544 Belisarius is called away from Italy to lead Roman troops against the Persians (or PRS) – see [196], Volume 1, pages 401-402. Firstly, we observe a good concurrence between the datings offered by Livy and Procopius: 546 and 548-549 A.D. Secondly, we encounter yet another superimposition of the “ancient” L-Horde PRSN (Larth Porsenna) over the mediaeval PRS (Persians).

4.23a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Larth Porsenna and the Tarquins besiege Rome, but fail to capture it ([482], Book 2:10, page 112). A certain Horace Cocles became distinguished as a heroic defender of Rome ([482], Book 2:10, page 112). His name is transcribed as CCLS without vocalizations.

■ 4.23b. The Gothic War. In the course of the Gothic War, Totila had captured a part of Rome, but could not seize the castle of Hadrian where the Roman garrison was located ([196], Volume 1, pages 403-404). “A gallant warlord named Paul of Cilicia” becomes distinguished for his bravery during the defence of Rome against the Goths and the battle for Adrian’s castle in particular ([196], Volume 1, page 403). Apparently, this native of Cilicia can be identified as Livy’s Cocles (compare CLC for Cilicia with CCLS for Cocles). What we see is most probably the same name or alias transcribed in two different versions.

4.24a. The Tarquinian War. Livy informs us that Larth Porsenna “withdraws from Rome”, having failed to conquer it ([482], Book 2:13, page 118). This is the last battle of Rome in the “ancient” Tarquinian war ([482]).

■ 4.24b. The Gothic War. In the alleged year 549 A.D. the Gothic king Totila leaves Rome ([196], Volume 1, page 404). This marks the end of the second battle of Rome, which is also last in the course of the mediaeval Gothic war ([196], Volume 1).

5a. The Tarquinian War. The end of the Tarquinian War according to Livy.

■ 5b. The Gothic War. The end of the Gothic War according to Procopius.

5.1a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, in the year 250 ab urbe condita (or 550 A.D. considering the 1053-year shift forwards), Valerius is elected consul one last time. In the next year (251 ab urbe condita, or 551 A.D. with the 1053-year shift), his involvement in the Tarquinian war finally ceases. He dies the same year ([482], page 122).

■ 5.1b. The Gothic War. Belisarius is called back from Italy in the course of the Gothic War (allegedly towards the end of 548 – beginning of 549 A.D.). He withdraws from military action permanently, and the Gothic war ends without his participation ([196], Volume 1, page 402). Let us point out the perfect concurrence between the dates offered by the “ancient” Livy (550) and the mediaeval Procopius (548-549), emphasizing the fact that we are observing this almost perfect correspondence cover the span of two hundred and fifty years.

5.2a. The Tarquinian War. In 253 ab urbe condita (553 A.D. with the 1053-year shift forwards) T. Larcius becomes leader of the Roman troops in Italy instead of Valerius ([482], Book 2:18, page 123). Larcius transcribes as LRC without vocalizations (or NRC, since N and L were occasionally subject to flexion).

■ 5.2b. The Gothic War. In the alleged year 551 A.D. Justinian I appoints another commander-in-chief of the Roman army in Italy to replace Belisarius – a certain Narses. This is the second eminent Roman warlord of the epoch, albeit not quite as renowned as Belisarius – a “#2” military leader of sorts. He brings the Gothic War to its conclusion. His name without vocalisations transcribes as NRS, which is similar to LRC or NRC (Larcius) as mentioned by Titus Livy.

5.3a. The Tarquinian War. Livy singles out Larcius as the first dictator of the “ancient” Rome. The latter is described as vested with exclusive powers ([482], Book 2:18, page 123).

■ 5.3b. The Gothic War. Narses gathers powers of unprecedented scale in the course of the Gothic war. He becomes the autocratic dictator of the entire Italy ([196], Volume 1, page 121).

5.4a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, in the year 259 ab urbe condita (or 559 A.D. with the 1053-year shift forwards) the Tarquins faced the Roman forces for one last battle – however, this time at a certain distance from Rome. This is the last battle of the Tarquinian war (we have listed every battle in this war that Livy mentions in his work explicitly and with no omissions). The battle was an exceptionally furious one, and it ended with a complete defeat of the Tarquins ([482]).

■ 5.4b. The Gothic War. In the alleged year 552 A.D. the Gothic troops led by king Totila faced the troops of the Romean Greeks for the last time – well away from Rome. This is the final battle in the course of the Gothic war ([196], Volume 1, pages 407-408). We have listed all the major battles of the period as related by the mediaeval sources. The battle was an arduous and bloody one. The Romans prevailed, albeit with heavy losses, and the Goths were defeated ([695]; also [196], Volume 1).

5.5a. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Lucius Tarquin the Proud, king of the Tarquins, “was wounded in the side and carried off to a safe place by the warriors that gathered around him” ([482], Book 2:19, page 125). He died in Cuma a short while later ([482], Book 2:21). Apart from that, L. Tarquin the Proud was accompanied by his son, the young Tarquin, in this last battle of the Tarquins with the Romans. Unfortunately, Titus Livy fails to mention the son’s name ([482], Book 2:19, page 125). It may have been the king’s young heir.

■ 5.5b. The Gothic War. Totila, king of the Goths, was seriously wounded during his escape from the battlefield, and died a short while later ([196], Volume 1, pages 407-408). In the last battle between the Goths and the Romans the young Teia or Teias becomes king of the Goths for a short period of time just after the death of Totila. However, in the alleged year 553 A.D. – that is, immediately after the defeat of Totila, young Teia gets killed ([196], Volume 1, pages 408-411). Most probably, both Livy and Procopius are referring to the same event here.

5.6a. The Tarquinian War. After this rout, the Tarquins disappear from the political arena of the “ancient” Italy as well as the history of the “ancient” Republican Rome in general. At least, Livy ceases to mention them after informing us of the total defeat that they had suffered in this war. We know nothing of the remaining Tarquins or their subsequent location. Livy doesn’t utter a word on the subject.

■ 5.6b. The Gothic War. After the defeat, the Goths disappear from the pages of this epoch’s historical chronicles. They are supposed to have left Italy. Gregorovius tells us that “we know nothing of… where the Goths headed after they had left the battlefield, and their exile from this beautiful land that their fathers had conquered [under Odoacer and Theodoric – A. F.] – a land that still bears numerous marks of their glorious deeds in many places, is covered in utter obscurity” ([196], Volume 1, pages 412-413).

Thus, in the overwhelming majority of cases we have witnessed an almost complete correspondence of Livy’s “ancient” datings shifted forwards by 1053 years with the mediaeval datings of respective parallel events. The numeric coefficient X = A/B (qv above) equals 74% for the part of Livy’s text that refers to the Tarquinian War. In other words, 74% of this text by Livy is covered by the parallels with mediaeval events that we have discovered, which provides even the most “ancient” events described by Livy with mediaeval duplicates dating to a much more recent epoch.

2.

The parallelism between the Gothic War of the alleged VI century and the Nika rebellion that took place in the same century. No date shift here

In Chapter 6 of Chron1 we already mentioned the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. as one of the brightest duplicates of the Eurasian war that we deem to have taken place in the XIII century A.D., qv in the global chronological map in Chron1, Chapter 6, and the corresponding table. This war was reflected in the chronicles of many nations. Above we give our analysis of the texts referring to the events that allegedly took place in and around Italian Rome. However, we have already told the reader that the most probable dating of the Italian Rome’s foundation pertains to the epoch of the late XIV century A.D. It wasn’t until much later that a part of the Byzantine history, as well as that of the New Rome on the Bosporus, became transferred to these parts (on paper, naturally). Hence one finds it hard to imagine that the Eurasian war of the XIII century A.D. wasn’t reflected in the Byzantine chronicles that describe the reign of Justinian I, one of the key figures of the Gothic War and its “principal monarch”, in a way. Our expectation proves correct.

We learn that the Eurasian war of the XIII century A.D. had indeed left a phantom trace in the “purely Byzantine” part of history known to us as the Nika Rebellion which took place in the alleged year 532 A.D. ([486]). This coincides with the beginning of the Gothic war – the alleged years 534-535 A.D.

If we are to consider the documents describing Justinian’s reign in the New Rome, the ones that stand out the most are the books of Procopius of Caesarea. Some of them portray Justinian benevolently, praising him in his royal magnitude; in others, such as the Arcane History by the same author, Justinian is represented in an altogether different manner. Scaligerian history went so far as to invent the theory of a “two-tongued Procopius” who would eulogize Justinian in the daytime, and fill the pages of the Arcane History with accounts of his atrocities after dusk. However, we aren’t concerned with the authorship of the collection of texts written by “Procopius” at the moment, since it doesn’t affect anything of substance, inasmuch as our research is concerned.

A brief rendition of the events that later became known as the Nika rebellion is as follows (according to [468]). It was an uprising that shook the entire Third Roman Empire in the alleged year 532 A.D. A great revolt flared up in Rome with neither any leader striving for royal power to head it, nor any clear reason behind it. This makes the Scaligerian version of the rebellion rather odd. The revolt is supposed to have been a short one, but characterized by its dramatic scale of actions. Military conflicts involve great forces, regular imperial troops as well as mercenaries. Indeed, this seems to resemble an all-out civil war rather than a mere rebellion. The New Rome burns, and the arsonists are active in several locations simultaneously. The main powers behind the revolt are the two Byzantine political factions – the venetes and the pracines, united against Justinian. His military commander-in-chief by the name of Belisarius (!), the leader of the imperial troops, receives orders from Justinian to crush the uprising. Belisarius deploys the powerful Gothic garrison led by Mundus to aid the Romean-Roman army. Terrified by the sheer scale of the revolt, Justinian doesn’t take part in military actions against the rebels himself, finding shelter in his castle instead, unlike Belisarius. It is peculiar that the rebels didn’t attempt to storm the castle, although, according to Procopius, there were no special fortifications to protect it. Eventually, Belisarius managed to use his brilliant cunning and entrap a large mob of rebels in a hippodrome = circus, slaughtering a great many of their number as a result.

a. The Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D.

■ b. The Nika Rebellion of the alleged VI century A.D.

1a. The Gothic War. Procopius of Caesarea is the most famous author to have related the events of the Gothic war. His Gothic War has been the principal work used for shaping the entire modern academic concept of this event (see [695] and [696]).

■ 1b. The Nika Rebellion. This rebellion is also described by a famous author – the very same Procopius of Caesarea. His text is basically the only original source with a description of these events hailing from the New Rome.

2a. The Gothic War. This war broke out around the middle of the alleged VI century – the years 535-553 A.D. It is considered to have been one of the bloodiest wars in the whole history of Rome and Romea. It had claimed a great number of lives and resulted in the destruction of the entire Italy.

■ 2b. The Nika Rebellion. This event also dates from the middle of the alleged VI century – the alleged year 532 A.D. ([468]). It serves as a classical example of a large-scale civil war, and a very brutal one at that. Virtually the entire New Rome lay in ruins as a result.

3a. The Gothic War. The primary royal figure here is Justinian the Great, the Byzantine emperor who is supposed to have masterminded the military actions in Italy remotely. He doesn’t take part in the Gothic war personally, controlling the course of events from New Rome (Constantinople, see fig. 2.29).

■ 3b. The Nika Rebellion. The principal royalty here is also Justinian, who commands the punitive forces. As above, he doesn’t take part in any of the actual battles and gives orders from the Palatium. He doesn’t appear before his troops once, whereas the rebels never approach the Palatium with so much as a single attempt to storm it (see fig. 2.29).

Fig. 2.29 Parallelism between the Gothic War and the Nika Rebellion.

4a. The Gothic War. Justinian’s main opponents in the Gothic war of the alleged VI century are as follows:

1. the Goths (aka the Trojans, qv in Chapter 6 of Chron1 and the next section);

2. the Franks and the Persians = PRS (Porsenna and Paris in the Trojan war, qv in Chapter 6 of Chron1 and below. TRQN and PRS are the two main forces gathered against Justinian.

■ 4b. The Nika Rebellion. Justinian’s principal enemies are the venetes and the pracines. The former can be identified as the Goths and the Tarquinians, and the latter (PRSN) – as the Persians and Porsenna’s Etruscans (or P-Racines/P-Russians – PRS). The two factions are supposed to have been “circus parties” in the New Rome, whatever that means. Most probably, the two factions had been of a religious nature, and united to oppose the emperor.

5a. The Gothic War. As we shall demonstrate below, in our study of the parallelism between the Gothic War and the Trojan War, the Goths (Trojans) who had fled from Troy after the city fell prey to the enemy (or, possibly, the victors who were pursuing them), founded Venice and thus can be regarded as its first inhabitants. They may have called themselves the Venetes. The Venetes (or the Vendians) are well-known late mediaeval nations. The second power that stood against Justinian in the Gothic was referred to as “PRS” – P-Russians, or Franks (Turks) – see fig. 2.30.

■ 5b. The Nika Rebellion. The Venetes had been one of the primary forces fighting against Justinian in the Nika rebellion. They may therefore have been the duplicate of the Goths (or the Trojans), the heroes of the Gothic=Trojan war of the XIII century A.D., qv in the global chronological map in Chapter 6 of Chron1. P-Racines = PRSN = the rebels, who apparently become superimposed over the Persians in the Gothic War (PRS). Also bear in mind the fact that, according to Titus Livy, the P-Russians (or Larth Porsenna – L-Horde P-Racens) took part in the Tarquinian war. P-Racines are the second key force in the Nika rebellion (see fig. 2.30).

Fig. 2.30 The parallelism between the Gothic War and the Nika Rebellion.

6a. The Gothic War. This is a war fought by the Goths. As we shall see below, they are identified as the Trojans in the Trojan War. The Goths oppose Justinian during the Gothic war; however, prior to that they had been the Empire’s allies, qv in Chapter 1 of Chron2. Justinian is the victor in this war, and his involvement is rather of a “behind-the-scenes” nature.

■ 6b. The Nika Rebellion. The suppression of the rebellion is aided by the Goths, who fight on the side of Justinian as allies of Rome and Romea. However, the Goths burn and loot the temple of Hagia Sophia and murder a Romean priest as they tried to hold back the rebels, actually acting against Justinian’s clergy ([468], page 60). Justinian crushes the rebellion and also enjoys the triumph, albeit without personal participation in military action. Thus, in both versions Justinian and the Goths are represented as allies initially and enemies afterwards. Both schemes are shown in fig. 2.30. It is clearly visible that they’re almost identical.

7a. The Gothic War. The troops of the Romean Greeks are led by the great military commander Belisarius. Beside him we see the famed warlord Mundus, who actively participates in crushing the forces of the Goths = Trojans and the Franks = PRS and TRNK ([695]).

■ 7b. The Nika Rebellion. A complete reflection of the scenario related above – the suppression of the rebellion is headed by the same military leader – Belisarius ([468], pages 60-61), who crushes the venetes and the P-Racines (PRSN) aided by the very same Mundus (ibid).

8a. The Gothic War. As we shall demonstrate in the next section, the only way Belisarius could seize Naples = The New City (or the double of the ancient Troy, qv below) was due to exceptional cunning – getting into the city via an aqueduct. Thus, the entire plan was based on the use of an aqueduct – the “Trojan horse”, the “aquatic or equine duct” ([237]). See details below.

■ 8b. The Nika Rebellion. The situation is quite similar: the only means of suppressing the rebellion successfully had been guile. It is said that Belisarius had managed to entrap the rebels in a large hippodrome (circus). There is a legend that the proclamation of Hypatius (Justinian’s nephew) as the new emperor was a trick played by none other than Justinian himself, with the aid of Belisarius. It had allegedly served to fool the crowd and lure them into the hippodrome or circus, where nearly all of the rebels got killed. “More than 30 thousand people died in this carnage” ([468], page 61). We see a hippodrome to be the centre of the entire subterfuge (ibid). Thus, the tale of the Nika Rebellion also includes an “equine duct” of sorts – cf. the Gothic war.

Commentary. One shouldn’t think that the Nika Rebellion took place in the VI century A.D. As we shall see below, it is most likely to have occurred in the XV century and gained formidable extra age on the pages of the Scaligerian history textbooks. For the time being, let us merely point out the following parallel, whose existence is admitted by the very same historians who inform us of the Nika rebellion: “The first insurgency flared up… under Justinian, in the year 532. The emperor had been on the verge of losing his throne; however, Belisarius, his commander-in-chief, had slaughtered 40.000 insurrectionists at the Hippodrome. The second rebellion took place under Sultan Mehmet II, who had ordered to execute 30.000 mutinous janissaries on the very same spot” ([1464], page 47). Apparently, we see two accounts of one and the same uprising in the Ottoman Empire.

Thus, some of the mediaeval chroniclers would gaze at the abris of the past, which had perhaps not been all that distant, but rather traced out quite sparsely, and, confused by the old documents full of unvocalized words, would tell us of an aqueduct; others descanted about a hippodrome, or a horseracing arena – all of this owing to the fact that the Latin words for “horse” and “water” (equa and aqua) are very similar indeed ([237]). What we encounter here appears to be two different reflections of one and the same real event that multiplied itself throughout various chronicles.

Summary. It is most likely that the “Nika Rebellion” is yet another echo of the Gothic War that later chroniclers placed in the same century – allegedly IV A.D. The bellum internecinum would thus transform into a simple mutiny, albeit a violent one, and the scribes crammed it into the confines of the imperial capital – the New Rome, having also subjected events to temporal compression (several weeks instead of several years). However, the backbone of key facts remained intact, and they become more or less recognizable as soon as one gets an indication of which dates should be compared.

We shall proceed to analyze a number of parallelisms generated by the 1780-1800-year chronological shift, which we shall be referring to as the Graeco-Biblical shift. It provides us with a superimposition of the “ancient” Greece over the mediaeval Greece and Italy of the XI-XVI century A.D. In particular, the great “ancient” Greek colonization of the alleged VIII-VI century B.C. becomes a mere phantom reflection of the crusade epoch of the alleged XI-XIII century A.D., as well as wars of the XIV-XV century. The “ancient” wars between the Greeks and the Persians transform into a reflection of the early XIV century wars in Greece. The “ancient” Marathon battle is most likely to have the 1316 battle of Greece as its original. The list goes on; see the subsequent chapters for more details.

An important and representative example of how this shift manifests is the parallelism between the “ancient” Trojan war of the alleged XIII century B.C. and the Gothic war of the alleged VI century A.D. We shall then add thereto the parallelism with the European war that took place in the middle of the XIII century A.D., and is likely to have served as the original of all these “phantom” wars. The parallelism between the Trojan War and the Gothic War can be found at the very beginning of the 1780-1800-year shift, qv on the global chronological map in Chapter 6 of Chron1.

3.

The Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C. superimposed over the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. after an 1800-year temporal shift forwards

As we already pointed out above, Ramon Muntaner, a mediaeval historian and a contemporary of Dante, tells us the following: “One of the Trojan outposts was located on Cape Atraki in Asia Minor, near Isle Tenedos… the Romanian aristocracy would often go there… to worship the divine effigy. And so one day Helen, the wife of the Duke of Athens, had made a pilgrimage there, accompanied by a hundred knights. Paris, the son of the Trojan king, noticed her, murdered all the knights and abducted the beautiful duchess” ([195], page 188(6)).

In fig. 2.31 you can see an ancient miniature from the French “Global Chronicle” (Chronique de la Bouquechardière by Jean de Courcy published in Rouen in the alleged year 1470) – see [1485], page 164, and ill. 202. What we see here is the arrival of Paris and Helen (on the left) in Troy. They are met by Priam, the Trojan king, at the walls of the city (qv in the right of the miniature). Unfortunately, the size of the illustration is rather small, and so one must study the colour version in order to see all the details. It is clearly obvious that the author of the miniature didn’t for a second doubt the fact that the Trojan War had been a mediaeval event. A similar mediaeval representation of the Trojan war can be seen in fig. 2.32, which is yet another ancient miniature.

Fig. 2.31 Ancient miniature entitled “King Priam meets his son Paris and the abducted Helen at the gates of Troy” from the Chronique de la Bouquechardière by Jean de Courcy (dating to the alleged year 1470). The setting, people’s clothes and the whole city of Troy are presented as very distinctly mediaeval in nature. Taken from [1485], ill. 202.

Fig. 2.32 A miniature from Le Roman de la guerre de Troie by Benoit de Sainte-Maure dating to the alleged XIV century. We see a battle scene of the Trojan War with Greeks fighting the Trojans. The warriors are wearing heavy armour and helmets, some of which have closed visors. We see warriors of the Middle Ages wearing characteristically mediaeval armour. Taken from [1485], ill. 320.

According to modern historians, the ignorant Ramon Muntaner had been unfamiliar with the Scaligerian chronology (which is hardly surprising, considering that it was introduced two centuries after his death). Therefore, his presumed errancy had made him believe the Trojan War to have taken place in the Middle Ages. The fact that it involved dukes, duchesses, knights etc apparently didn’t baffle him at all. The authors of the illustration to the famous Russian almanac known as the Litsevoy Svod (The State Museum of History, Article #358), fig. 2.33. The illustration is called “The Trojan Army Preparing for Battle” ([851], page 33). Once again, we see warriors who look typically mediaeval.

Fig. 2.33 Mediaeval miniature named “The Trojan Army Riding into Battle” from the Russian Litsevoy Svod almanac (State Museum of History, Museum collection No. 358). The “ancient” Trojans are portrayed as mediaeval warriors. Taken from [851], page 33.

3.1. The first accounts of the Trojan War: their presumed authorship, as well as geographical and temporal origins

3.1.1. The general conception of chronological shifts

In this section we shall give an account of the phenomenal parallelism between the following events:

1. The famous Trojan War of the alleged XII century B.C.,

2. The famous Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D.,

3. The well-known wars of the crusade epoch – the alleged XI-XIII century A.D.

In other words, the Trojan War and the Gothic War are most likely to be phantom reflections of real wars that took place during the crusade epoch. The Trojan War is a real event; however, it took place in the XIII century A.D. and not in deep antiquity. Homer’s epic poem of the Trojan War is therefore an intricate compound myth telling us about the crusades of the Middle Ages.

Our hypothesis is as follows: the fall of Troy is the fall of the New Rome = Constantinople = Jerusalem as a result of the crusader invasion of the XIII century A.D. The myth of the Trojan War consists of several episodes relating the events of major crusades. The crusaders were avenging the Crucifixion of Christ that took place in Czar-Grad in 1185.

The Trojan war of the XIII century A.D. had been one of the most important events in the history of Europe and Asia. It became reflected in multiple written sources, the authors of which hailed from different countries and wrote in a number of languages. When the epoch of “streamlined history” came, the chronologists of the XVI-XVII century started to sort through the old documents that were available to them at the time, and have made many serious mistakes in their reconstruction of the ancient history. As a result, a large number of authentic documents slid into deep antiquity, and served to create a phantom reflection of the mediaeval reality. In other words, many of the events that took place in the XI-XVII century A.D. became doubled, tripled and quadrupled. The original would most often remain it its due place, with its duplicates taking a voyage that was not just temporal, but also geographical – events would drift from Rome to Greece and vice versa. Numerous misdatings led to several chronological shifts, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6. The key ones are as follows:

1. The Graeco-Roman shift of 330-360 years;

2. The Roman shift of 1053 years;

3. The Graeco-Biblical shift of 1780-1800 years.

The shift values are rather approximate since they vary from document to document. The names that we offer are explained very easily:

1. The Roman-Byzantine shift had elongated the history of Rome and Byzantium and moved it into the past.

2. The Roman shift had resulted in the elongation of Roman history, with artificial “extra age” added thereto.

3. The Graeco-Biblical shift had made Greek and Biblical history longer and “more ancient”.

Thus, numerous copies of the real mediaeval war that took place in the XIII century A.D. have come into existence. Some of them time-travelled into the past and got baptized anew. One of the phantom duplicates that wound up in the XIII century B.C. became the “Trojan War”. Another was dated to the VI century A.D. and dubbed the “Gothic War”. Et cetera, et cetera.

However, since both wars are but phantom reflections of one and the same real mediaeval war, they must resemble each other. This proves to be the case. Due to the fact that these two famous wars are of paramount importance to Scaligerian history, it shall be expedient to discuss the parallelism that we have discovered in more detail, qv below.

The reader is familiar with various accounts of the Trojan War from childhood. It was described in great detail by the blind poet Homer in his two immortal epic poems – the Iliad and the Odyssey. With great inspiration he tells us about the gods and the heroes facing each other in the Battle of Troy, the passionate love between Helen and Paris (casus belli), the legendary Trojan horse, the fall of Troy, the smoke from the fires, the escape of the Trojans and the voyage of Ulysses.

The Gothic war is somewhat less popular. Many readers don’t know anything about it at all. Mediaeval history is less vogue than that of the “antiquity”, after all. At the same time, historians who study the Middle Ages are well aware of the Gothic War to have been one of the most important breakpoints in the history of the Roman Empire ([196], Volume 1). According to the Scaligerian version, the Gothic war ends the development of Regal Rome. This is supposed to have been followed by the decline of the Roman Empire, barbaric invasions, and the transformation of the splendorous Imperial Rome into the murky mediaeval Papal Rome, heralded the beginning of the “Dark Ages” in Europe.

3.1.2. The strange fate of Homer’s epic poems

1. Who told Homer about the Trojan War that is supposed to have taken place five centuries before his birth?

Let us begin with the actual legend of the Trojan War and its history. Who was the first to have told this tale? Where and how did it happen? The Scaligerian version tells us the following about the origins of the Iliad and the Odyssey. It is presumed nowadays that the fall of Troy (at the end of the Trojan War, which had lasted for several years) took place in 1225 B.C. ([72], page 243). Homer was the author whose text had allegedly been the first to reach us (see figs. 2.34 and 2.35). However, a closer acquaintance with the Scaligerian version of how Homer’s poems came into being leaves one somewhat confused.

Fig. 2.34. An “ancient” bust that is supposed to represent Homer. Kept in the Capitol Museum. Taken from [304], Volume 1, page 81.

Fig. 2.35 The “ancient” Aphrodian and Homer on the northern gates of the Blagoveshchenskiy Cathedral of the Kremlin in Moscow ([331], Volume 1, page 182). Their famous dicta, which are very much in the vein of early Christian patriarchs, can be seen nearby, signed “Aphrotian and Omiros”. Thus, the “ancient” Aphrodian and Homer were considered to be in direct relation to the Christian church – it is hard to imagine a reason we should find them in a Christian cathedral otherwise, and accompanied by quotations at that. Taken from [331], Volume 1, page 182.

See for yourselves: the Trojan War took place around the alleged year 1225 B.C. We know nothing of when Homer had really lived. The Concise Columbia Encyclopaedia ([1447]), for instance, gingerly informs us that the poems were “written by the poet for the aristocratic public in Asia Minor at some point before 700 B.C.”, qv in the article entitled “Homer” (ibid). At any case, we are told that Homer had lived in an epoch separated from that of the Trojan war by several centuries – possibly as late as the alleged VIII century B.C. Thus, he must have “written his poems” a few hundred years after the war.

Actually, there’s nothing too suspicious about it so far. However, we must remind the reader that, according to the Scaligerian point of view, Homer had been blind ([1447]). Therefore, he couldn’t have written anything on his own – at best, he could have dictated something. The version used to prove his “authorship” of the poems is as follows.

It is admitted that Homer was blind, but he is said to have been a genius. He wrote two gigantic poems. They occupy seven hundred pages of the modern 1967 edition ([180]), no less, the font being rather small. The poet is supposed to have memorized both of them, and started singing the poems to his audience. He must have been at it for many years, since the poems had not been recorded anywhere in his lifetime! We are surprised to learn that “both the Iliad and the Odyssey had first been written down [a few centuries after Homer’s death – A. F.] by a special commission created for this purpose by Pisistratus, the tyrant of Athens who had reigned in 560-527 B.C.” ([180], page 711).

Thus, both of these titanesque poems, adding up to 700 pages of a contemporary book, are supposed to have been recorded for the first time 670 years after the Trojan War. This takes place more than half a millennium later, and also several centuries after Homer’s death. All of the above spawns confusion galore. How could the words sung by a blind poet with such great inspiration have reached the commission of Pisistratus through many centuries in order to get written down for the first time? We’re talking about two immense epic poems. Chanting them aloud by heart must take many hours. One should also take good care not to make any mistakes. The allegedly veracious picture of the events that we’re fed can be outlined as follows.

2. How does one memorize seven hundred pages of Homer’s poems for a lifetime?

The blind poet chanted his two poems before all kinds of audience many a time. The listeners eventually managed to memorize them. Then the poet died; however, his compatriots remained, and they had learnt the entire volume of these 700 pages by heart and verbatim. These people had carried on with the oral tradition, telling the poems to a new audience. They eventually perished as well, yet their “oral tradition”, as historians are so very keen to call it, continued and became inherited by their children. This is supposed to have lasted for several hundred years. Towns fell and empires collapsed; still the descendants of Homer’s first listeners would keep on chanting two gigantic poems by heart.

Just try to memorize as little as the first hundred pages of the Iliad merely by listening to them chanted so as to keep them in memory for about two decades. Failing that, try to learn them by heart reading the actual text of the book – something Homer’s descendants didn’t have. You aren’t likely to succeed. Bear in mind that there are seven times more than a hundred pages in the book. We shall be told that “the ancients had a better memory”, which is highly unlikely – the contrary is more probable, since there weren’t any libraries at the time, nor anything resembling a unified educational system.

Let us return to the Scaligerian version of history for the meantime. Pisistratus the tyrant finally hears the magnificent chant which was apparently crooned by the court singer for several days on end and gives orders to get the poems recorded in writing for the very first time. This must have taken several singers, since one finds it hard to imagine that “oral tradition” had only reached one singer in the epoch of Pisistratus. In this case, their versions of Homer’s poems must have differed from each other considerably. Or are we being coerced into thinking that all the singers had known the same version of the text?

This is what Scaligerian history tells us about the fate of Homer’s poems – all of this with a straight face. We deem it to be extremely unlikely.

3. Where are Homer’s poems supposed to have been kept for two thousand years?

Let us trace the further fate of “Homer’s poems recorded in writing”. They are presumed to have been widely known as late as the III century B.C. ([180], page 711). Still, there are no copies of either the Iliad or the Odyssey that could be dated to this period. His poems had allegedly remained lost for many centuries up until the Renaissance. And yet Homer had been popular enough for his poems to be chanted aloud in many towns and villages of Greece for many centuries before they got recorded. However, no texts of Homer are seen, let alone read, by anyone in the Middle Ages. Homer’s songs have ceased to ring; the location of the unique and priceless copy of his poems remains unknown.

This is what historians tell us: “In mediaeval Europe Homer’s texts were only known from the quotations and references given by Aristotle and a number of Latin authors; the poetic glory of Homer had been completely outshone by Virgil. It wasn’t until the late XIV – early XV century that… the Italian humanists had made a closer acquaintance of Homer. In the XV century many of them occupied themselves with translating Homer into Latin… in 1448 the first printed Greek copy of Homer was published in Florence. Many partial Italian translations of Homer’s texts were made in the XVI century. However, the first complete translation of the Iliad came out as late as 1723 and is credited to the poet Antonio Maria Salvini” ([180], pages 711-712).

Where could Homer’s dusty text have been stored for nearly two thousand years? If we are to cast aside the highly implausible theories of oral/vocal/choral tradition that had allegedly kept Homer’s poems alive for many centuries, it has to be admitted that in reality both of Homer’s poems had only surfaced as late as the end of the XIV century A.D. ([881], Volume 2, pages 97-98. There are no veracious accounts of their existence dating back earlier than the XIV century. Therefore, we can put forth the hypothesis that they were written around that epoch, possibly in the XIII-XIV century of the new era. The myth about blind Homer singing them by a fire in the Copper Age Greece of the VIII or even XIII century B.C. is nothing but a fancy of Scaligerite historians that originated in the XVI-XVII century A.D.

3.1.3. Dares and Dictis – the “alleged participants” of the Trojan War

Scaligerian history tells us that “in the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius the sepulchre of a certain Dictis was uncovered, which contained an “account of the Trojan war” in a tin ark”. Towards the IV century A.D. we witness a wide propagation of the “notes” of Dictis and Dares (Dares of Phrygia), the alleged participants of the Trojan war, in Latin translation. The new interpretation of events and characters offered by these two authors was deemed true in mediaeval Europe; Homer is accused of “inveracious embellishments” and being “a touch too partial wherein the Greeks were concerned” ([851], page 5).

It is perfectly clear why Dares and Dictis became immediately pigeonholed as “alleged participants”, or impostors of sorts. Indeed, according to the Scaligerian chronology, Homer’s poems had been chanted by the “ancient” Greeks for many centuries before they finally got recorded. And what do we see in this case? An instant discovery of Latin (and not Greek) original “notes written by the participants of the war”! We also learn that “the Greek texts of Dares and Dictis disappeared without a trace” ([335], page 85).

Let us enquire about the Scaligerian dating of the first surviving account of the Trojan War. After all, other authors besides Homer have written about it. The answer is that the first surviving description of the Trojan War is a Latin text from the alleged VI century A.D. We proceed to find out that “some ignorant scribbler who had probably lived in the VI century compiled the facts related to the siege in a dry and monotonous manner; he used to be very popular in the Middle Ages” ([335], pages 85-86).

We should be aware of why this “first description” of the war became dated to the alleged VI century A.D. In the present section we shall provide the facts indicating that the Trojan War can be identified as the Gothic war of the alleged VI century A.D. The chronological shift, or the difference between the respective Scaligerian datings of the Trojan and the Gothic War, shall equal about 1800 years in this case. The Trojan War is considered the most important event in the history of the “ancient” Greece, whereas the Gothic War is the key event in the mediaeval Graeco-Roman history. It is little wonder, then, that the “first surviving account of the Trojan War” became dated to the VI century – erroneously so, as we are beginning to realize.

It goes without saying that historians treat the texts of Dares and Dictis sceptically or even with outright hostility. They tell us the following, for instance: “the two freshly-manufactured accounts of ‘real eyewitnesses’ were valued higher [in the Middle Ages – A. F.] than Homer’s ‘far-fetched poem’” ([171], page 45). Also, Homer’s poem had only been known in “short extracts” (ibid). Further on we find out that “Thucydides had been of the opinion that the narrative of the Iliad [by Homer – A. F.] wasn’t to be trusted” (ibid).

In general, the chronicles of Dares and Dictis served as a real apple of discord for the scientific community. “Many XIX century scientists denied the existence of a Greek manuscript [of Dictis – A. F.], naming Lucius Septimius as the author of this famous forgery… However, in 1907 an excerpt from the diary of Dictis was found among the Egyptian papyri” ([171], page 45).

Could Dares and Dictis really have been impostors, then? Homer himself provides us with indications that the contrary is more likely to be true. The matter is that Homer, the author of the two classical epic poems, mentions Dares directly at the very beginning of Book V. Furthermore, Homer refers to the Cretan king Idomeneus, who was accompanied by Dictis during the Trojan campaign ([171], page 45). Finally, Dares is also mentioned in Virgil’s Aeneid.

The language of the Latin text by Dares the Phrygian “sets the classical philologists ablaze with indignation… the Greek original… did not survive” ([175], page 45). Had there actually been a Greek original? If the Trojan War wasn’t merely an event from Greek history, but rather Graeco-Roman or even pan-European, why can’t the “diary of an eyewitness and a participant” be written in Latin, even if it had been written rather late? These “dry and monotonous” eyewitness diaries – especially the text from the alleged VI century A.D. – had instigated the creation of a great many œuvres inspired by the Trojan war; their entire collection is usually referred to as “The Trojan Cycle” nowadays.

A propos, we find it necessary to mention that in the alleged years VIII-IX A.D. the famous poet Angilbert had lived and worked at the court of Charlemagne, or simply “The Great King” in translation, and his first name had been Homer! ([122], Volume 5, page 391). Could his name been used in the future Greek account of the “ancient” Trojan War?

I. N. Golenishchev-Kutuzov wrote that “for a whole millennium (up to the very XVII century) the glory of Dares and Dictis had been greater than that of Homer. Isador of Sevilla considered Dares the first historian after Moses, the precursor of Herodotus. In the XII century Dares the Phrygian became the most widely-known writer of the antiquity” ([171], page 47). In the Middle Ages “the epoch of Homer had been referred to in the same terms as the age of Moses and Solomon – however, neither the devotees nor the vituperators had been familiar with any of his texts [Homer’s; bear in mind that the text in question had first surfaced in the XIV century A.D. – A. F.]; the only known part of the Iliad had been a short excerpt ascribed to Pindarus for some reason… However, the œuvres that occupied a higher hierarchical position than the passage in question were the ones whose authorship allegedly belonged to Dares of Phrygia and Dictis the Cretan” ([335], pages 85-86). As late as in the XII century Joseph of Exeter concocts a recital of the Trojan war according to Dares and Dictis, claiming to describe “real events, since Dares and Dictis were eyewitnesses”. Quote given by [171], pages 47-48.

The historians invented the “forgery” theory as late as in the XVII-XIX century, after the creation of the Scaligerian chronology which, as we shall proceed to demonstrate, is very obviously at odds with the diaries of Dares and Dictis. Confronted with the necessity to choose between the two versions in question, the historians decided to accuse Dares and Dictis of “ignorance” in order to preserve the integrity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology. After that they declared Homer the Greek original, whereas the writings of Dares and Dictis became “forgeries” (in Latin).

One might think the case was closed and all the t’s crossed. However, the new critical research of the Scaligerian chronology has made the problem resurface. This is where we learn of the apparent error made by the historians. The diaries of Dares and Dictis with their dry and monotonous narrative are most probable earlier originals, whereas Homer’s Iliad, which is much more elegant and grandiloquent, happens to be a more recent work of art that couldn’t have been created before the Renaissance; it is the poetic epitome of the entire “Trojan Cycle”, which precedes “Homer’s Iliad” chronologically.

In fig. 2.36 we present our graph, which provides one with an ostensive representation of how the datings of the surviving oeuvres from the Trojan Cycle are distributed in time. The resulting graph proved a most edifying one, since its first peak falls on the VI century A.D., where we find the first original text that has reached our age. Then we see the visible absolute maximum of the graph to fall on the alleged XII-XIII century, which is the time when a particularly large number of Trojan legends had come to existence. This alone indicates that the actual war apparently took place in the XII-XIII century, since this is when most of its renditions had appeared.

Fig. 2.36 A chronology of literary works referring to the Trojan War.

A Trojan chronicle surfacing in the alleged VI century is most probably explained by the quirks of the Scaligerian chronology, which had transferred the real chronicle of the mediaeval wars (the ones that took place in the XII-XIII century A.D.) into distant past.

In fig. 2.37 one sees an ancient miniature dating to the alleged XIV century portraying Dictis the Cretan (upper left), Dares of Phrygia (upper right), and Benoit de Saint-Maure (below) – see [1229], page 21.

Fig. 2.37 A miniature of the alleged XIV century with the portraits of Dictis the Cretan (top left), Dares the Phrygian (top right), and Benoit de Sainte-Maure (below). Taken from [1229], page 21.

3.1.4. The mediaeval troubadours and the Franks telling us about the Trojan War

According to historians, “In the late XII – early XIII century, the eternally glorious names of Ilion, Hector and Alexander have started to reach wide audiences via the medium of French poetry… The troubadours of this cycle began with the Trojan war, since it had almost been a national legend for them. In the VII century Fredegarius Scholasticus calls Francion, son of Priam [Priam the king of Troy – A. F.] the first duke of the Franks” ([335], pages 85-86). The claim made by this mediaeval author (and many others besides him) moves the Trojan War forwards in time and places it in the epoch of the “first Franks”. However, the “first Franks” have appeared in the Middle Ages, which is confirmed by historians themselves ([196]). In this case, the Trojan war is automatically lifted into the Middle Ages.

Here are some of the most famous late mediaeval œuvres of the Trojan cycle ([851], page 6):

- “Roman de Troie” by Benoit de Saint-Maure, the alleged XII century, France;

- “The Song of Troy” by Herbert von Fritzlar, the alleged XIII century, Germany;

- “The Trojan War” by Conrad of Würzburg, the alleged XIII century, Germany;

- “The Tale of Troy’s Destruction” by Guido de Columna (Colonna), the alleged XIII century, Sicily.

The book of Guido de Columna was translated (from Latin!) into Italian, German, English, Russian, Hungarian and a number of Southern Slavic languages in the alleged XIV-XV century ([171], pages 47-48). We shall omit the list of other authors and their “Trojan œuvres”, and only point out the rather odd detail: there are no Greek authors listed, likewise the books of the Trojan cycle: they are written in many European languages apart from Greek for some reason. The Greek Homer shall appear much later, as a luminous and splendid crown of the entire Trojan cycle. It is bizarre that the mediaeval Greeks wouldn’t pay any attention to this most glorious event of their “ancient” history.

We shall be using one of the most ancient and most famous sources for our analysis of the mediaeval Trojan cycle – the oeuvre of Guido de Columna that dates to the alleged XIII century, in its early XVI-century Russian translation (“The Tale of the Rise and the Fall of Troy”) as well as “The Book of Troy” and the book entitled “The Golden Fleece of the Magical Ram” ([851]). Let us re-emphasize that all these sources contain factual information, which is all but identical to that of Homer’s epical poem – the events they relate are the same. However, these books are characterized by a much drier narrative, which does indeed resemble a diary more than a poem – therefore, they must be of a more primordial nature. The works of Homer, on the other hand, are written in a lofty style and very artfully, betraying their author to have been an extraordinary poet brought up on the best literary traditions of the Renaissance, already well-developed by his time. They contain fragments of a moralistic nature, tell us about deities taking part in battles, the magnitude of the passion that engulfed Helen and Paris etc.

3.1.5. The ruins of a small mediaeval fortification that Heinrich Schliemann suggested to refer to as “the remnants of the ancient Troy”

Having “lost” the “ancient Troy in the epoch of the XVI-XVII century, the XVIII century historians started to search for it anew. It happened in the following manner. According to the archaeologist Elli Kriesh, the author of The Treasure of Troy and its History, “after a certain Frenchman by the name of Choiseul-Gouffier had made several expeditions to the North-Western Anatolia at the request of the French envoy in Constantinople (1785) and published a plan of this terrain, the discussion about the exact location of Troy resumed with new vigour. The Frenchman’s opinion had been that the city of Priam had been located near Pinarbasi, about 10 kilometres towards mainland from the hill of Hissarlik; the latter was marked as the ruin site on Choiseul-Gouffier’s map ([443], page 20). Therefore, the hypothesis that the remains of the “ancient Troy” could be identified as some ruins near Hissarlik had been voiced a long time before Schliemann by the Frenchman Choiseul-Gouffier.

Apart from that, “as early as 1822 McLaren… claimed that the Hissarlik hill had once been the location of the ancient Troy… which was the reason why the Englishman Frank Culvert, who had also been an American ambassador and lived near the Dardanelles together with his family, tried to cajole Charles Newton, the director of the Graeco-Roman collection of the British Museum in London, into organizing an expedition for the excavation of the ruins on the Hissarlik hill in 1863” ([443], pages 21-22).

Schliemann himself wrote the following: “Upon having inspected the entire location twice, I decided to agree with Culvert completely in what concerned the identification of the table-land on top of the Hissarlik hill as the place where the ancient Troy used to be”. Elli Kriesh proceeds to tell us that “Schliemann refers to Frank Culvert directly here, which contradicts the popular myth about Schliemann finding Troy armed with nothing but a volume of Homer’s works and basing his research on the text of the Iliad exclusively. It was Culvert and not Schliemann who had made the rather confident presumption that Troy should be searched inside the Hissarlik hill; this presumption stemmed from the fact that the remains of stone walls had been partially visible, even if it cannot be considered an actual discovery. Schliemann’s destiny had been to excavate this hill and to find crucial evidence to the reality of the town which had been presumed mythical before him” ([443], page 27).

Let us enquire about the reason why “Homer’s Troy” should be sought in this area at all – most probably, due to the fact that a vague memory of Troy being located somewhere “near the Bosporus” had still existed back then. However, the XVIII century historians could no longer refer to the New Rome on the Bosporus (or Constantinople) directly, since the fact that Constantinople and the “ancient Troy” had once been known as the same city was already completely forgotten – moreover, Scaligerian history forbade the very thought that Istanbul might be Homer’s Troy. However, there was plenty of indirect mediaeval evidence that suggested Troy had been located somewhere “near the Bosporus” that fortunately managed to escape destruction. This is why historians and lay enthusiasts alike began their quest for the “lost Troy” in the vicinity of Istanbul.

There are plenty of mediaeval settlement and fortification ruins all across Turkey; thus, the choice of suitable remains that could be proclaimed “the surviving remnants of Homer’s Troy” hadn’t been a problem at all. As we can see, the ruins on the Hissarlik hill were regarded as one of the potential candidates. However, both the archaeologists and the historians had been aware that one would have to unearth some kind of “proof” that the ruins in question were in fact “the Troy of Homer”. This “problem” was solved successfully by Heinrich Schliemann (fig. 2.38). He had commenced the excavations on the hill of Hissarlik.

Fig. 2.38. A photograph of Heinrich Schliemann (ca. 1870). Taken from [443], page 34.

The unearthed ruins have shown that there had really been some sort of a settlement here, one that had covered the area of a mere 120 × 120 metres. The plan of the settlement can be seen on pages 76-77 of [443], for instance. It is natural that nothing one could find here bore any relation to Homer at all. One comes across similar ruins all across Turkey. Apparently, Schliemann had been aware that one needed something quite out of the ordinary so that these meagre remnants would attract the interest of the general public. It is most likely that the ruins in question had belonged to some minor mediaeval Ottoman fortification or settlement. As we have already seen, Frank Culvert was claiming the ancient Troy to have been located here for quite a while without getting any attention, which is well understood, since there are plenty of ruins in Turkey. One would need “indisputable evidence”. And so in May 1873 Schliemann “suddenly finds” a hoard of gold that he hastens to claim the “hoarding of the ancient Priam”. That is to say, “the very same Priam” as the great Homer tells us about ([1391] and [1392]). Nowadays this set of golden artefacts travels all across the world to be presented in museums as “the treasure of the ancient Troy”.

This is what Elli Kriesh has to say about this matter: “Heinrich Schliemann… had found a remarkable treasure cache near the Scaean Gate (as he had erroneously thought) in May 1873… one that he had initially deemed to belong to none other but Homer’s king Priam. Schliemann and his work gathered wide popularity instantly. However, there were many sceptics who weren’t too inclined to trust this finding. Even nowadays there are researchers – first and foremost David A. Traill, the American specialist, – who claim the “treasure cache” story to be a myth, insisting that Schliemann had either bought most of these items, or collected them over a large period of time. The mistrust was all the stronger due to the fact that Schliemann didn’t mention the exact date of the finding anywhere” ([443], page 113).

Indeed, for reasons unknown to us, Schliemann had kept the information about the exact location, time, and circumstances of his finding the “ancient hoarding” back ([443], page 120). We find out that “detailed descriptions and reports before it. What if these rumours really reflect his negotiations about forging the “treasure of Priam” that he had conducted prior to the moment when he had “discovered the cache” on the Hissarlik hill, accompanied by no one?

Schliemann wrote some very interesting things, such as “the jeweller has to be a good connoisseur of antiquities, and he has to promise me not to put his brand on the copies. One needs to find someone who won’t betray me, and agrees to do the job for an affordable price”. Quoting by [443], page 130. However, Baurain, Schliemann’s agent, “was reluctant to become responsible for this dubious an endeavour… he reckoned that ‘it goes without saying the copies should in no case be presented as originals’” ([443], pages 130-131). However, we learn that Baurain had “recommended Schliemann the Frohmann-Meuris jewellers from Rue St. Honoré [in Paris – A. F.]. He described this family enterprise as one that has enjoyed an outstanding reputation since the XVIII century, employing a large number of artists and fine craftsmen” ([443], page 130). A propos, in the XIX century “it became fashionable to wear antique jewellery in certain social circles. Princess Canino, the spouse of Lucien Bonaparte, would often bedazzle the beau-monde with her Etruscan necklace, which made her the indisputable centre of every festivity” ([443], page 134). Therefore, Parisian jewellers must have been well familiar with making replicas of antiques, and capable of making them well.

Elli Kriesh doesn’t dispute the authenticity of “Priam’s treasure”, yet she mentions that one finds it hard to say for certain whether Schliemann had really made any “copies”. At the same time, Kriesh gives us a kempt account of the fact that “since that day, the rumours of copies that Schliemann had allegedly ordered never subsided for a second” ([443], page 131).

Kriesh sums up as follows: “a number of abstrusities and contradictions in various accounts of this event whose true date isn’t given anywhere, have led the sceptics to question the authenticity of the finding… William M. Calder III, the Colorado University Professor of Ancient Philology, called Schliemann an egotistical and impertinent illusionist and a pathological liar” ([443], page 13).

By the way, Schliemann is supposed to have discovered another remarkable “ancient” burial ground – namely, that of Mycenae. He was amazingly lucky in what concerned finding ancient gold, wasn’t he then? In Mycenae he “discovers” a golden burial mask that he immediately declares to belong to “the ancient Agamemnon as berhymed by Homer”. No proof is offered whatsoever. The present day historians are cautious enough to write that “Heinrich Schliemann had been of the opinion that the mask he had found in a sepulchre in Mycenae had been the deathmask of king Agamemnon; however, it was later proven that it had belonged to a different ruler whose name isn’t known to us” ([863], page 14). One would wonder how archaeologists managed to “prove” that the unknown mask had belonged to an anonymous ruler.

We can therefore make the following observation in re Troy. All of the facts listed above combine into a most curious general picture.

1) Schliemann doesn’t indicate either the place, the date or the circumstances of “the discovery of Priam’s treasure” anywhere, making this issue oddly contentious. He never presented any valid evidence of having “excavated the historical location of Homer’s Troy”. Scaligerite historians weren’t too keen on demanding it from him, anyway.

2) One has reasons to suspect Schliemann of having ordered some jeweller the manufacture of certain “ancient golden jewellery”. One has to bear in mind that Schliemann had been a very wealthy man – for instance, “he had financed the construction of the German Institute of Archaeology in Athens” ([443], page 55). According to Kriesh, “his personal fortune made from leasing property in Indianapolis, Indiana, and Paris… had served as the material base for his research, allowing him independence” ([443], page 30).

3) It is possible that Schliemann had subsequently smuggled the jewellery into Turkey and then reported it “discovered” among the ruins on the hill of Hissarlik – the very spot that enthusiasts had indicated as the probable “location of the ancient Troy”. As we can see, Schliemann didn’t even bother with searching for Troy. He merely presented the gold as “proof” of the theory put forward by Choiseul-Gouffier and Frank Culvert. We are of the opinion that if those two had named a different spot, Schliemann would have found his “ancient treasure of king Priam” there with equal speed and ease.

4) Many XIX century sceptics wouldn’t believe a single word Schliemann said. However, the Scaligerites were happy for the most part, gleefully claiming Troy to have been “discovered at last”. Never mind the suspicious circumstances of the discovery – they don’t affect the general value of Schliemann’s great achievement. Now we know for certain: Priam had lived here, on the Hissarlik hill. Look, this slope of the hill is the very slope where Achilles slew Hector. And this is where the Trojan Horse once stood. It didn’t survive, but here’s a large modern model. A very, very precise one.

One has to admit that nowadays thousands of gullible tourists reverently hearken to these tales.

5) The “treasure of Priam” was treated by Scaligerite historians in the following manner. It would be rather careless to claim the gold to have once belonged to Homer’s Priam, since a statement as bold as that would immediately ensue a demand for proof, which naturally hadn’t existed. This was apparently obvious to everyone who had to deal with “Schliemann’s Troy” in one way or the other.

A very elegant solution was offered eventually: they admitted the treasure to have nothing in common with Priam – yet it was proclaimed to date back to an epoch even more distant than the one suggested by Schliemann.

Kriesh writes that “it was the research conducted after Schliemann’s death that gave final evidence of the fact that the so-called “treasure of Priam” had beloged to an epoch a lot more distant that Schliemann could have imagined – the third millennium B.C. … a culture of the pre-Greek and pre-Hittite period” ([443], page 172). That is to say, a mind-bogglingly old treasure, boys and girls. Perfectly incredible. No one’s even heard of either the Greeks or the Hittites back in those days. Such statements render all further argumentation futile, since there doesn’t seem to be anything to prove. However, it would be most edifying to learn how the devotees of this theory managed to date a number of golden articles, when even the exact location on the Hissarlik hill where they are supposed to have been found remains unknown, qv above. And gold itself doesn’t provide us with any means of giving it an absolute dating so far.

6) What if Schliemann didn’t deceive us and really found some old jewellery during his excavations on the Hissarlik? We shall counter with the following: even if the “golden hoarding” was authentic and hadn’t been forged by Parisian jewellers, it would still be perfectly unclear why it should prove the “ancient Troy” to have been located on the Hissarlik hill. There isn’t so much as a single letter anywhere on the golden items “found” by Schliemann ([443]), let alone a name. A mere verbal statement that someone had found an ancient cache of gold in an unknown location at some vague point in time doesn’t suffice to make a valid claim about “the discovery of Troy”.

7) Let us point out a rather interesting psychological undertone of the entire affair. This entire amazing story of “Troy finally discovered” is living proof of the fact that neither the “discoverers”, nor their colleagues who were involved in this activity in some way were really interested in scientific veracity. The Scaligerite majority of the historians and the archaeologists remained deeply convinced that “the lost city of Troy” was located somewhere near the Bosporus straits at any rate. They must have reasoned along the lines of “well, its real location doesn’t really matter all that much, does it? Schliemann, for instance, suggests that Troy had once proudly crowned the summit of the Hissarlik hill. They even report him to have found a hoarding of gold there. The rumours that suggest there might be something wrong with the finding notwithstanding – are the details really all that important to us? Let’s agree with Schliemann’s localization of Troy. He’s a well-known and well-respected man, and an affluent one at that. The place fits. There are indeed some ancient ruins there. Need one begin to split hairs and demand “proof”? Even if Troy wasn’t located at that exact site, it must have been somewhere nearby.

8) A while later the sceptics had got tired of pointing out obvious inconsistencies in the tale of “the discovery of Troy”, which was when the “calm period of scientific research” could finally begin. The excavations continued, many well-respected and voluminous journals began to publish articles “about Troy” in great abundance. It is quite natural that nothing remotely resembling “Homer’s Troy” has ever been found on the Hissarlik hill. The excavations of what must have been some mediaeval Ottoman fortification carried on without haste. Obviously, a number of assorted shards and mutilated objects became unearthed as a result, including remains of weapons and different utensils. However, multiple reiterations of “this is where Troy had once stood” eventually created the tradition that claims that “Troy had really been here”, which proved sufficient for everyone to convince themselves as well as the gullible masses. The influx of the tourists began, and those were eager to be deceived. Thus, another problem of the Scaligerian history became “successfully solved”.

3.2. The tale of the Trojan kingdom. A rough comparison of the Trojan War to the Gothic War

Above we provide a detailed account of the Gothic War that took place in the alleged VI century A.D., identifying it as the Tarquinian war dating to the alleged VI century B.C. and described by Titus Livy. Therefore, we shall be hypothetically referring to the Tarquinian war as to a mediaeval event that could not have taken place earlier than the VI century A.D. The parallelism table that we present below identifies “ancient” events as their mediaeval doubles. In particular, it gives us all we need for making the first steps in the reconstruction of real history. Mediaeval events are of a primordial nature. The ones we know as “ancient” nowadays are merely phantom reflections.

We shall be using the letter “a” for referring to the “ancient” Trojan war and what had happened in its course, whereas the paragraphs marked “b” will contain mediaeval events (their datings are also subject to multiple distortions due to the efforts of the mediaeval Scaligerite chronologers). Therefore, we shall be trying to reconstruct the dates that appear more precise to us – the ones that fall into the range between the XI and the XVI century of the new era or prove even more recent. The Gothic War, for instance, is dated to the VI century A.D. nowadays, which is incorrect, qv on the global chronological map in Chapter 6 of Chron1. Some of its fragments should be dated to the XI century A.D. the earliest, whereas others cannot predate the XIII century A.D. The Tarquinian War is dated to the VI century B.C., which is also wrong, since it cannot date from an earlier epoch than the XII-XIII century A.D., being a duplicate of the Gothic War.

1a. The Trojan War. This war of the alleged XIII century B.C. is one of the key events in the “classical” history of Greece.

■ 1b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. This war of the alleged VI century A.D. is a very well-known event in the Graeco-Roman (or Graeco-Romean, to be more precise) history of the Middle Ages. We shall be using the Scaligerian dating of the Gothic War (the alleged VI century A.D.) for the time being, despite the fact that this war is a phantom reflection of the real Trojan/Gothic war of the XIII century A.D., qv on the local chronological map in Chron1, Chapter 6.

2a. The Trojan War. The Trojan Kingdom is supposed to have its origins deep in times immemorial – before XIII century B.C. ([851], page 70).

■ 2b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Roman Kingdom of the VIII-VI century B.C. is nowadays referred to as the “First Roman Empire”, which is described by Titus Livy, for instance, as the reign of seven Roman kings. The same empire became reflected as the Second and the Third Roman Empire, qv in the parallelism described above.

3a. The Trojan War. Troy is the capital of the kingdom ([851], page 70).

■ 3b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Rome or the New City of the alleged VI century A.D. is the capital of the Roman Empire. Other large cities include Naples (translates as “The New City”) and Ravenna.

4a. The Trojan War. The Trojan kingdom falls in the alleged XIII century B.C. in the all-out war against the Greek invaders.

■ 4b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The end of Livy’s Roman kingdom and the Roman Empire of the III-VI century A.D. came in the alleged VI century A.D. as a result of a great war against foreign invaders – namely, the Romean Greeks, or the troops of the Graeco-Romean emperor Justinian I.

5a. The Trojan War. The Trojan kingdom was ruled by a sequence of seven kings. The first of them had founded the city, as well as the entire state ([851], page 70). The fall of Troy and the decline of the Trojan kingdom came in the rule of the seventh king; the state has never been revived since. Unfortunately, the legends of the Trojan kingdom tell us nothing of just how long the Trojan royal reigns had been. All we know runs down to the names of the kings ([851], pages 70 and 198; also comment 4).

■ 5b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Here we have the sequence of seven Roman kings who had ruled Livy’s Rome in the alleged VIII-VI century B.C. The first king’s name is Romulus, he had founded the actual city (allegedly Rome) and also the state. Under the last king of seven, the Roman kingdom ceases to exist, and Rome transforms into a republic. Livy specifies the reign lengths of the first seven Roman kings in [482]; see also the comparison as presented in fig. 2.39.

Fig. 2.39 The superimposition of the Trojan kingdom over the Regal Rome of Titus Livy.

6a. The Trojan War. The duration of the Trojan War is supposed to equal 10 or 11 years ([851] pages 77 and 136).

■ 6b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. According to Livy, the Gothic-Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century A.D. lasted for 12 years ([482], Book 2:20). The Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. lasts 16 years according to Procopius – 534 or 536 to 552 A.D. in Scaligerian chronology. We see that the two “oldest” versions – Livy’s and the Trojan – concur with each other perfectly, stating the respective periods of 10-11 and 12 years.

7a. The Trojan War. The second Trojan king is called Ilus or Ilush ([851], page 198, comment 4), which might be a version of the name Ilya.

■ 7b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Livy’s second king of the Regal Rome is called Numa Pompilius aka Julian or Elius, since we have discovered him to be a double of the emperor Julian as well as the Biblical Elijah. We see the Trojan name Ilus to be identical to Julian-Elius-Elijah.

8a. The Trojan War. Some chronicles tell us that Troy was founded by king Dardan ([851], page 98, comment 4). According to the Greek mythology, the Dardanelles straits were named after king Dardan.

■ 8b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The history of Livy’s Regal Rome begins with the foundation of the city, whereas that of its duplicate – the Third Roman Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D., is marked by the foundation of its capital on the Bosporus in the alleged year 330 A.D., known as New Rome or Constantinople. The Dardanelles straits neighbours with the Bosporus; ancient Troy is supposed to have been located somewhere in its vicinity.

Commentary. All of this leads us to the natural consideration that Homer’s Troy and the New Rome or Constantinople can be identified as one and the same city. The latter is also known as the New City or Naples. Another name linked with Troy is that of the New Ilium, or New Ilion ([443], page 28). Schliemann writes that “according to the tradition that had been kept alive in the New Ilium (the Roman name for Ilion), ancient Troy never saw its final demolition, nor had it been abandoned by all of its inhabitants (Strabon)” (quoting by [443], page 28). So we see that both Constantinople and Troy were referred to as “New”.

The name Naples (New City) could have come to the territory of Italy somewhat later, when the Romean and Byzantine history was taken away from Byzantium and imported to Italy. This couldn’t have happened earlier than the XIV century A.D., which is when the Italian Rome was founded. Schliemann had no reason whatsoever to try and persuade the public into believing the backwater settlement near the Bosporus that he had excavated to have been the famous Troy of Homer. As we demonstrate above, he’d had cited no proof of any substance.

One shouldn’t go far in one’s search for Homer’s Troy – it would suffice to point at the gigantic Constantinople = New Rome = Istanbul which exists until the present day. In fig. 2.40 one sees that Schliemann’s settlement is located near the southern exit from the Dardanelles straits (see also fig. 2.41). Constantinople is located near the southern exit from the Bosporus. Apparently, when the name Troy was taken away from Constantinople, historians had to find it a new location. As we can see, it wasn’t moved too far away – the southern exit from the Dardanelles, the neighbouring straits, is where the city moved. This can be regarded as a “tip of a hat” to the memory of the real Troy being located at the southern end of the Bosporus. Then Schliemann managed to find the remnants of some small mediaeval settlement nearby, and hastened to proclaim it “the very same Troy as described by Homer” (fig. 2.42; also [1259], page 33). Let us reiterate that similar ruins without any distinctive characteristics can be found all across Turkey.

Fig. 2.40 Schliemann’s Troy is really a nondescript site near the southern entrance to the Dardanelles straits. Mark the name “Troia” on the map. Taken from [1259], page 158.

Fig. 2.41 A close-in of the map of Turkey indicating the alleged location of “Homer’s Troy”. Taken from [1259], page 158.

Fig. 2.42 Rather ordinary-looking ruins of a small mediaeval coastal fortification that received the ipse dixit reputation of having once been “the very Troy of Homer” by H. Schliemann. Taken from [1259], page 33.

The hypothesis that Homer’s Troy is really Constantinople, and not any other city, finds unexpected support in Scaligerian history. We learn that when the Roman emperor Constantine the Great was laying the foundations of the New Rome – Constantinople-to-be – he went along with the wish of his compatriots and had “initially chosen the site of the ancient Ilion, the fatherland of the first founders of Rome” ([240], page 25). This is what the Turkish historian Jalal Assad tells us. And Scaligerian history knows Ilion to be another name of Troy.

Historians inform us that Constantine had subsequently “changed his mind” and founded the New Rome in the town of Byzantium on the Bosporus. This “change of opinion” has been part of the historical discourse from the XVII century and not any earlier, since the epoch marks a break point when “ancient Troy” and “Constantinople” were subject to arbitrary separation. Apparently, some memory of the “ancient Troy” being located near Istanbul at the southern exit from “some large straits” had survived until the XVI-XVII century; however, since the Scaligerian history already “forbade” to point at Constantinople in this “search”, later historians would be coaxing the archaeologists into searchiung for the city somewhere in those parts. Then came Schliemann with his suggestion to consider some nondescript settlement near Hissarlik at the southern end of the Dardanelles the remains of Troy (in 1870 – see [1259], page 32).

Thus, historians would occasionally come across rather obvious evidence in support of the fact that Constantinople used to be identified as Troy in the Middle Ages.

9a. The Trojan War. Some of the chronicles name the founder of the Trojan Kingdom and the City of Troy king Dardan; others call him king Pridesh ([851], pages 70 and 198). Thus, we see confusion between the two founders (of the two capitals?). Let us point out that the name Pridesh may well be a derivative from the Slavic “priydesh” (“thou shalt arrive”) or “prihodit” (to arrive). This is pretty self-explanatory – some king would arrive and found a city. He would therefore receive the alias Pridesh.

■ 9b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. As we already pointed out, Titus Livy also mentions the founders of the two capital cities - Romulus and Remus, calling them brothers, each of whom is supposed to have founded a capital city of his own ([482], Book 1). However, Romulus had killed Remus and destroyed his capital, and so Rome remained the only capital city. What we see in Roman history is also confusion between the two founders of the two capitals.

10a. The Trojan War. The new kingdom and the City bore the name of their founder, king Pridesh (as some chronicles tell us). “The king liked this place, and so he had decided to found a city here and name it after himself” ([851], page 70). Mind that the name of the city hadn’t been “Troy” at that point, but rather “Kingdom of Dardan” or “Kingdom of Pridesh”! The name “Trojan Kingdom” wouldn’t appear until much later; therefore, precision dictates the necessity of calling it “the second kingdom”.

■ 10b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Roman Kingdom of Titus Livy, or the First Roman Empire, was named after the founder of both the City and the state – king Romulus. Unlike the Trojan kingdom, this one didn’t change its name.

11a. The Trojan War. The history of the Trojan kingdom reports Troy destroyed twice – we know of the last and final destruction, which we shall be referring to as “second”, as well as the so-called “first destruction” which is presumed to have taken place under Laomedontes, the father of king Priam ([851], page 89). These two destructions are the only ones reflected in the history of the Trojan kingdom.

■ 11b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The history of Livy’s Roman Kingdom, as well as that of his double, or the Third Roman Empire, also contains two accounts of the city’s destruction. The first one took place under Romulus Augustulus; this had marked the end of the Classical Imperial Rome, when Italy was seized by Odoacer. The second and final destruction happened during the Gothic War of the alleged VI century (in 535-552). These two destructions are also the only ones in the entire history of the Third Roman Empire.

12a. The Trojan War. The first war wiped out the first kingdom of Dardan or Pridesh. Shortly afterwards, about a generation or two later, the second kingdom was founded, already bearing the name of the Trojan Kingdom. This occured in the reign of the last Trojan king Priam ([851], page 89). By the way, the name Priam could simply translate as “the first”.

■ 12b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The first destruction of the Roman Empire – namely, Italy falling into the hands of Odoacer the German – marks the end of the “purely Roman” empire in the West. Odoacer is an alien governor, likewise his successor, Emperor Theodoric. Immediately after the first destruction (in the alleged years 476-526), the second kingdom is founded – the Germanic-Gothic or the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy governed by Theodoric and his daughter Amalasuntha.

13a. The Trojan War. The end of the first Trojan kingdom is marked by the advent of Jason and Hercules, the two strangers that destroy the first Trojan (Dardan’s or Pridesh’s) kingdom, come from the West. “Strangers from the West… have seized the town” ([851], page 89). Both are foreigners in Troy.

■ 13b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The two foreigners Odoacer and Theodoric – the ones who destroy the “purely Roman” empire, which is the double of the first Trojan kingdom, invade Italy from the North-West. They are strangers here – that is to say, they weren’t born in Rome.

14a. The Trojan War. The kingdom of Dardan (or Pridesh) changes its name after the first destruction. It is succeeded by the Trojan kingdom. The name Trojan is virtually identical to the word “Franks” - both transcribe as “TRN” without vocalizations.

■ 14b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Third Empire in the West changes its name as well as its status under Odoacer; this takes place after the first destruction, transforming the empire into Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. This is where its double, or Livy’s Regal Rome, has its ruling dynasty changed to that of the Tarquins. Their name transcribes as TRQN unvocalized, which is similar to TRN, as well as “Franks” and “Pharaoh”. We are beginning to understand that the Franks had a good reason to trace their ancestry back to the kingdom of Troy, since it belonged to more or less the same epoch as they had lived in – the Middle Ages. Modern historians have no right to exercise their irony at the expense of these “silly fancies” of the Franks.

15a. The Trojan War. The unvocalized root TRN, or Trojan, is derived from the name of the new king Troilus, who had “built more of the city than anybody else and thus called it after himself – Troy” ([851], page 70. From that moment on, the inhabitants of the kingdom started to call themselves Trojans, and the city Troy.

■ 15b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. We encounter the unvocalized root of TRQN (Tarquin) in Roman history as the name of the new Tarquinian king. We have demonstrated above that in the superimposition of Livy’s Regal Rome over the Third Roman Empire king Tarquin the Ancient would become identified as the emperors Valentinian III and Recimer (acting as their “sum”, in a way). Furthermore, Tarquin the Proud is the collective name used to refer to the entire dynasty of the Gothic rulers that had reigned in Rome in the alleged VI century A.D.

16a. The Trojan War. King Troilus (or Laomedon, according to several other versions) is sixth in the sequence of Trojan kings. He had been the founder of the kingdom with the new name – one called the Trojan Kingdom. The kingdom is invaded for the first time at the time of his reign (see fig. 2.43).

Fig. 2.43 The parallelism between the “ancient” kingdom of Troy and the “ancient” Regal Rome of Titus Livy, or the Third Roman Empire.

■ 16b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The sixth king of Regal Rome as described by Livy is Servius Tullius – the duplicate of Odoacer and Theodoric from the Third Roman Empire. Odoacer and Theodoric are the founders of the new German-Gothic kingdom in Italy that had existed between the alleged years 476 and 552 A.D. Odoacer (and Theodoric) were the ones to head the first invasion into the Third Empire that brought an end to the “purely Roman” rule in Italy.

17a. The Trojan War. As we have already mentioned, a new term is coined at some point in time closer to the end of the Dardan-Pridesh kingdom: Trojan (Troy).

■ 17b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. History tells us of a new name introduced at the end of the Second Roman Empire (the double of Livy’s Regal Rome and the Third Roman Empire) – Emperor Trajan, the alleged years 98-117 A.D. His name is virtually identical to the word “Trojan”.

Commentary. Let us remind the reader that all three Roman Empires – the Regal Rome of Titus Livy, or the First Empire of the alleged VIII-VI century B.C. = the Second Empire of the alleged I-III century A.D. = the Third Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D. are very close to each other statistically, being phantom reflections of one and the same Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century A.D., which is partially real and partially a phantom, as well as the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) empire of the alleged XIV-XVII century. It is remarkable that the following extremely similar names – Trajan, Tarquin and Trojan – become identified as one and the same name. Among other things, this indicates a possible identification of the Trojans as the Tarquins or the inhabitants of Nov-Gorod (see more about the meaning of the name as transcribed in reverse above). It would be expedient to point out that the root TRQN remains traceable in the names of many parts of Rome – the havens, the harbour and the canal, which were built by the Roman emperor Trajan, as well as the famous Italian city of Troy, which exists until the present day, etc ([196], Volume 1). Trajan had also been the name of the bodyguard of the military leader Belisarius ([695], I(V), 27 and 4; II (VI), 4, 6 and 14; 5, 4, 9, 10, 21 and 24).

18a. The Trojan War. In fig. 2.44 one sees the chronological disposition of the Trojan period in the history of the Trojan kingdom.

Fig. 2.44 The superimposition of the final periods of the Trojan Kingdom and the First = the Third Roman Empire.

■ 18b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The same fig. 2.44 shows us the period in the history of Regal Rome that is usually referred to as Tarquinian – allegedly located and dated to Italy of the VI century B.C. Both periods concur with each other well due to a mutual superimposition of the Trojan Kingdom and the First = Third Roman Empire. This concurrence shall become ideal if we are to assume that the name Tarquin the Ancient (Trajan in the Second Empire) really applied to Odoacer and Theodoric (in the alleged V-VI century), rather than their predecessors Valentinian III and Recimer. Titus Livy may have confused the names of two neighbouring rulers for each other.

19a. The Trojan War. One spells the Latin words for Troy and Trojan (adjective and noun) as follows: Troia, Troja, Troius (Troy), Troicus, Trojanus, Trojus (Trojan – noun and adjective) – see [237], page 1034. The Greek spellings are similar; in Latin transliteration they look as “Troianos”, “Troakos”, and “Troieus”. One also has to bear in mind that in the Middle Ages the letters V and U would frequently swap positions and be used instead of each other, as one can plainly see in many mediaeval manuscripts. The letters U and V look very similar, which might be one of the reasons for this. Thus, if we are to collect the unvocalized versions of the words “Troy”, “Trojan” etc. – TRN, TRK, TRQV, TRV – we shall get TRQN as the sum of the above, which is the unvocalized root of the name of the Roman Tarquins (Nov-Gorodsmen).

■ 19b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. As we have already pointed out, the mediaeval Franks claimed to have been the descendants of the Trojans. Scaligerian chronology renders this impossible. Nowadays it is considered that in the times of the Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C. the predecessors of the European Franks had still remained cavemen. However, it would be expedient to revise the approach to such mediaeval evidence. The facts that we cite demonstrate the mediaeval Franks and the Trojans to have quite possibly been contemporaries. That said, one cannot fail to notice that the Trojan origins of the Franks are reflected in their very name – TRNK without vocalizations (bearing in mind the frequent flexion of F, Ph and T). Apparently, such well-known names from Scaligerian history as “Trojans”, “Franks”, “Turks” and “Tarquins” refer to similar, if not identical, groups of people.

20a. The Trojan War. The Trojans (TRQN) had lost the Trojan war and were forced to go into exile. In fig. 2.32 one sees an ancient miniature from the Roman de Troie by Benoit de Saint-Maure entitled “The Battle of Agamemnon and Menelaius with Troilus and Diomedes” ([1485], page 246). We see both parts to be typical mediaeval knights in heavy plate armour. Some of them have full helmets with closed visors; there are stars painted on one of the shields.

■ 20b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Tarquins (TRQN) suffer bitter defeat in the war and are exiled from Rome. Both wars – the Trojan and the Gothic – are described as incredibly violent, with many battles and large numbers of casualties. These two wars are considered major events in the history of the Trojan and the Tarquinian-Roman kingdom.

Commentary. Apparently, what we see here is a reflection of the events that date to the crusade epoch. The Franks – Turks (Tartars?) - Goths – Trojans – Tarquins (Nov-Gorodsmen) – TRQN – the crusaders of the alleged XII-XIII century. The New Rome (Constantinople) was probably founded at the beginning of this epoch. The same city can be identified as the original Evangelical Jerusalem and the original Troy of Homer, qv in Chapter 6 of Chron1. The siege of Constantinople by the crusaders in the alleged year 1204 and the war of the XIII century can be identified as the siege of Jerusalem. Other mediaeval documents might have referred to this event as to the fall of Troy, or the Gothic=Tarquinian War. The wars and the movement of troops would aid to the propagation of geographical names across larger areas. One cannot fail to notice the presence of the name TRQN in Crimea, for instance, where the Tmutarakan principality was located. The very name “Tmutarakan” (Tma-Tarakan, or “abundance of the Tarquins”) also indicates the presence of the “Trojan terminology” on this territory in the Middle Ages. Let us remind the reader that the Slavic word “tma” means “abundance”, or “a large quantity”. We shall also provide information concerning the fact that Tmutarakan used to be another name of Astrakhan. A propos, the term “Tmutarakan” is also present in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign as “Trayan”, qv in more detail in Suleimenov’s Az and Ya ([823], pages 118-122). This observation provides yet another link between the concepts of “Trojan” and “Tmutarakanian”.

21a. The Trojan War. The second and final destruction is wreaked upon the Trojan kingdom by the Greek invaders at the end of the Trojan = TRQN period in the history of the kingdom as a result of the famous Trojan War.

■ 21b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The second and allegedly final destruction of the First=Third Roman Empire in the West in the alleged VI century is also inflicted upon Rome by foreign invaders – the Romean Greeks. The Graeco-Romean emperor Justinian I gives orders to destroy the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, and those are promptly implemented. The famous Romean military commander Belisarius crushes the Gothic troops. The Goths are forced to withdraw from Italy, qv above.

22a. The Trojan War. Trojan chronicles tell us about a large fleet of invading Greeks that came to storm the Gothic kingdom. We even learn the number of ships, qv in [851], page 95 and on. The fleet is supposed to have come from Greece.

■ 22b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Roman chronicles, in particular those of Procopius (the author of The Gothic War – [695] and [696]) inform us that the Romean Greeks invaded Italy in the alleged year 535 A.D. with a large fleet that came from Greece and Byzantium ([196], Volume 1, page 319).

Commentary. In fig. 2.45 we see an ancient miniature from a book that unites two œuvres – De Bello Troiano by Dictis the Cretan, and Livy’s Ab urbe condita of the alleged XIV century. The first miniature most probably depicts the invasion into Troy ([1229], page 17). It opens an entire series of miniatures representing the Trojan War that one finds in the section of [1229] that deals with The Trojan War by Dictis the Cretan. It is most noteworthy that the banner one sees hoisted over the army bears the initials SPQR. These banners accompanied mediaeval, and therefore also “ancient” Roman troops into battle. The modern commentator tells us that “the initials SPQR on the Roman banner identifies the soldiers as Romans fighting under the name of Senatus Populusque Romanus” ([1229], page 17). All of this notwithstanding the fact that, according to the Scaligerian chronology, Rome was founded five centuries after the Trojan War.

Fig. 2.45 The first miniature from the Trojan cycle that one can see in [1229]. What we see is either the Greek army assaulting Troy, or evidence of the artist having linked the very same event to the Roman wars as described by Titus Livy. We can clearly see the initials SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus) on the banner, which are considered a sine qua non attribute of the mediaeval (and hence also the “ancient”) Romans. Dictis the Cretan, De bello Troiano and Livy’s Ab urbe condita. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. lat. 5690, fol. 201v. Taken from [1229], page 17.

In fig. 2.47 we see another miniature from The Trojan War by Dictis the Cretan ([1229], pages 18-19) with a scene of battle between the Greeks and the Trojans. According to the inscriptions on the miniature, amongst the participants of the battle are the kings Agamemnon, Aeneas, Achilles, Hector and Troilus. All of them are represented as mediaeval knights in plate armour and helmets with closed visors.

Fig. 2.47 A battle between the “ancient” Greeks and the Romans. All the warriors are portrayed as mediaeval knights. Dictis the Cretan, De bello Troiano. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Reg. lat. 1505, fol. 85r. Taken from [1229], pages 18-19.

The parallelism between the Gothic and the Trojan War that we discovered provides perfect explanation for the existence of these old pictures that virtually identify the “ancient Greeks and Trojans” as the mediaeval knights.

In fig. 2.48 we see an ancient miniature from a copy of Homer’s Iliad allegedly dating to the XV century that depicts the “ancient” Greek fleet. However, the vessels we see are typically mediaeval. Modern commentators couldn’t have failed to notice this, hence their cautious remark: “the ship in front looks like a Venetian vessel” ([1229], page 54). We shall discover the participation of Venice in the Trojan War below and from a different source.

Fig. 2.48 A miniature from an edition of Homer’s Iliad allegedly dating to the XV century. The Greek fleet is pictured as typically mediaeval; we see a large mediaeval vessel in front (which is also marked by the modern commentator, see [1229], page 54). Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1626, fol. 30r. Taken from [1229], page 54.

23a. The Trojan War. Troy is a seaside town located “in a valley by the sea” ([851], page 70). We also learn that there had been a river “running through Troy” ([851], page 90). In fig. 2.49 we see a miniature entitled “A View of Troy” from the mediaeval Litsevoy Svod almanac which is kept in the National History Museum of Moscow ([851], page 17). We see a typically mediaeval town (fig. 2.50). On the left side of the river (straits) we see the “ancient Trojans” occupying themselves with such crafts as shipwork, metallurgy etc. The detail that is of the utmost interest to us is the fact that they apparently cast very large bells, qv in fig. 2.50.

Fig. 2.49. A mediaeval miniature of Troy from the Litsevoy Svod. State Museum of History, Museum collection, No 358. The miniature is entitled “A view of Troy” ([851], page 17). We see a typically mediaeval city as well as quotidian activities of its inhabitants – the “ancient” Trojans. Among other things, they occupy themselves with moulding large bells – in order to mount them atop a belfry in a Christian church, qv in the upper left corner of the miniature. Taken from [851], page 17.

Fig. 2.50 A close-in of the miniature showing bells cast in the “ancient” Troy. Bells did not appear until the Middle Ages; moreover, they were an attribute of Christian churches. Who could have erred here – the artist or the Scaligerian historians? We shall most probably be told of the artist’s presumed ignorance; however, the opposite is apparently true. In this case, as well as in a great many others, the mediaeval artist was correct, unlike the Scaligerites.

It seems as though the mediaeval artist of the XVI-XVII century had kept the memory of true history, or some vague shreds thereof at the very least, and tried to provide us with a bona fide representation of the mediaeval Troy and its quotidian realities – which included the casting of bells to be placed upon Christian temples, no less. It wasn’t until somewhat later, when Troy had already migrated into distant past courtesy of Scaligerian history, that the notion of bells cast in the “ancient Troy” became a hideous anachronism. Scaligerian history started to claim that there were no bells upon the “ancient” Greek and Roman temples. From the XVII century and on, Scaligerite historians have been declaring all examples of mediaeval art that contradicted Scaligerian history “wild fancies”.

There is another noteworthy detail concerning this miniature. As we have already pointed out, the academic edition ([851]) gives the name of the miniature as “A View of Troy”, whereas another modern edition ([550]) contains the same miniature, but without any name this time. The equivocatory comment runs as follows: “A mediaeval town. Miniature from a XVI century chronicle” ([550], page 81). Why would the publishers of [550] refrain from mentioning the name of the miniature? The answer is apparent. The view of Troy as presented on the picture is so blatantly mediaeval, complete with Christian belltowers, that the historians in charge of the publication ([550]) decided to refrain from shocking the reader with such an obvious dissonance between the Scaligerian history and some of the ancient pictures that have survived until our day. Therefore, the reference Troy had to be kept secret, and was therefore replaced by a mere “mediaeval town” – which is actually correct; what needed to be added was that it also happens to be a view of the “ancient” Troy.

■ 23b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. It is presumed that most of the events in the course of the Gothic War took place in Rome and Naples. Naples is a seaside town. The New Rome, or Constantinople, is also located by the seaside. Furthermore, Istanbul (Constantinople) is situated on the two banks of a long and narrow straits (the Bosporus), which may well have been referred to as “a river” (fig. 2.51). Apart from that, there is a river that runs through Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire and the kingdom of the Ostrogoths – the famous Tiber.

The Bosphorus and the Princes Islands

Fig. 2.51 A map of the Bosporus and the city of Istanbul located on both banks of the southern exit of the Bosporus into the Marmara Sea. Taken from [1464], page 107.

24a. The Trojan War. For some reason, Trojan chronicles mention a large number of watermills on the river that ran through Troy ([851], page 90).

■ 24b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Mediaeval historians (Procopius in particular) make many references to the watermills standing on the river Tiber that runs through Rome in their accounts of the Gothic War ([196], Volume 1, pages 355-356. They have really played an important role in the Gothic War of the alleged VI century. These watermills have often stood at the centre of the battlefield where the Goths fought the Romeans/Romans/Greeks. Procopius pays a great deal of attention to the “watermill battles” ([695]). No watermills are mentioned in any other accounts of the Third Roman Empire’s military campaigns. We didn’t find any independent evidence to attest to the popularity of watermills in the Italian Rome; au contraire, we have managed to find out that Czar-Grad (or Constantinople) was famous for its watermills, which had stood right on the banks of the Bosporus – the so-called “Great River” (see the rare mediaeval XV century engraving in fig. 2.52, which belongs to the cycle known as Peregrination in Terram Sanctam, or “The Pilgrimage to the Holy Land”, dating to 1486). This engraving depicts a ship approaching Czar-Grad (Constantinople on the Bosporus). We immediately recognize the city as Czar-Grad, since we can see the Golden Horn bay and the famous chain that used to guard its entrance. The engraving shows us the two ends of this heavy chain that hung between the two towers located on each side of the bay. This “chain guard” played an important part in the history of Czar-Grad, as a matter of fact ([695]), and is mentioned by many authors. We see a great many watermills on the engraving, they nearly fill the entire peninsula where the centre of Czar-Grad is located. Therefore the “numerous ancient Trojan windmills” are most probably of a mediaeval origin, and belong in the Constantinople of the Middle Ages – as we can see, they had still existed by the end of the XV century. Therefore, Procopius of Caesaria must have been referring to the New Rome on the Bosporus in his account of the Gothic War.

Fig. 2.52 An ancient engraving dating from 1486 entitled “A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land that shows Constantinople (or Czar-Grad) on the Bosporus, the Golden Horn bay and the famous chain that was locking the entrance to the bay. There are lots of windmills on the coast – possibly the very “windmill multitude” that the old chronicles refer to. Taken from [1189], page 31, ill. 10. Bernhard von Breydenbach. Holzschnitt in: Reise ins heilige Land. Weimar, Zentralbibliothek der deutschen Klassik.

Commentary. As a matter of fact, the very same engraving provides us with more proof of the theory that the Evangelical Jerusalem and Czar-Grad on the Bosporus are the same city. Indeed, Scaligerian history tells us that the mediaeval “pilgrimages to the Holy Land” would always have Jerusalem as the final point of their itinerary. What Holy Land do we see in the 1486 engraving that is supposed to represent one of such pilgrimages? As one sees in fig. 2.52, the city in question is Constantinople, or Czar-Grad. Thus, the Holy Land had been a term associated with Constantinople, or Czar-Grad on the Bosporus, as recently as in the XV century.

We observe the same phenomenon in another mediaeval engraving of the XV century – Ritter Grünembergs Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige Land (“Knight Grünemberg’s Pilgrimage into the Holy Land”), qv in fig. 2.53. We see a ship full of pilgrims that approaches a seaside town and a good view of the bay behind the corner tower. Both engravings are on the same page of the album ([1189]) since they belong to the same “Pilgrimage” cycle. We are most likely to be seeing Constantinople with its Golden Horn bay once again, hence another reason to identify the Evangelical Jerusalem as Czar-Grad.

Fig. 2.53 An ancient engraving of the XV century entitled “The Pilgrimage of Knight Grünemberg into the Holy Land”. The pilgrim ship is approaching a coastal town; one can distinctly see a bay – most probably the Golden Horn, which would identify the city as Czar-Grad on the Bosporus. Therefore, the Evangelical Jerusalem (the Holy Land) was identified as Czar-Grad, or Constantinople, as recently as the XV century. Taken from [1189], page 31, ill. 11b. Konrad Grünemberg, 1486. Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek.

25a. The Trojan War. King Priam is known to have built “a great and splendorous palace upon a hill” in the middle of Troy ([851], page 90).

■ 25b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. According to Jalal Assad, the Byzantine palace complex of Constantinople is considered to have been one of “the most fantastic and magnificent phenomena known to history” ([240], page 137). The main one had been the Great Imperial Palace that would “cover… a gigantic area of 400.000 square metres near the Temple of Hagia Sophia” ([240], page 138). This palace had been destroyed in the crusade epoch. Chronicles name it among the wonders of the world – a gigantic edifice where a great deal of the Byzantine Empire’s wealth was stored. One can get some idea of just how magnificent the Great Imperial Palace had been by the grandiose Hagia Sophia, which has reached our days. The Capitol Hill in the middle of Rome also used to be crowned by a palace complex – the Capitol, dating back to the times of the Third Roman Empire; however, it couldn’t have been built earlier than the XIV-XV century A.D. - already after the fall of Byzantium and the “migration of the Roman statehood” from Constantinople to Italy.

26a. The Trojan War. Phrygia in Asia Minor. The kingdom of Troy could have been located in Phrygia, comprising a minor part of or it could have been a neighbour of Phrygia. Trojan sources tell us that before the first invasion into Troy, Jason and Hercules had “landed at the coast of the Trojan kingdom in Phrygia” ([851], page 79). Modern commentators tell us that the kingdom of Troy had been adjacent to the land of Phrygia ([851], page 209). We find more references to the fact that the Trojan kingdom was either located in Phrygia or a neighbour thereof in the famous book about Troy written by Dares the Phrygian, whose very name reflects his origins. Many mediaeval authors knew Phrygia as “the land where the Trojan kingdom was located” ([851], page 214, comment 71).

■ 26b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The mediaeval German Friesia. Nowadays historians locate the “ancient” Phrygia in Asia Minor. However, mediaeval authors are of a different opinion. They identify Phrygia with Friesia, a part of Germany. Modern commentators point this out as well: “apparently, the more correct reading of Guido’s copy suggests Friesia [instead of Phrygia – A. F.]. The north-west of Germany has been inhabited by a tribe known as the Friesians ever since the beginning of the new era” ([851], page 216, comment 99). In this case, the “ancient” Trojan kingdom automatically relocates to either Europe or Byzantium, becoming identified as either the Romean kingdom (Byzantium), or the early Ottoman (Ataman) Empire. In the latter case the word “Phrygia” may be a slightly distorted version of Turkey (Turkiye). Bear in mind that “Ph” and “T” would often take each other’s place.

Commentary. Apparently, along with the toponymic migrations from the West to the East, the reverse process also took place. The European conquests of the “Mongols” and the Turks, who had moved westwards from the East, certain Oriental names would make their way into Europe.

27a. The Trojan War. “Phrygians were allies of the Trojans” ([851], page 216, comment 99). They took part in the Trojan = TRQN War. By the way, Homer calls Dares a priest from Troy = Ilion, see Book 5, 9-11. This also implies that Dares the Phrygian had fought alongside the Trojans.

■ 27b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic War of the alleged VI century the Greeks/ Romeans/Romans were forced to fight against the Goths, who had invaded Italy led by king Theodoric, as well as the German tribes that had come to Italy somewhat earlier with Odoacer as their leader. We recognize the “ancient” alliance between the Friesians/ Germans and the Trojans/TRQN. Another thing that we have to bear in mind is the superimposition of the Goths over the P-Russians and the P-Racenes, as well as the Et-Ruscans. Livy tells us that the Tarquinian clan was often characterized as a tribe of northerners, qv above. Tarquin the Proud, the double of several Gothic rulers, is known to have been a foreigner, and not a Roman native.

Commentary. The peak of the toponymic migration between the East and the West must fall on the crusade epoch of the XIV-XV century, when the Europeans had invaded Asia, shortly before the armies of the “mongols” and the Ottoman Turk swarmed Europe. Since Dares, the author of the first Trojan War chronicle, is known to have been Phrygian, common logic tells us that the first legends of the fall of Troy must have been written by the Goths who took part in the Gothic War. Amongst many other things, this implies both Dares and Dictis to have been completely innocent of “forgery” - their mediaeval chronicles are most probably authentic firsthand evidence of the war set in writing by the eyewitnesses amongst the crusaders.

The Goths taking part in the Trojan war of the alleged XIII century A.D. are perfect nonsense from the point of view of the Scaligerian chronology, which considers these nations to have been wallowing deep in the Stone Age back in those days, whereas the participants of the Trojan War are hailed by the gold-mouthed Homer in such passages as “the mightiest of mortals, glorious sons of the earth”, or “Mighty Hector with his helmet ablaze”. Therefore, modern historians try to convince us that “it is obvious that the Friesians could not have fought in the Trojan War” ([851], page 216, comment 99). We recommend the reader to compare the material from this chapter with the data provided in Chron5 and Chron6 where we consider the issue of the Goths identified as the Mongols and the Tartars, or the Russian “Mongolian” = Great Empire of the XIII-XVI century.

28a. The Trojan War. Some well-known mountain is known to have been located near the “ancient” Troy – Mount Ida, or the Idean mountain ([851], page 198, comment 3), which sounds virtually identical to “Judean Mountain”.

■ 28b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Naples is located at the foothills of the famous European volcano Vesuvius. Rome isn’t too far away, either. The abovementioned dynastic parallelisms suggest that Vesuvius can be identified as the Judean Mountain, or the mountain of the Theocrats – a holy place of worship. What we see at the outskirts of Constantinople (Istanbul) is the famous Mount Beykos with its famous gigantic grave of St. Iusha (Jesus), also a holy place of worship. See Chron5 for more details.

29a. The Trojan War. Trojan chronicles – Homer, in particular, often refer to “the Idean heights”, “Zeus the Idean”, “the Forest of Ida” and so on. It is noteworthy that India Minor is located near Mount Ida ([851], pages 93 and 212, comment 50; also [180], page 264). One instantly recollects the fact that in the Middle Ages “India” would often be used to refer to “Judea”; their respective names used to be written similarly, with Judea spelt as “Iudia”. Mount Ida is also supposed to have been a halidom and a religious centre ([851]), just like Mount Beykos on the outskirts of the New Rome (Istanbul), or the Italian Vesuvius described in the Bible as the famous Mount Sinai, or Horeb, where God had given Moses the Law. Trojan chronicles tell us that the famous Judgement of Paris took place in the Forest of Ida (the Judean Forest?). Let us remind the reader that Paris, the son of the Trojan king, solves the “beauty dispute” between the three ancient goddesses, handing the prize over to Aphrodite, the goddess of love ([851], page 93). One has to point out that the Bible often refers to various religions as to “wives” ([544], Volume 1); therefore, the “judgement of Paris” may really have referred to the choice of the “ancient” Bacchic religion made by the Trojans. They chose one of the three “wives”, or religions – Aphrodite’s religion of love (TRDT or TRTT – Tartars). This may have been the original Judaic (Theocratic) cult. Let us remind the reader that the mediaeval Western European Christian religion could possibly have been superimposed over the ancient Bacchic cult, qv above. On the other hand, one cannot fail to recollect the famous mediaeval “choice of confession” made by Prince Vladimir in his baptism of Old Russia. He had also chosen Christianity from several religions that he had been offered. Could the “ancient Paris” have been a mere reflection of the P-Russian (White Russian) Vladimir (the name translates as “the Master of the World”)? In fig. 2.54 we see a painting by Lucas Cranach (1472-1553) entitled “The Judgement of Paris”. What we see is a typically mediaeval scene – Paris is portrayed as a knight in heavy armour; his servant is also wearing armour and a mediaeval attire.

Fig. 2.54 “The Judgement of Paris” by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553). The “ancient” scene is represented in a typically mediaeval setting, Paris himself being a knight in plate armour. Taken from [1258], page 45. Also see fig. 4.11 below.

■ 29b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. As we have already mentioned, the Third Roman Empire became reflected in the Bible as the history of the Judean and Israelite kingdoms, whose original is the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century A.D., and the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire of the XIV-XVII century. Therefore, the Trojan names containing the word “Idean”, or Judean – the Judean Heights, Judean Zeus, and the Judean Forest have their origins in the XI-XVI century epoch. At that time, Israel and Judea were the ecclesiastical names for large regions of Europe and Asia. Relics of the vast mediaeval Judea and Israel can be found all over Europe – the town of Ravenna in modern Italy, for instance, which clearly is a derivative of the word “Rabbi”, or “The Town of the Rabbis”. Let us return to the Trojan chronicles. After the fall of Troy, the Trojan Angenor “follows the setting sun” and founds a city by the name of Venicea ([851], page 147). This is apparently an account of how the mediaeval Italian Venice was founded. Let us also remind the reader that in the Middle Ages Southern Italy used to be called Greater Greece ([196]).

30a. The Trojan War. The fall of Troy, Hattusas (Hatusa) and Babylon. According to the Scaligerian chronology, Troy fell in the year 1225 B.C. ([72]). It is also presumed that Hattusas, the capital of the Hittite kingdom was destroyed around the same time, likewise Babylon ([72] and fig. 2.55).

Fig. 2.55 Scaligerian datings of the dates when certain ancient cities fell – namely, Troy, Babylon and Hattusha.

■ 30b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Hittites as another name of the Goths. As we have already mentioned in Chron1, Chapter 1, the “ancient” Hittite kingdom is most probably a phantom reflection of the mediaeval Gothic state. Moreover, some of the chronicles (see Chapter 1 of Chron1) use the name “Babylon” when they refer to Rome. Therefore Scaligerian chronology is correct in its assumption that Troy, Rome/Babylon, and the Hittite/Gothic kingdom fell all but simultaneously. The only error of the Scaligerite chronologers is that they have misdated this event. It did not happen in the XIII century B.C., but rather the XIII century A.D. In the present case, the XVII century historians merely “reversed the temporal value” of the dating.

31a. The Trojan War. Helen of Troy. The casus belli for the Trojan War is known to have been the so-called “humilation of Helen”, the wife of Menelaius. She is supposed to have been abducted and taken away from her husband.

■ 31b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Lucretia/ Amalasuntha/Julia Maesa. The Tarquinian War of the First = Third Roman Empire had also been caused by the death of Lucretia/ Amalasuntha. Lucretia had been raped and committed suicide; Amalasuntha was murdered, qv above.

32a. The Trojan War. Trojan chronicles tell us of eleven large-scale battles that took place in the course of the Trojan War, which, in turn, fall apart into a multitude of minor battles. The war results in the fall of Troy, which is burned and plundered completely. We learn of the unspeakable atrocities from the part of the Greek victors, and that there was “no stone left unturned in the city” ([851], pages 133-134). The Trojan kingdom ceases to exist; surviving Trojans flee to distant lands. It has to be said that mediaeval artists would paint the Trojan War in a mediaeval manner. For example, in fig. 2.56 we see an old miniature from the Roman de Troie by Benoit de Saint-Maure, dating from the first quarter of the XIV century ([1485], page 20). We see the Greeks storming Troy; they are armed with crossbows (fig. 2.57). Crossbows had been a weapon used in the Middle Ages – and late Middle Ages, at that.

Fig. 2.56 A miniature from Le Roman de la guerre de Troie by Benoit de Sainte-Maure dating to the first quarter of the alleged XIV century. The warriors storming the walls of Troy are wearing mediaeval clothing and using mediaeval weapons – crossbows, for example. Taken from [1485], page 20.

Fig. 2.57 A close-in with the fragment of “Greeks Storming Troy” where we can very clearly see a mediaeval crossbow. Taken from [1485], page 20.

■ 32b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Procopius eloquently and meticulously the Gothic War of the alleged VI century, counting several dozen battles. We also learn of a great number of battles that can be grouped into two large episodes from Livy’s description of the Tarquinian War. The Gothic Rome had led to the pillaging and devastation of Rome, Naples and the entire Italy ([695], [696] and [196], Volume 1). The following is told about Naples, for instance: “The city was ransacked [by Belisarius, Justinian’s military commander – A. F.], and its inhabitants massacred ruthlessly” ([196], Volume 1, page 326). The Romean Greeks had been the party most commonly associated with the atrocities. The Gothic War had often been referred to as the Greek War ([196], Volume 1, pages 426-427). “The city [Rome – A. F.] was besieged by the Greeks and fell prey to their wickedness… the entire Italy from the Alps to Tarent was covered in ruins and dead bodies; famine and plague that followed the war turned the land into a desert… at least one third of the population had died… the horrendous Gothic War has brought an end to many an ancient tradition in Rome as well as across the entire Italy… a dark night of barbarity had covered the destroyed Latin world in darkness” ([196], Volume 1, pages 426-427). In his rendition of Procopius, the XIX century German historian Ferdinand Gregorovius is de facto telling us of the legendary Trojan War as seen by the Latins, which we couldn’t have worked out until today.

3.3. The legend of a woman and the casus belli of the Trojan War

33a. The Trojan War. The protagonist of the Trojan version is Helen, the beautiful wife of Menelaius. Three “ancient” goddesses have a dispute about which one of them is the most beautiful and ergo the best. Each goddess claims to be the one, which should hardly surprise us ([851], page 71). This seemingly innocent dispute results in the extremely brutal and violent Trojan War. Could the dispute in question really have been between several religions allegorically referred to as goddesses? The Bible, for instance, occasionally refers to religions as to female entities ([544]). In this case, ancient chronicles must be telling us about the choice of a single religion from three. The “ancient” Paris – most probably, an allegorical personification of the mediaeval Franks, chooses the most “appealing” goddess, or religion – Aphrodite. One has to remember about the erotic cult of the mediaeval Bacchic Christianity that flourished in the XII-XV century – in France, among other places, qv above. This worship of the “Christian Aphrodite” became reflected in numerous erotic sculptures and murals decorating Christian temples in mediaeval France ([1064]). As we already mentioned, something similar to the “religious choice of Paris” is known to us from the history of Old Russia. Prince Vladimir, the initiator of the baptism of Russia, had also listened to representatives of several creeds and chosen Orthodox Christianity as the official religion of the Russian State. Could this choice of Vladimir become reflected in the ancient myth of Paris, or P-Russ? Aphrodite (PhRDT or TRDT unvocalized) may be a derivative of the word Tartar.

■ 33b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Roman-Gothic version we have Lucretia as the protagonist according to Titus Livy. She is also known as Tullia, Julia Maesa and Amalasuntha in the Second = Third Empire. All of them duplicate Helen. Amalasuntha is one of the main characters in the Gothic War, qv above. The most vivid account of this story is given by Titus Livy. Several husbands had entered a heated dispute about the virtues of their wives; “each one had argued his own to be the best one” ([482], Book 1:57). This discussion had soon led to the Tarquinian War, also known to us as the Gothic War.

34a. The Trojan War. The key figure in the dispute between the “goddesses” is Paris the Trojan, or TRQN ([851], page 71). He had to choose the best of the three goddesses.

■ 34b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Tarquin Sextus. According to Livy, Tarquin Sextus is the judge in this dispute – TRQN as well ([482], 1:57).

35a. The Trojan War. A special contest of the goddesses is held to end the dispute. Victory goes to Venus = Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Paris the Trojan declares her to be the winner, acting as the judge in the contest ([851], page 71).

■ 35b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Roman debaters hold a contest between their wives. Livy tells us that “Lucretia had won the contest” ([482], 1:57). Sextus Tarquin is obsessed with his desire for Lucretia.

36a. The Trojan War. Paris the Trojan is possessed with a passion for Helen. Aphrodite, or Venus, the goddess of love, promises him “queen Helen for a wife” as a token of gratitude for her victory in the contest ([851], page 71). Helen is the wife of king Menelaius. In fig. 2.58 we see an ancient miniature dating to the alleged XIV century depicting “Paris departing on his search for Helen and finding her” ([1485], pages 249 and 250). One has to notice the large Christian cross over the palace of Menelaius, the Greek king. The XIV century artist had no doubts about the Trojan War taking place in the Christian epoch.

Fig. 2.58 A miniature from Le Roman de la guerre de Troie by Benoit de Sainte-Maure dating from the alleged XIV century ([1485], page 245, ill. 322. One sees Paris undertaking a foray (the one that resulted in the abduction of Helen) into the palace of Menelaius, the Greek king. We see a Christian cross over the palace. Taken from [1485], ill. 322.

■ 36b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Tarquin Sextus falls in love with Lucretia. Livy tells us that “he had been possessed by a flagitious passion to bring shame upon Lucretia, and also greatly attracted by her beauty” ([482], 1:57). Lucretia is the wife of Collatine.

37a. The Trojan War. The arrival of Paris the Trojan. Paris arrives to the house of Menelaius, who is unaware of the visit, and receives a friendly reception, since no one suspects him of any malicious intentions ([851], pages 71-72).

■ 37b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Livy tells us that “Sextus Tarquin went to see Collatius… Collatine knew nothing of his arrival. He was received cordially, since his intention wasn’t known to anyone” ([482], 1:57).

38a. The Trojan War. Paris abducts Helen by force. This happens during the night. Trojan chronicles anything but unanimous in their account of Helen’s abduction. One version tells us that she had gone with Paris voluntarily; another – that she had tried to resist the violent abduction ([851], page 72). A chronicle tells us that “Paris delivered Helen to his ship personally… and left her there with a host of bodyguards” ([851], page 96). The current “ancient” version tells us of Helen’s “complete innocence” - she is supposed to have remained true to Menelaius, and Paris left with nothing but her ghost ([851], page 207).

■ 38b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Tarquin Sextus takes Lucretia by force and rapes her, breaking into her chambers when she’s asleep ([482], 1:58). Here we also see an attempt of Lucretia’s exculpation – in Livy’s rendition, she utters a passionate speech to set an example for the women of Rome prior to stabbing herself to death in order to cleanse the disgrace. Amalasuntha, Lucretia’s double in the Gothic War, is also taken to the island by force, where she is kept “inside a strong fortress” ([196], Volume 1, pages 318-319; Procopius 1(5):14-15). Thus, a violent scenario involving a woman is the casus belli in every phantom reflection of Helen’s abduction – a real mediaeval event.

Commentary. The Trojan War, likewise its Gothic reflection, is considered to have been instigated “to avenge the honour of a woman”; see also Livy ([482], 1:60 and 2:1-2). This can actually be regarded as the official slogan of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War. How could a war as brutal and violent have broken out because of just one woman, albeit a beautiful and dignified one? This doesn’t ring too plausible, after all. There is a rather simple consideration that makes many things clear. Various religions were referred to as “wives” (women) in the Middle Ages; therefore, the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War could have been caused by a religious dispute about the vices and the virtues of several creeds (“wives”). The insult of some religion may have resulted in a war. This interpretation of the source data is in perfect correspondence with the very spirit of the crusade epoch. Now, the crusades were ecclesiastical events (officially, at least), whose intended purpose was the revenge of the grief caused to Our Lady – the execution of her son Jesus Christ. The Trojan myth receives a natural explanation of being the description of a great war fought by the crusaders in the Middle Ages.

39a. The Trojan War. According to some Trojan chronicles, Helen had been killed. She died already after the fall of Troy: “And he had ordered to behead both Helen and Farizh [Parizh, or Paris, that is – A. F.]” ([851], page 76). Nowadays it is presumed that the mediaeval tale of Helen and Paris executed at the order of Menelaius is at odds with the “ancient” version of Homer ([851], page 207). Mark the typical flexion between F and P – Paris – Parizh – Farizh. In the mediaeval rendition Paris might have really referred to “a Parisian”, which should hardly surprise us since the Franks played a major role in the Gothic War; some of them may well have been from Paris. The Scaligerian XIII century B.C. dating of the Trojan War renders this impossible, since Paris is supposed to have been nonexistent in that age; however, in the XII-XIV century A.D. it must have already been about. Paris can also mean “P-Russ”, or the mediaeval White Russians/Byelorussians/Prussians.

■ 39b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic version Amalasuntha, the double of Helen, is also killed; it is her death that serves as the casus belli for the Gothic War, qv above and in [851], Volume 1.

40a. The Trojan War. Paris-Parizh (P-Russ), the offender of Helen, was killed ([851], pages 76 and 129).

■ 40b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Let us remind the reader that Tarquin Sextus, the offender of Lucretia, had also died a violent death ([482], 1:60). In the Gothic version allegedly dating from the VI century A.D. Theodahad, who had raped Amalasuntha, was murdered shortly afterwards ([196], Volume 1, and above).

3.4. The beginning of the war

41a. The Trojan War. Greeks begin negotiations with the Trojans in order to determine the fate of the abducted Helen. The Trojans refuse to hand her back; the Greeks declare war on Troy ([851]).

■ 41b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic version the Romean Greeks enter negotiations with the Goths/TRQN, the duplicates of the “ancient” Trojans, about the fate of the abducted Queen Amalasuntha, who has been taken to an island by force. However, the Goths kill Amalasuntha. Then Romea/Byzantium declares war on the kingdom of the Ostrogoths in Italy ([196], Volume 1; also [695]).

42a. The Trojan War. A very large Greek fleet appears at the coast of the Trojan kingdom led by Achilles ([851], page 72). Out of many Greek heroes, the sources pay special attention to Achilles – the most famous military leader of the Greeks and the “numero uno” hero. “The Greeks had revered him [Achilles – A. F.] as a hero” ([851]).

■ 42b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. A powerful fleet of Romean Greeks arrives at the Italian coast with a landing party led by Belisarius in the end of the alleged year 535 A.D. “Fortune gave Justinian one of the greatest military leaders of all time for the implementation of this plan [exile of the Goths from Italy – A. F.]” ([196], Volume 1, page 319). Belisarius is doubtlessly the “number one hero” of the Gothic War.

43a. The Trojan War. Achilles is accompanied by the two “most important royal figures in Greece” on his Trojan campaign, namely, Agamemnon and Menelaius, the husband of Helen. “And the kings made Achilles leader of the entire army” ([851], page 72). Their own participation in the war is minute compared to that of Achilles.

■ 43b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Belisarius is made commander-in-chief by emperor Justinian – the “primary royal figure” of the Gothic war to represent the Romean Greeks. However, Justinian doesn’t become involved in military action personally, since he remains in the New Rome, well away from Italy (qv in fig. 2.29). At the same time, Justinian, as well as his “ancient” double Agamemnon, did actually take part in the war, since it was he who had suppressed the large-scale “Nika Rebellion”, which took place within the walls of New Rome. As we already mentioned, this rebellion is merely a duplicate of the same Gothic War that became reflected in Justinian’s biography in a slightly distorted version. Furthermore, this is an indication that the Gothic (or the Trojan) War is most likely to have taken place in New Rome (Constantinople) and around it – nothing to do with Italy whatsoever.

44a. The Trojan War. The Greek fleet led by Achilles seizes Isle Tenedos upon arrival to the shores of the Trojan kingdom, which had once been under Trojan/TRQN rule ([851], page 100). The occupation of Tenedos marks the beginning of the Greek invasion into the Trojan kingdom.

■ 44b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Graeco-Romean fleet of Belisarius arrives at the coast of Italy and immediately seizes Sicily, which had been under the Gothic/TRQN rule at the time ([196], Volume 1, page 319). This is how the Byzantine invasion into the Italian kingdom of the Ostrogoths began.

45a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Greeks remain on Tenedos, the island they captured, for several months. Over this period they exchange envoys with Troy and send some of their troops into a neighbouring country to find provisions, which they procure after a battle ([851], pages 101-103).

■ 45b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic War, the Graeco-Romean troops remain on Sicily for several months – between the end of the alleged year 535 and the summer of the year to follow ([196], Volume 1, page 319).

46a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Greeks proceed to leave the island, move to mainland, invade into the Trojan kingdom and besiege Troy. One of the chapters of a mediaeval Trojan chronicle is called “How the Greeks had Left Isle Tenedos and the Siege of Troy Began”, for instance ([851], pages 103-104).

■ 46b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Finally, the Romean Greeks leave Sicily and disembark in Italy. “The land troops of Belisarius… accompanied by the fleet” started to move up the coast. “However, they were stopped by the heroic defenders of Naples” ([196], Volume 1, page 326). See fig. 2.59. Nowadays the Gothic War is presumed to have taken place in Italy. However, it is most likely that the fall of Constantinople = New Rome on the Bosporus in the XIII century A.D. provided for the main source of legends about the fall of the “ancient” Troy. This also gives us a new perspective on the possible meaning of the word Naples (Nea-Polis) as used in the Trojan chronicles – it must have stood for “New City” and referred to the New Rome, or Constantinople.

Fig. 2.59 The parallelism between the “ancient” Trojan War and the early mediaeval Gothic War. The beginning of the war.

47a. The Trojan War. The long and hard siege of Troy begins. Chronicles describe Troy as a powerful fortress by the seaside. Troy is all the more invincible that the gods themselves protect the city from enemies; this fact is emphasized. “And he gave orders to surround the city with high walls, two hundred cubits in height” ([851], page 90). In fig. 2.60 one sees an ancient miniature entitled “The Third Battle between the Greeks and the Trojans” from The Tale of Troy’s Destruction, the book by Guido de Colonna (see [1485], ill. 120). Once again we see mediaeval knights wearing heavy armour and chain mails. One of them is holding a trumpet of a rather sophisticated shape.

Fig. 2.60. An ancient miniature from Historia Destructionis Troiae, a book by Guido de Columna (delle Colonne) dating from the early XV century. We see the third battle between the Greeks and the Trojans in the Trojan war; once again the weapons used are typically mediaeval. Taken from [1485], ill. 120.

■ 47b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Romean Greeks are forced to begin the siege of Naples = New City (New Rome?). The Italian Naples was supposed to have been an unassailable fortress. It is said that the gods themselves have chosen this site with a rocky foundation that excluded the very possibility of the city being undermined ([196], Volume 1, page 326. Just like Naples, Constantinople = New Rome is located by the seaside and may have been the strongest and most famous fortress of both Europe and Asia. The legend of Constantinople’s foundation on the Bosporus around the alleged year 330 tells that the emperor Constantine had “initially chosen the site [for the foundation of his new capital – A. F.] where the ancient Ilion [or Troy! – A. F.] had once stood, the motherland of the first founders of Rome” ([240], page 25). He is supposed to have chosen a different site later on ([240]). In any case we see that the very story of the New Rome’s foundation on the Bosporus tells us quite unequivocally that its location used to coincide with that of Troy initially. The gigantic walls of the New Rome and its beneficial geographical disposition proved to protect it well against many an invasion. We can still see the most impressive ruins of these walls in Istanbul today, qv in figs. 2.61 and 2.62.

Fig. 2.61. Ruins of Constantinople walls. Photograph taken by T. N. Fomenko in 1995.

Fig. 2.62 Ruins of Constantinople walls. Photograph taken by the author in 1995.

48a. The Gothic War. We have listed all of the major events pertaining to the beginning of the Trojan war. What follows is the siege of Troy and its fall, see fig. 2.63.

Fig. 2.63. The parallelism between the “ancient” Trojan War and the “early mediaeval” Gothic War. The siege and the fall of the capital.

■ 48b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. We have also listed all of the basic events that preceded the siege of Naples; they were followed by the actual siege and the destruction of the city.

Commentary. Let us point out the rather noteworthy difference between the Trojan version and the Gothic one. In the legend of the “ancient” Troy the city is destroyed at the very end of the war, whereas in the Gothic version Naples falls shortly after the beginning of military action, see fig. 2.63. However, the Romean Greeks are to seize Rome after this victory. Apparently, in the Trojan version these two sieges – of Naples and Rome, or Rome and the New Rome, possibly just the New Rome = Constantinople, have merged into one siege – that of the “ancient” Troy. The fall of Naples = New City moved towards the end of the war chronologically implies a 9-10-year fluctuation in the dating, which doesn’t affect the general picture of this remarkable parallelism.

3.5. The fall of Naples (the “New City”) = the fall of Troy. The mediaeval aqueduct and the “ancient” Trojan Horse

49a. The Trojan War. The fall of Troy was preceded by a long and unsuccessful siege. Several attempts of storming the city resulted in failure. The Greek army led by Achilles falls into despondence ([851], page 70 and on).

■ 49b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The New City (Naples, or Nea-Polis) resists the siege for a long time; some of the attempts to storm it result in a complete fiasco. The Graeco-Romean army led by Belisarius is demoralized; the Greeks even consider retreating from the walls of the New City ([196], Volume 1, page 326 and on).

50a. The Trojan War. A conspiracy emerges in Troy during the siege. The objective pursued is handing Troy over to the Greeks; the leaders are the Trojans Aeneas and Anthenor ([851], page 131).

■ 50b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. During the siege of Naples (or the New City = Rome), a conspiracy formed in the city. It was led by Stefanos; the plotters sought to deliver Troy into the hands of the Romean Greeks ([196], Volume 1). According to Procopius, the siege of Rome that ensued had followed the same conspiracy scenario, qv above.

51a. The Trojan War. The Trojan plotters lead the group of Trojan envoys and begin negotiations with the Greeks. One of the Trojan chronicles contains a chapter entitled “Negotiations and Treason in Troy”. The Greeks promise the Trojan recreants that the houses of the latter shall be spared after the fall of Troy; however, the Greeks ended up capturing Troy in an altogether different way, without the aid of the conspirators ([851], pages 131-132).

■ 51b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The information offered by the Gothic version is more vague on the subject of a conspiracy in Naples. However, a similar Roman plot is described in great detail ([196], Volume 1). In Naples Stefanos had negotiated with the Romean Greeks for a long time, and apparently to no avail. The Byzantine army captured Naples (New City) unassisted by any plotters. Also, both “ancient” Troy and Naples in the alleged VI century A.D. are supposed to have fallen into the hands of the enemy after the demonstration of exceptional cunning from the part of the latter, as we shall discuss below. This phenomenon is unique in the comparative history of both kingdoms; the parallelism discovered here is remarkable enough for us to relate it in detail. It shall lead us to the understanding of what the famous Trojan Horse, which symbolizes the Trojan War after a manner, had really been.

52a. The Trojan War. We learn that the Greeks had used “something that resembled a grey horse” in order to conquer Troy ([851], page 76). Let us emphasize that the chronicle doesn’t mention a horse, but rather something that resembles one, grey in colour. The difference appears marginal at first; however, we shall find out that the chronicler was perfectly correct to mention a simulacrum of some sort and not a real horse.

Let us open the Trojan chronicles and study their actual contents. “The seers have announced that Troy could not be taken in battle, and that the only way to capture it was guile. Then the Greeks made a gigantic wooden horse [? – A. F] that concealed brave warriors… the Trojans decided to pull the horse into the city [? – A. F.] … When they have pulled it in, they started indulging themselves in feasting and merrymaking… and then fell asleep… The warriors that had remained hidden in the horse came out without making any noise, and proceeded to torch the houses of the Trojans… the enormous Greek army rushed in… through the gate that was opened by the Greeks who had been inside the city already. Thus did the mighty-towered Troy fall. Other books tell us that an effigy of a grey horse was forged of glass [? – A. F.], copper [? – A. F.] and wax [which is all a fantasy of later chroniclers who failed to understand the real meaning of what they were describing – A. F.]; three hundred armed knights hid inside” ([851], page 76).

An effigy of a horse – not an actual horse, that is. What could it possibly be? A different chronicle gives us another version: “a gigantic horse had been made of copper; it could hold up to a thousand soldiers inside. There was a hidden door in the side of the horse” ([851], pages 132-133). In fig. 2.64 one sees a mediaeval miniature from the Litsevoy Svod almanac (No. 358 in the National Museum of History) that shows us how the XVI-XVII century authors imagined the “Trojan Horse”. The mediaeval artist must have already been confused by old descriptions; his knowledge of the past had been rather poor, and so what we see is a horse with a door in its left side.

Fig. 2.64 A mediaeval miniature entitled “The Forging of a Wooden Horse” taken from the Litsevoy Svod, State Museum of History, Museum collection No 358. Taken from [851], page 128.

Another late mediaeval artist who must have also forgotten the exact nature of the matter drew the picture of a huge wooden horse on wheels so that it would be easier to roll it along an uneven stony road (see fig. 2.65).

Fig. 2.65 A miniature from Le Roman de la guerre de Troie by Benoit de Sainte-Maure dating to the alleged XIV century ([1485], pages 251 and 252, ill. 328. The artist was already only vaguely aware of the real issue, and thus he painted a wooden Trojan horse on wheels. Taken from [1485], ill. 328.

Nowadays one can see a very impressive wooden model of the Trojan horse near “Schliemann’s site” in Turkey that serves as a tourist attraction. This one has no wheels. Should someone want to climb inside, they are welcome to it for a more direct communion with the history of “ancient Troy”. This is how Scaligerian history gets taught today.

Let us stop and reflect for a moment. Historians suggest the mention of a horse to have been an “ancient” myth or a fairy tale, one where everything was possible. It is, however, clearly visible that the mediaeval text that we quote doesn’t look like a fairy tale. It is dry and sober. The chroniclers clearly referred to some real event, although they hadn’t understood its exact nature very well anymore. However, let us treat them with respect and suppose they had wanted to give us a bona fide account of something interesting and very real. They hadn’t lived in the epoch of the war, and so they had been unable to understand everything that was written in the old documents and honestly tried to relate whatever they thought had happened in Troy.

Mere common sense suggests that one should hardly believe that the “ancient” Greeks could really have made a gigantic hollow statue of a horse that could hold a thousand warriors in the XIII century B.C., as well as the tale of silly gullible Trojans taking troubles to pull this statue into the city. The nursery tale about a gigantic hollow equine statue is just as preposterous as the Scaligerian tale of Homer’s seven hundred pages melodiously sung aloud by the “ancient” Greek shepherds for five hundred years before they could be written down, five hundred years after the fall of Troy.

Let’s sum up.

- The Greeks had used some grey object resembling a horse to conquer Troy.

- We are told about the gigantic size of this “horse look-alike”.

- The “horse” had huge legs.

- Some of the chroniclers say it was made of wood, others name copper, glass and wax. We see a variety of contradictory opinions here.

- The horse is supposed to have made its way into the city somehow.

Let us now turn to the Gothic version.

■ 52b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The VI century chroniclers give a sober and realistic answer to the abovementioned question about the Trojan Horse and its identity. Naturally, there is no talk of a horse there. What we’re told is that Belisarius had used his cunning to take advantage of a certain circumstance ([196], Volume 1; also [695]). Apparently, there was an old dilapidated aqueduct going through the sturdy walls of mediaeval Naples. A large pipe made of stone – a pipe, not a dale. The aqueduct began outside the city limits and used to supply water for the New City (Naples) at some point. There was a stone stopper with a small hole for the water at wall level. The aqueduct didn’t function and had remained abandoned for a long time ([196], Volume 1).

Fig. 2.66 A modern wooden model of the “Trojan Horse” built for the tourists on Schliemann’s site by the Turkish authorities. Taken from [1259], page 33.

A special brigade of some 400 armed Romean Greeks secretly entered the opening in the aqueduct that lay well outside city limits (another version tells us of 300 cavalry soldiers and a hundred infantrymen). At any rate, “Operation Aqueduct” is often mentioned together with cavalry by the chroniclers who tell us of the Gothic War. This entire operation had been kept secret from everyone else in the Graeco-Romean army, let alone the besieged. The Greeks reached the vallum, broke the plug with the utmost caution, signalled to the main body of the troops situated outside and opened the gates to the army of Belisarius that rushed into the city. The defenders of Naples barely had the time to wake and call to arms. This is how the New City (Nea-Polis) fell.

The Gothic War historians describe the aqueduct as an enormous pipe supported by massive propugnacula, wide enough for a human to stand in. One can still see the ruins of an enormous aqueduct in Istanbul (qv in fig. 2.67 and [1464], page 72). Nowadays it is called the Aqueduct of Valens – it is possible that this is the very same conduit that the crusaders had used in the time of the Gothic War, or the storm of the New Rome = Constantinople = Troy. Ancient authors could also have easily compared the aqueduct to a gigantic animal (a horse?) with stanchions for legs that delivered water into the city. Another thing that comes to mind in this respect is the fact that the same word is used to refer to an icebreaker (pier) and an ox – “byk”. The decrepit conduit could have been called a “great beast” poetically, see fig. 2.68. We are therefore of the opinion that the famous Trojan Horse is a metaphor used for the water conduit or aqueduct that the Greeks had used in their siege of the New City with such success. Let us trace this parallel further.

Fig. 2.67 Ruins of the Valens Aqueduct in modern Istanbul. Taken from [1464], page 72.

Fig. 2.68 A schematic representation of the decrepit aqueduct that “entered the city”.

53a. The Trojan War. The Latin for “horse”. The Latin word for “horse” or “mare” is “equa” (“equae”). See [237], pages 350-351.

■ 53b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Latin for “water”. The Latin word for “water” is “aqua” (“aquae”). See [237], page 374. We see a great similarity between the two words. A reference to the Latin language is quite in order here, since most of the Trojan chronicles that reached our age were written in Latin. Apart from that, we should consider Byzantium (Romea) and the New Rome and also possibly a part of Italy as the arena of war.

Commentary. We must point out that the Latin for “aqueduct” or “water conduit” is “aquae-ductio”, which is virtually identical with “equae-ductio” (or “equae-ductor” – see [237]). All the letters but one coincide in both words. “Aqueduct keeper” and “groom” (or “stableman”) are also very similar, as well as “aqualiculus”, which translates as “stomach”, “abdomen”, “belly” etc. This leads us to a recollection of Greek warriors concealed within the abdomen of a horse. The “classical” version by Homer, which didn’t surface until the XIV century A.D., must have been more recent than the Gothic/Roman version of Procopius. Therefore, the aqueduct (water duct) transformed into a horse in the perception of later foreign authors, who had confused one vowel for another. Hence the numerous legends about “a gigantic grey object resembling a horse” a. k. a. the Trojan horse. Even its grey colour may be explained by the real colour of a dusty aqueduct.

One shouldn’t regard such verbal metamorphoses as something out of the ordinary. The “Literaturnaya Gazeta” newspaper (1982, 20 October and 8 December issues) gives several superb examples of how modern names become disfigured in foreign translation. This is a phenomenon observed in our age of university education and readily available dictionaries. Ancient scribes would forever be confused by unfamiliar and semi-familiar names, some of them unvocalized. Some of the XIV-XVI century chroniclers must have honestly tried to decipher the names scattered across the pages of whatever old manuscripts reached their epoch; however, they had to study them through the distorting prisms of their own linguistic paradigms. Among these manuscripts one could find the original diaries whose authors took part in the Trojan War of the XIII century A.D.

54a. The Trojan War. The idea to use “the likeness of a horse” in the siege of Troy belonged to the Greek named Ulysses or Ulixes, also known as Odysseus. He may have been a double of Achilles, and the phonetic proximity of their names does indeed suggest it – Ulysses/Ulixes/ Achilles. As we already know, a special brigade of 300-1000 men was hidden inside “a grey object resembling a horse”; this had been kept secret from the Trojans. The location where the warriors had entered this “horse” lay beyond the city walls.

■ 54b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic war the idea of using the old aqueduct had belonged to the Romean Greek Belisarius. The parallelisms discovered previously imply Belisarius and Achilles to be phantom reflections of one and the same mediaeval personality. We shall discuss it in more detail below. This “special brigade” had remained hidden in the aqueduct, which was kept secret from everyone, even the rest of the troops. The warriors had entered the aqueduct through an opening that was located outside the walls of the city.

55a. The Trojan War. The leader of the Greek stormtroopers was called Sinon or Zeno. He was “given the keys and told to open the secret exit from the equine abdomen by the Greeks” ([851], pages 132-133). As we shall see below, this figure is also prominent in the history of the Gothic War.

■ 55b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The “special brigade” of the Romean Greeks may well have been led by Zeno – the cavalry leader in the army of Belisarius ([196], Volume 1). However, the names of the actual leaders of this brigade are given as Magnus (or simply “The Great”) and Ennes ([196], Volume 1; also [695]). Sinon (Zeno in these sources) is one of the major characters of the Gothic War, and also the cavalry leader in the army of Belisarius (together with Magnus – see [196], Volume 1; also [695], 2(5); 5, 2; 6 and 13. Thus, Sinon/Zeno definitely took part in the storm of Naples.

56a. The Trojan War. We learn that the vallum that guarded Troy had been destroyed for the “grey object of a vaguely equine shape” to be brought into the city. All the Trojan chronicles tell us about some destruction of the city wall that took place at the moment this object had entered the confines of Troy. The versions of this event offered by various authors are at odds with each other. Some tell us of “gates taken apart” ([851], page 76). Some say that “a part of the wall had to be destroyed, which gave the Greeks who came back to the walls of Troy an opportunity to storm into the city” ([851], pages 206-207, comment 53. Yet another version claims that this “pseudo-horse” lost an ear [?]. The most bizarre version informs us that “the stone that crowned the city gates had to be taken down” ([851]). The only consensual trend we can see in this multitude of versions is that they all clearly state that some part of the fortifications that protected Troy were destroyed when the special brigade of the Romean Greeks had infiltrated the city.

■ 56b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The reference is perfectly clear in the context of this war. As we have already mentioned, a part of the vallum that surrounded Naples (or the New City) was partially destroyed so that the troopers could get out of the aqueduct and enter the city. The soldiers of Belisarius have smashed the stone plug that was blocking the tunnel to bits and widened the opening so that humans could get through.

57a. The Trojan War. The Greek party gets out of the “horse” through a secret exit. The Greeks open the city gates from the inside, and the battle of Troy that results in the fall of the city begins in the small hours of the morning ([851], pages 132-133).

■ 57b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The special brigade of Romean Greeks infiltrates the New City (Naples) through the aqueduct late at night, and, discovering the gap in the conduit that was invisible from ground level (secret exit!), uses it for infiltrating the city. Early in the morning they open the gates and give orders to begin the attack. The Byzantine army breaks into the city; the New City falls. It is possible that the image of the Trojan Horse was also affected by the wooden mediaeval siege towers with wheels that were rolled towards the walls of the besieged Troy. The Trojan Horse would often be pictured as a wheeled wooden construction, after all, since the siege towers had been mobile and made of wood. See more details in our book entitled The Dawn of the Horde Russia.

3.6. The “ancient” Achilles = the “ancient” Valerius. The “ancient” Patroclus = the “ancient” Brutus

58a. The Trojan War. Achilles is the leader of the Greek army. He is one of the most famous heroes to be found in the entire “ancient” Greek epos. His name contains the sounds LS.

■ 58b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Belisarius is a famous warlord; he is the leader of the Graeco-Romean troops in the Gothic War. Procopius calls him a prominent statesperson of the Romean Empire. His name contains the same sounds LS; “Belisarius” is possibly derived from the Russian “Velikiy Tsar” (The Great Czar) or a similar phrase in one of the Slavic languages.

Commentary. A curious fact is that the very manner in which Procopius describes the Gothic War bears great resemblance to how Homer relates the events of the Trojan War. This isn’t even our observation – it was made by Ferdinand Gregorovius, a prominent historian and a specialist in Roman history. He didn’t even suspect how close to the truth he had been: “This siege [of Rome – A. F.] is one of the most important ones in history, and one cannot help noticing strong allusions to heroic epos in the way it is described… by Procopius, who borrows his colours from the Iliad [sic! - A. F.] He tells us how Belisarius… rushed towards the enemy in front of his troops, much like Homer’s heroic character [Achilles – A. F.] … the Romans observed this battle in deep amazement, since it had been worthy of their ancestors” ([196], Volume 1, pages 339-340).

59a. The Trojan War. Achilles, albeit a hero, isn’t the “principal monarch” of the “ancient” Greeks, but rather made leader of the troops by two great kings – Agamemnon and Menelaius, the instigators of the Trojan War.

■ 59b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Belisarius is the military commander-in-chief, not an emperor. He was put in charge of the army by Justinian, the Byzantine Emperor. Thus, Justinian appears to be the mediaeval double of the “ancient” Agamemnon and the “principal royalty”.

60a. The Trojan War. The closest friend and comrade-in-arms that Achilles had was called Patroclus, whose name transcribes as PTRCL without vocalizations. Another version of his name that we encounter in the Trojan chronicles is Partasis ([851], page 143), which transcribes as PRTS or BRTS unvocalized. However, this consonant skeleton may well assume the form of “Brutus”, which is very similar to the Russian word for “brother”, which is “brat”. Thus, the “ancient” Achilles had a friend called Patroclus-Partasis-Brutus-Brat (Brother).

■ 60b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Let us remind the reader that the Tarquinian War is the duplicate of the Trojan War, and it is described by Titus Livy in his Ab urbe condita. We recognize Belisarius as Valerius, qv above. During the Tarquinian War, Valerius is also the commander of the Roman troops and has a close friend by the name of Brutus or Projectus, or BRT-PRCT ([482]). We thus witness yet another duplication of events: the Trojan Partasis (BRT, or “brother”?) becomes identified as Brutus/Projectus/BRT, the hero of the Gothic-Tarquinian War.

61a. The Trojan War. In the Trojan War, Patroclus (or BRT/brother) gets killed before Achilles dies. During the first phase of the war, Patroclus/BRT acts as the “number two hero” in the Greek Army, second only to Achilles ([851], pages 108-111).

■ 61b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Brutus/Projectus/BRT also dies before Valerius/Belisarius. Brutus (“brother”?) is the most important Roman warlord in the Gothic-Tarquinian War after Valerius.

62a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Patroclus/BRT dies in a battle fought by the cavalry – he falls off a horse struck by a sword ([851], page 108). “The episode that describes the duel of Patroclus [and his death – A. F.] … is one of the focal points of Homer’s epic poem (Iliad XVI)” – see [851], page 108.

■ 62b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Brutus/Projectus/BRT also dies falling off a horse – hit by a spear, according to [482], 2:6. Titus Livy considers the death of Brutus/Projectus to have been one of the key events in the entire course of the Tarquinian War.

63a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Patroclus/BRT breaks the shield of his foe, a young prince from the Trojan camp, with a spear ([851], page 108).

■ 63b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Brutus/Projectus/BRT uses his spear to break the shield of a young prince from the camp of the Tarquins/TRQN ([482], 2:6).

64a. The Trojan War. Patroclus/BRT is killed by Hector, son of the “most important Trojan royalty”, King Priam ([851], pages 73 and 108). Hector also dies a short time after Patroclus/ BRT ([851], page 119). He dies in a duel, falling off his horse run through by a spear.

■ 64b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The killer of Brutus/Projectus/BRT was the son of the “principal Tarquinian royalty”, Tarquin the Proud, by the name of Arruntius Tarquin ([482], 2:6), who had soon been killed as well – just like the “ancient” Hector, although in the Gothic scenario Brutus, or Projectus, gets killed in the same battle as Arruntius – they die by each other’s hand; the latter is known to have been hit by a spear in a duel and fallen off his horse.

65a. The Trojan War. A luxuriant mourning ceremony is held to lament and glorify the “ancient” Patroclus. Achilles is in deep dejection; the entire Greek army is overcome by melancholy. The body of Patroclus (BRT) is buried by Achilles personally ([851], pages 111-112.

■ 65b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Brutus (Brat/ brother?) is buried in great sumptuousness, everyone in Rome is mourning him, all the Romans are saddened; the troops are also in despondence ([482], 2:6-7). The body of Brutus is buried by Valerius (or Belisarius in the Gothic version) personally.

66a. The Trojan War. The duel of Patroclus and Hector takes place before the all-out battle with the participation of cavalry ([851], page 108).

■ 66b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. According to Titus Livy, the duel between Brutus and Arruntius Tarquin also preceded the actual cavalry battle ([482], 2:6).

67a. The Trojan War. Homer regards the “ancient” Patroclus (BRT) as the avenger of Helen’s honour after her abduction.

■ 67b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Tarquinian War Brutus (BRT) also happens to be the avenger of the raped Lucretia ([482], 1:58-60). Valerius buries his comrade Brutus “with as much solemnity as the time allowed; yet a much greater honour had been the public mourning, all the more remarkable that the matrons had mourned him as a fatherly figure for an entire year since he had been such a vehement avenger of chastity dishonoured” ([482], 2:7).

3.7. The “ancient” Achilles = the mediaeval Belisarius. The “ancient” Hector = the mediaeval Gothic king Vittigis

68a. The Trojan War. The first phase of the Trojan War is characterized by great hostility existing between the main two opposing warlords – Achilles the Greek and Hector the Trojan (TRQN).

■ 68b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The beginning of the Gothic War is also marked by an opposition between the two main heroes of the period – Belisarius, the Graeco-Romean commander-in-chief (Valerius in the Tarquinian version), and Vittigis the Goth (Arruntius Tarquin according to Livy).

69a. The Trojan War. Trojan sources often transcribe the name of the “ancient” Hector as “Victor”, or VCTR without vocalizations. Hector = Victor is a king and a son of king Priam ([851], pages 11 and 74; also 204, commentary 38, and page 73). Formally, Priam had been the most important king of Troy, however “ancient sources tell us nothing about Priam, a rather frail elder, taking part… in actual military action” ([851], page 217, comment 112). It is possible that Priam had been a collective figure whose unvocalized name PRM could have contained a reference to his relation to the city of Rome (P-Rome). Possibly, “Public Rome”, if we are to consider “P” an abbreviation of Publius. Such an interpretation of Priam’s name concurs with the parallelism between the history of Troy and Rome-Romea that we have discovered. Priam can also be a version of “Pershiy” – a Slavic word for “The First”.

■ 69b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic version, the double of Victor = Hector is Vittigis the Goth. His unvocalized name – VTGS – may be related to the name VCTR (Victor) in some way. Vittigis is a royal figure – king of the Goths and a son of a king ([196], Volume 1).

70a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Victor/Hector is the commander-in-chief of the Trojan army (TRQN) in the first phase of war and until his death. He is the number one hero of the Trojans, “the master and the warlord of the entire Trojan army” ([851], page 107 and on). He would appoint and depose military leaders in the Trojan army. Hector/Victor is a Trojan, or TRQN.

■ 70b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Vittigis had been king of the Goths and the commander-in-chief of the Gothic army in the beginning of the Gothic War, up until his demise ([196], Volume 1). He obviously acts as the key figure in the Gothic kingdom, and is personally responsible for appointing military commanders in the Gothic army. Vittigis is a Goth, whereas his duplicate Arruntius Tarquin is a TRQN.

71a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Hector/Victor dies before his main adversary Achilles and by the hand of the latter ([851]).

■ 71b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Vittigis the Goth is captured by Belisarius and then killed; thus, the death of the former precedes that of the latter ([196], Volume 1).

72a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Victor/Hector kills Patroclus (BRT) and is in turn killed by Achilles, who runs a spear through his chest and wounds him mortally in a duel ([851], page 119).

■ 72b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Arruntius Tarquin (the double of Vittigis the Goth) kills Brutus/Projectus/BRT. His own death results from a duel in a battle; he is hit in the chest by a spear and falls off a horse ([482], 2:6). The Gothic version is rather vague on how Vittigis (the double of Arruntius) had died; we know that Belisarius had taken him captive and killed him. The killer of Arruntius (Vittigis) died in the same battle.

73a. The Trojan War. The Trojan version pays a lot of attention to the famous “opposition of Hector and Achilles”. It’s a very popular subject in the “ancient” literature. After the death of Hector/Victor the Greeks get hold of his body, which they only give back to the Trojans after lengthy negotiations.

■ 73b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Tarquinian version (according to Titus Livy) dedicates a whole half of Chapter 6 in Book 2 to the account of how Arruntius (the duplicate of the ancient Hector) was killed. The Gothic version describes this event in a very special pagan legend of “the battle between Vittigis and Belisarius”. Procopius tells us a rather bizarre story of how two shepherds (?) were wrestling with each other in the time of the Gothic War. One of them was supposed to impersonate Vittigis, and the other – Belisarius (?). The latter shepherd won the contest, and the former one was sentenced to a histrionic death by hanging; however, the impersonation ended rather tragically, resulting in the death of the shepherd who had played the part of Vittigis. The “shepherds” allegedly interpreted the tragic outcome of the wrestling match as an omen of victory for Belisarius ([196], Volume 1, page 349). The Gothic version tells us about Vittigis taken captive and killed shortly afterwards.

74a. The Trojan War. The demise chronology of the key heroic figures in the Trojan War is as follows: Patroclus dies followed by Victor/Hector and then Achilles.

■ 74b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The dying sequence of the protagonists of the Gothic-Tarquinian War is as follows: Brutus dies first, then Vittigis, and, finally, Belisarius. A comparison of these sequences proves them to be identical.

3.8. The “treason” of the “ancient” Achilles = the “treason” of the mediaeval Belisarius

75a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Achilles slays Victor/Hector. The episode with the so-called “treason of Achilles” takes place right after the battle.

■ 75b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Belisarius defeats Vittigis the Goth. Immediately after his victory over Vittigis, the “Treason of Belisarius” scenario unfurls. Let us remind the reader that Belisarius was accused of treason in the course of the Gothic War. The Goths offered to crown him king of Italy so as to “separate” the military leader from Justinian and secure military support for themselves ([196], Volume 1). Belisarius pretends to agree; then he deceives the Goths and hands the crown over to Justinian, thus remaining loyal to the Empire. Nevertheless, this episode served as basis for the accusation; Belisarius got arrested, and his property confiscated. He was released eventually – however, the great Byzantine warlord died in poverty and oblivion ([196], Volume 1).

76a. The Trojan War. After the victory of the Greeks over Victor/Hector the Trojan, there is a ceasefire. The Trojan king offers Achilles his daughter to marry so that the war could end ([851], pages 120-122). Achilles agrees to this. According to the Trojan chronicles, “King Priam [P + Rome? – A. F.] said unto Achilles, If thou givest an oath to wage no war upon us… thou shalt have my daughter Polyxena as thy wedded wife. And King Priam was the first to give his oath… and then Achilles bowed down to give his promise” ([851], page 75). “Achilles… was ready… to conclude a treaty with the Trojans” ([851], page 205, comment 44). “The ceasefire still held when… Achilles had sent his secret envoy to queen Hecuba… he would make the entire Greek army leave the Trojan land and return to whence they came” ([851], pages 120-121).

■ 76b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. After the victory of the Romean Greeks over Vittigis the Goth, there is a ceasefire. The Gothic king offers Belisarius the Italian crown wishing to bring the war to an end. Belisarius concedes to this ([196], Volume 1).

77a. The Trojan War. “The treason of Achilles” plays an important role in the history of the Trojan War. In particular, it leads to the death of Achilles. As a result of the “treason”, Achilles quarrels with Agamemnon, the principal Greek royalty, and stays confined to his ship, being “under house arrest” in a way ([851], pages 122 and 217, comment 119).

■ 77b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. “The treason of Belisarius” is a very important event in the course of the Gothic War, one that results in the withdrawal of Belisarius from military command. He leaves the arena of war, quarrels with Justinian (the “main king” of the Gothic War), gets arrested and incarcerated. Belisarius dies in disfavour shortly after the war ([196], Volume 1).

78a. The Trojan War. In spite of his initial assent to betray the Greeks, Achilles refuses to fulfil his promise to withdraw the Greek troops. Nevertheless, Achilles also avoids active participation in the war. He had “commanded his Myrmidonians to refrain from battling the Trojans and aiding the Greeks” ([851], page 122).

■ 78b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. His initial consent to betray Justinian and accept the Italian crown notwithstanding, Belisarius does not fulfil his promise to become the king of Italy and end the war (according to the Goths, at least). However, Justinian calls Belisarius away from Italy under the pretext of the necessity to fight the Persians, sending him to a different scene of operations. As a result, Belisarius spends several years away from Italy.

79a. The Trojan War. The ceasefire ends, and the Trojan War breaks out again, with new zeal. The Greeks suffer a series of crushing defeats in the absence of Achilles: “The Trojans have burnt more than 500 Greek ships” ([851], pages 122-123. The Trojans even manage to lay their hands on some Greek treasure which drowns in the sea later when the Greeks try to fight it back: “a great many Greek ships sank, and all the loot got drowned in the sea” ([851], page 134). All of this happens already after the fall of Troy.

■ 79b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The truce ends, and the Gothic = Tarquinian war flares up again. The Graeco-Romean troops are put to countless routs in the alleged years of 540-544 A.D. The Goths reclaim large parts of Italy that they had initially lost ([196], Volume 1, pages 373-374). The Goths seize the Roman treasure – the so-called “treasure of Theodoric”. The fate of the loot is virtually identical to that of the Greek hoard – the defeated Goths drown it in a lake at the very end of the Gothic war when they are forced to retreat in haste ([196], Volume 1).

3.9. The “ancient” Troilus = the mediaeval Gothic king Totila. The “ancient” Paris = the “ancient” Etruscan Larth Porsenna

80a. The Trojan War. After the death of Victor/Hector, king Troilus becomes the most important royal military commander - “number one hero”, if you please. The Trojan chronicles tell us of the king’s “young years” ([851], page 218, comment 124). Also mark the name Troilus.

■ 80b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. After the defeat of Vittigis the Goth and his falling captive to the Romean Greeks, the Goths elect Totila as their new king. He is remarkably brave, and it doesn’t take him too long to become distinguished as a valiant Gothic hero. The Gothic version tells us quite explicitly that Totila had been very young, a juvenile royalty ([196], Volume 1, pages 373-374. There is an obvious similarity between his name and that of his “ancient” Trojan counterpart.

81a. The Trojan War. The “ancient” Troilus happens to be a relation of king Priam, the principal Trojan royalty – namely, a son of the latter ([851], page 123).

■ 81b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Totila the Ostrogoth is a relative of the previous Gothic king Hildibad ([196], Volume 1, pages 373-374).

82a. The Trojan War. Trojan chronicles describe the bravery of Troilus with particular magniloquence. He is characterized in a unique manner. One of the chronicle chapters is called “The Amazing Strength of Troilus” ([851], page 123). Troilus leads the Trojans into several glorious victories. “Countless Greeks died at the swords of the Trojans [led by Troilus – A. F.] today” ([851], pages 123-124). However, Achilles the Greek doesn’t take part in the war while Troilus enjoys his triumph.

■ 82b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The Gothic version is most verbose insofar as the bravery of Totila the Goth is concerned. The Romean Greeks were “terrified by the advent of the new Gothic hero… this militant nation [the Ostrogoths – A. F.] was aflame with enthusiasm yet again, and everything changed as if by magic” ([196], Volume 1, pages 373-374). The Ostrogoths manage to change the course of war under the guidance of Totila. “A year had sufficed for many towns and cities to be conquered by Totila… and for the latter to infest all parts of the land with terror… his advent would be preceded by horrifying rumours” (ibid). However, the period of Totila’s glory coincides with the absence of Belisarius, who isn’t to be found anywhere in Italy at the time.

83a. The Trojan War. The well-known Trojan king Paris (PRS without vocalizations) fights alongside Troilus. Although Paris had been a veteran of the war, Troilus and Paris only became singled out as a spectacular pair of Trojan heroes in the reign of Troilus ([851], page 124).

■ 83b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. According to the Gothic version, the Persians (PRS) attacked the Roman Empire simultaneously with Totila the Goth, and Belisarius was summoned to resist this onslaught. Although the Romeans have been harried by the Persians for quite a while, the role of the latter becomes crucial in the reign of Totila. The two main enemies that Romea and Italy have to oppose in this period are the Persians and Totila. One finds it hard to chase away the thought that the mediaeval Persians and the “ancient” Paris (PRS) reflect one and the same entity in Gothic and Trojan chronicles, wherein the Persians correspond to Paris and the Prussians, or P-Russians.

Titus Livy relates the events in the following manner. As we already know, the Goths are referred to as the Tarquins in his version. It turns out that this is precisely the moment when the Tarquins (or the Goths) are joined by their ally in the war against Rome – the famous king Larth Porsenna (L-Horde of P-Rasenes), or, as one plainly sees, the same PRS or PRSN as before. Thus, the Trojan version refers to Troilus and Paris as the heroic pair, whereas the Gothic version couples the Goths with the Persians. Titus Livy tells us of yet another pair – Tarquin and Porsenna. We see that all three chronographic traditions correspond to each other well, and must be referring to the same mediaeval war. These three groups of texts were written in different epochs and countries by different scribes, yet they all bear some sort of semblance to each other in their contents. All it takes to be noticed is for one to free one’s perception from the yoke of the Scaligerian chronology and study these texts in an unbiased manner.

84a. The Trojan War. Paris gets killed ([851], page 129). Bear in mind that many Trojan chronicles use the name “Parizh” or “Farizh” for referring to Paris, which might also be the name used for the capital city of France. Thus, Paris/Parizh may have been a collective image of the Franks, one of the main forces behind the XIII century crusades. It is also quite clear why Paris is called a Trojan. The reason remains the same – the Trojans (TRQN) can be identified as the Franks (TRNK).

■ 84b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Titus Livy reports a very serious attempt to assassinate Larth Porsenna, the Etruscan king. The Roman Mucius Scaevola had tried to assassinate Porsenna the Etruscan, but to no avail. Above we already pointed out the parallelism that identifies Livy’s Porsenna as the Franks of the Gothic War. This concurs perfectly with the Trojan version where we see Paris/Parizh the Trojan. We shall therefore reiterate that the mediaeval Franks must have been correct to claim Trojan ancestry.

85a. The Trojan War. After the triumph of king Troilus, Achilles returns to the scene of military action unexpectedly. Success immediately begins to favour the Greeks. The troops of Troilus are defeated, and he is killed in a large battle ([851], pages 126-127). In fig. 2.69 we see an ancient miniature that demonstrates the typical pastime of the “ancient” Achilles withdrawn from military action ([1485], ill. 325). We observe him indulge in a game of chess, no less. Achilles is approached by three knights calling him to arms.

Fig. 2.69 A miniature from Le Roman de la guerre de Troie by Benoit de Sainte-Maure dating to the alleged XIV century ([1485], page 245). Modern commentary runs as follows: “three mounted Greek envoys appear before Achilles, who takes repose in a game of chess, and summon him to take part in the battle” ([1485], page 250). Taken from [1485], ill. 325.

■ 85b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. As Totila enjoys one battlefield success after another, Belisarius finally returns to Italy. The Romean Greeks under his command immediately prove brilliantly victorious several times in a row. In the alleged year 544 fortune forsakes the Goths permanently ([196], Volume 1, page 377). The Ostrogothic troops led by Totila and Teia (Teias) suffer bitter defeat. The balance shifts in favour of the Romean Empire. The violent and bloody Gothic war approaches its end ([196], Volume 1, page 398 and on). Totila perishes in the grandiose final battle, and the last Trojan king Teia dies a few months later ([196], Volume 1, pages 407-408).

3.10. The end of the war

86a. The Trojan War. Troilus the Trojan dies under the following circumstances: 1) surrounded by the Greeks in a battle; 2) killed by a spear; 3) his head is severed by the Greeks ([851], page 127). The decapitation episode is the only such account in the entire history of the Trojan War.

■ 86b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The legendary Gothic king Teia (Teias) dies as described below. A propos, the last two kings of the Ostrogoths (Totila and Teia) practically merge into one and the same figure due to the brevity of Teia’s reign – a mere few months after the death of Totila. 1) In the last battle between the Romean Greeks and the Goths, the former manage to surround Teia; 2) Teia is killed with a spear; 3) His head is cut off by the Romean Greeks. This decapitation episode is also unique in the history of the Gothic War ([196], Volume 1, pages 411-412). Comparison demonstrates the two scenarios to be identical.

87a. The Trojan War. The defeat of Troilus marks a breakpoint in the history of the Trojan War. The Trojans cannot find any worthy heroes to fight for their cause, and the city falls shortly afterwards. Thus ends the “ancient” history of Troy. The last battle of Troilus, likewise his death, takes place at the walls of the perishing Troy ([851]).

■ 87b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. “The history of the Goths… ends with the famous battle… at the foot of the Vesuvius – the battle fought by the last of the Goths. The valiant nation faced extinction here” ([196], Volume 1, pages 411-412). Teia’s last battle is fought at the walls of the New City (Naples, or the New Rome?); this is where he dies.

88a. The Trojan War. The demise of Achilles follows shortly afterwards as a consequence of his “treason”. Since he had promised to marry Polyxena, queen Hecuba suggests that Achilles come to Troy for negotiations. He is careless enough to follow the suggestion, and gets killed insidiously from behind ([851], pages 75 and 128). Mark the fact that Achilles doesn’t die in a battle, but rather during negotiations. He is supposed to have been stabbed in the “heel”, or in the back.

■ 88b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Belisarius, the double of the “ancient” Achilles, dies after the defeat of the Ostrogoths under unclear circumstances. Let us remember that the withdrawal from the war, disfavour, arrest and property confiscation resulted from his “treason”, when he had allegedly promised the Goths to stop the war in exchange for the crown ([196], Volume 1). Belisarius doesn’t die in a battle – he passes away in a peaceful manner soon after his release from arrest; however, we possess no information about whether or not he had been murdered.

89a. The Trojan War. King Thoas. We see that some of the tales about Totila/Teia (Teias) became reflected in the Trojan chronicles as the legend of Troilus, King of Troy; we find out that the Trojan myth also kept some information about the mediaeval Ostrogoth Teias – his name remains all but unaltered. Thus, Teis (Teias) appears in the Trojan chronicles as two characters. See for yourselves – the famous king Thoas takes part in the Trojan War ([851], pages 113, 125 and 218, comment 126. King Thoas fights together with the Greeks, but falls captive to the Trojans several times, and is finally taken away to Troy.

■ 89b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. King Teias. The “ancient” name Thoas is almost completely identical to that of the last Gothic king Teias (Teia). See [196], Volume 1.

3.11. Other legends of the Trojan War

We have listed all of the main legends that comprise the history of the Gothic War. However, there are quite a few smaller episodes that also turn out to be phantom reflections of mediaeval events.

90a. The Trojan War. The fall of the Trojan kingdom ends with the “exile of the Trojans”. The surviving Trojans run away from the country and scatter. Centaurs, or semi-equine humans, are reported to take part in the Trojan War. It is possible that “centaur” (CNTR unvocalized) is yet another version of TRQN – the same old name of the Trojans ([851], pages 103 and 214-215, comment 78).

■ 90b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. After the decline of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the Goths and their doubles – the Tarquins, or TRQN – leave Italy and Romea. This exile of the mediaeval TRQN is completely analogous to the exodus of the “ancient” Trojans (TRQN). The ancient “centaurs” are probably yet another phantom reflection of the TRQN/Tarquins/ Franks.

91a. The Trojan War. A certain King Remus fights the Greeks aided by the Trojans. Now, Romulus and Remus are the alleged founders of Rome. Could this “Trojan Remus” be a doppelgänger of Remus the founder of Rome? See [851], pages 109, 229 and 216, comment 96. Troy resists while Remus remains “in command of the horses”.

■ 91b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The city of Rome, or Constantinople (New Rome) takes part in the Gothic-Tarquinian War. We see the ruins of the “equine” aqueducts, which have sealed the fate of the Roman kingdom, in both Constantinople and Rome. The New City had stood stalwart until the Romean Greeks managed to capture the aqueduct.

92a. The Trojan War. Ulysses (Odysseus) is a possible double of Achilles, qv above. He is supposed to have stolen the horses of king Remus; this results in the fall of Troy ([851], page 216, comment 96). Some of the Trojan sources claim that “if the horses of Roesus [Remus, that is – see [851], page 216, comment 96; another possible meaning is “Ross” (Russian) – A. F.] drank some water from the Scamander [the river Troy stood upon – A. F.], Troy wouldn’t have fallen” ([851], page 216, comment 96).

■ 92b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The “equine aqueduct” of the New City. Apparently, this is a reference to a real event that took place in the course of the Gothic War. If the “horse” (the aqueduct) remained in order, or “drank water properly”, providing it to the New City, one couldn’t have used it for entering the city; thus, the capital would have resisted the assault.

93a. The Trojan War. It is possible that king Remus counts among the casualties of the Trojan War. He had “fallen to the ground from his horse” hit by a spear ([851], page 109). We also encounter king Remus at the beginning of the Trojan War, where he appears in the episode with the famous amazons, who fight for the Trojans ([851], page 74, also pages 129-131). The words “amazon” and “Amalasuntha” resemble each other a great deal; one may well be a derivative of the other. The queen of the amazons was killed in the Trojan War. Her name was Penthesilea (Anthesilea?), and she was killed by the Greeks ([851]).

■ 93b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. King Remus, the founder of Rome, is killed in battle by Romulus ([482]). This happens at the very dawn of Roman history, right after the foundation of the city – in yet another phantom reflection of the Gothic-Tarquinian War. Amalasuntha is queen of the Goths at the beginning of the Gothic-Tarquinian War, which means that she belongs to the TRQN clan. This clan is at odds with Romea. It is possible that another version of Amalasuntha’s name was “Anthesilea the amazon”. She gets killed soon after the breakout of the Gothic War, allegedly with the consent of the Romean Greeks ([196], Volume 1).

94a. The Trojan War. At the beginning of the Trojan War, the Trojans have the military support of king Theutras, who engages in combat against the Greeks when the latter attack his kingdom ([851], page 102). Theutras was killed in the Trojan War. He had been the ruler of Phrygia, or Friesia (see more on the superimposition of Friesia over either Germany, the Italian kingdom of the Germans/Goths in the alleged VI century A.D., or the Ottoman Turkey, above).

■ 94b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. At the beginning of the Gothic War Theodahad fights the Romean Greeks who invade his kingdom. Theodahad gets killed in the Gothic War ([196], Volume 1). He had been the ruler of the German/Gothic kingdom. The names “Theodahad” and “Theutras” are very similar to each other.

95a. The Trojan War. The cunning of Ulysses (Achilles?) leads to the fall of Troy. This involves “a horse”. Ulysses replaces Achilles towards the end of the Trojan War, and concludes the war as the “successor of Achilles” ([851]).

■ 95b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. In the Gothic War, Naples (New City/New Rome) falls prey to the cunning of Belisarius, the double of the “ancient” Achilles. An aqueduct is used for this purpose. Belisarius was then relieved by Narses, who concluded the war as his successor.

96a. The Trojan War. Ulysses replaces Achilles for a relatively short term (as compared to the entire duration of the Trojan War, see fig. 2.70). The “ancient” legend of the wanderings and the poverty of Ulysses/Odysseus after the Trojan War is known rather widely: “Ulysses had been in utter destitution when he reached the land of Idomeneus” ([851], page 136). The poverty of the famous “ancient” Greek hero is a unique occurrence in the course of the Trojan War.

■ 96b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Narses as the successor of Belisarius. Narses acts as the successor of Belisarius for a relatively short time at the very end of the Gothic War, qv in fig. 2.70. The legend of the poverty that befell the great hero (Velisarius/Valerius, qv above) is the only such legend in the entire history of the Gothic (Trojan) War ([196], Volume 1; also [482]). It is mentioned by both Procopius of Caesarea and the "ancient" Titus Livy, qv above.

Fig. 2.70 The parallelism between the respective biographies of Belisarius and the “ancient” Achilles.

97a. The Trojan War. These are the various names of Ulysses/Odysseus as used in the Trojan chronicles: Odysseus, Urekshish, Urexis, Diseves, Nicyotenines, Ulyces, Ulyxes, Ulisan and Ulysses ([851], pages 201 and 202, commentaries 21 and 33. Let us point out that the name Ulyxes or Ulysses is most probably a version of the name Achilles. Let us sum up. The end of the Trojan War is marked by the deeds of the two heroes Achilles and Ulysses, where the “short-term character” Ulysses carries on with the deeds of Achilles, the “main hero”. Their names are similar: ChLLS-LSS/LLS. The ordeals of Ulysses after the Trojan War are related by Homer in the Odyssey, in particular.

■ 97b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Narses “carries the flag” of Belisarius in the Gothic War. The variations of his name include Narses, Narces and Narcius. We are most likely confronted with the variations of the name Ulysses: Ulyxes, Ulyces, Urexis etc. Thus, we see that the end of the Gothic war is also marked by the appearance of a pair of military leaders – Belisarius and Narses. Narses is a “short-term hero” and fights for the same cause as Belisarius. There may be a similarity between their names: BLSR and NRSS. The ordeals of the unfortunate Narses after the Gothic War are described in [196], Volume 1. It is possible that the very same “ordeal of Narses” became reflected in Livy’s Tarquinian version of the war as the wanderings of the “ancient” Roman Coriolanus ([482]).

98a. The Trojan War. Let us point out an astonishing “ancient” story about Achilles as a “eunuch”. It is reported that he had been a servant in a gynaeceum. This famous event is reflected on numerous “ancient” vases and paintings. Achilles is supposed to have “served as a eunuch” before the Trojan War. After that he had pretended to be a woman for a certain period of time for some reason, wearing a woman’s clothing [?!] and apparently forced to take care of a woman’s chores by some queen or king. “And so it came to pass that Haran made him [Achilles – A. F.] dress in a maiden’s attire, and sent him away to serve king Lycomedes as a maid [that is to say, he was taken into the service of some king as if he were female: a maid – A. F.] And he had lived there together with the maidens ([851], page 142).

Nothing of the kind has ever been told about any other hero of the Trojan War. This bizarre and unique fact – a distinguished warrior running the chores of a serving girl, instantly draws one’s attention. It has to be said that the “ancient” sources don’t offer any explanation; one gets the feeling that the “ancient” authors of the XVI-XVII century had already been unable to understand the matter at hand. We had a reason to call Achilles a “eunuch”. Below we shall see that our reconstruction of this “gynaeceum episode” involving Achilles had been correct; however, none of the “ancient” authors use the word “eunuch” - either owing to having forgotten the true story, or in order to obfuscate the mediaeval nature of all the events in question.

■ 98b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The chroniclers of the Gothic War report the famous Narses to have been a eunuch! It is said that he had served in a Constantinople gynaeceum before the Gothic War ([196], Volume 1). The following is told about his post-war fate: “He didn’t dare to return to Constantinople… having learnt that Empress Sophia promised to make the eunuch spin linen in the gynaeceum together with her women [sic! - A. F.]. Legend has it, the castrate answered that he would spin a thread that shall take the Sophia’s entire life to straighten out” ([196], Volume 1, Book 2, pages 213-213; Savin’s translation).

99a. The Trojan War. As we pointed out, Achilles (= Ulysses?) is the only hero of the Trojan War to have “served as a maid”; this legend is most bizarre indeed. Achilles the “eunuch” had served at the court of a king. However, as the Trojan War breaks out, Achilles ceases his “eunuch service” to become distinguished as a heroic military commander ([851], page 142). He leaves to storm the walls of Troy: “When Achilles had learnt of this, he cast the maiden’s attire away and hastened to Troy” ([851], page 142). He gathers great fame as a hero, and, as we now understand, ends the Trojan War crushing the Trojan forces completely.

■ 99b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. Narses is the only well-known character of the Gothic War to have served as a eunuch. This legend is unique. Let us point out that Narses the eunuch had served at the emperor’s court in New Rome. As the Gothic War begins, Narses ends his gynaecium service and hastens to ride into battle against the Goths. He becomes a famous military commander and a successor of Belisarius, ending the Gothic War with a complete defeat of the Goths and their kingdom ([196], Volume 1). Nowadays it is perfectly obvious to us why “the ancient Achilles” had spent a part of his life “in the gynaeceum”. The famous Byzantine military leader Narses (Achilles) had been a eunuch. Bear in mind that nothing of the kind is told about any other hero of the Gothic War. There were no other eunuch warlords in this epoch.

100a. The Trojan War. Chronicles tell us of a “terrifying pestilence”, or a great epidemic that had raged in the time of the Trojan War. This is the single report of such nature over the entire course of the Trojan War ([851], page 73).

■ 100b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. An epidemic bursts out during the Gothic War. This is also the only such mention in the course of the war ([695]; also [196], Volume 1, pages 357-358).

101a. The Trojan War. Troy is reported to have been surrounded by “a Roman territory” ([851], pages 210 and 212).

■ 101b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War. The New City = Naples, or the New Rome had really been the centre of a “Roman domain”. Naples is located in Roman Italy, whereas the New Rome is the capital of Romea, or Byzantium.

See figs. 2.71 and 2.72 for a brief summary of this section.

Fig. 2.71 A brief scheme of the parallelism in secondary plots that emerge in the course of the Trojan and the Gothic-Tarquinian War.

Fig. 2.72 A brief scheme of the parallelism in secondary plots that emerge in the course of the Trojan and the Gothic-Tarquinian War.

3.12. What is it about the Trojan chronicles that surprises the present day historians the most?

Let us conclude with mentioning the style and the tone of all the modern comments to these mediaeval documents of the Trojan cycle. Modern historians never cease to wonder about the ignorance of the mediaeval scribes who have de facto “transferred” the Trojan War into the Middle Ages. A standard accusation of the chroniclers is as follows: they follow an erroneous chronology and thus shift the antiquity into the Middle Ages. Let us demonstrate some examples of these “mediaeval anachronisms”.

According to modern commentators, “the claim that Sparta had been part of the Romanian (Roman) kingdom in the times of the Trojan War is an obvious anachronism from the part of the mediaeval author” ([851], page 210, comment 28). It goes without saying that, according to the Scaligerian version of history, there could have been no mediaeval Romania (Romea/Byzantium) in the XIII century B.C. There were wild woods where “ancient” Rome would initially be founded – according to Scaliger-Petavius, the foundation of Rome took place 500 years after the fall of Troy, no less. One cannot help but wonder which version is correct. The data we possess imply that the Trojan scribes must have been right, and that their chronicles were apparently written in the XIV-XVI century.

Another comment of the modern historians runs as follows: “the reference to Cyclad isles being under Roman jurisdiction is an anachronism, since they only became Roman in the II century B.C.” ([851], page 212, comment 55). We see nothing original here, so we shall refrain from reiterating our considerations.

According to a modern historian, “they [the Trojan chroniclers – A. F.] often misidentify Thessalia as Thessaloniki… a city that had been founded a great deal later and became… one of the most important centres of the mediaeval Byzantium” ([851], page 208, comment 2). What we are being demonstrated is a chronological discrepancy of fifteen hundred years between the indications of the mediaeval scribe and the Scaligerian chronology. We deem the mediaeval authors correct, and the consensual chronology erroneous.

We proceed to learn that modern commentators consider the descriptions of the weapons used in the Trojan War typically mediaeval and therefore “doubtlessly erroneous” ([851], page 210, comment 31; also page 214, comment 73, and page 202, comment 28).

Aeneas the Trojan is supposed to have arrived in Italy on a ship after the fall of Troy. The “ancient” legend proceeds to tells us that Rome had been founded by his grandson Romulus. This is the version the “ancient” authors Hellanicus and Damastus insist upon, for instance ([579], page 23). This indication irritates the modern commentators, since it moves the Trojan War into the immediate chronological vicinity of the “urbe condita” date. This results in a 500-year discrepancy with the Scaligerian chronology. Historians prefer to keep silent about this fact, as if it were nonexistent.

We also find out that, apparently, “Procopius had been flabbergasted at the sight… of the legendary ship of Aeneas that was still kept in the arsenal of a bank on the Tiber… one thing he had witnessed in particular is that the famous vessel had looked as though it were freshly-made, with no signs of rot whatsoever ([196], Volume 1, page 406). To quote Procopius verbatim, “none of the wooden parts were rotten or looked unsound – each and every piece of the ship had looked as though they were freshly-made and stood strong, miraculous even for someone like myself” ([696], page 89).

We believe this to be perfectly natural. Procopius is most probably a crusade chronicler of the XV-XVII century epoch (erroneously placed in the alleged VI century A.D. by later historians), who had observed the real ship of the real crusader Aeneas built a short while before Procopius – possibly in the XIII-XV century A.D.

Unlike the commentators in question, we shall refrain from accusing the Trojan chroniclers of terrible ignorance. On the contrary – as we are beginning to realize, these chroniclers were correct for the most part. Generally speaking, such “anachronisms” occupy a large part of the Trojan chronicles if one is to study them through the distorting prism of the Scaligerian chronology. According to the consensual history, all these “anachronisms” imply that a large number of mediaeval scribes had lacked necessary competence. To us, they prove the authenticity of the chronicles.

3.13. How similar are the respective descriptions of the Trojan and the Gothic War?

We shall proceed to discuss a very important issue – the estimation of just how many heroes of the Trojan War are isomorphic with those of the Gothic = Tarquinian War? For the sake of simplicity, let us merely consider characters mentioned on 20 pages of the text at least ([851]). In other words, the personalities that interest us at the moment are really important and turn up often. A simple calculation provides us with the following list:

Priam is mentioned on 51 pages; this number equals 39 for Achilles, 35 for Agamemnon, 34 for Menelaius, 33 for Hector, 32 for Paris, 23 for Ajax and 22 for Troilus. As one can plainly see, Ajax is the only hero who remains outside the parallelism. Therefore, 87 per cent of the “ancient” Trojan War protagonists also spawned doppelgängers in the mediaeval chronicles relating the events of the Gothic-Tarquinian War.

Our reconstruction is as follows: the Trojan War had been a famous mediaeval event, possibly dating from the XIII century A.D., also known as: 1) the Gothic War; 2) the Tarquinian War; 3) the destruction of Constantinople (or the New Rome) by the crusaders in 1204 A.D.; 4) the Judean war of Joseph Flavius. The city of Troy is most likely to be identified as the New Rome = Constantinople. The tales of Troy besieged and fallen may have absorbed some real events of the XIII century war in Italy. This is where the city of Naples is located (the New Town), as well as the mediaeval town of Troy that still exists ([196]).

3.14. Other erroneous datings of the Trojan War

3.14.1. Phantom reflection of the Trojan War in the alleged III century A.D.

Above we demonstrate the Second Roman Empire of the alleged I-III century A.D. to be a statistical double of the Third Roman Empire (the alleged III-VI century A.D.). Both of them are phantom reflections of the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century as well as the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire of the XIV-XVII century.

Among other things, the end of the Second Roman Empire (the epoch of the alleged years 234-270 A.D.) must have become superimposed over the end of the Third Roman Empire – that is, the period of the alleged years 536-552 or 536-553 A.D. In other words, the Gothic = Tarquinian = Trojan War must “re-surface” as a phantom somewhere in the III century A.D. This hypothesis finds excellent proof. For the sake of brevity, we shall merely point out the central focal points of the parallelism in question; should anyone wish to reconstruct the entire picture in detail, it can be done easily.

1a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. The end of the Second Roman Empire falls on the alleged year 217 A.D. After that, the anarchy of the alleged years 217-235 begins. A woman by the name of Julia Maesa comes to power, and the emperors Heliogabalus and Alexander Severus are her creatures, qv in Chron2, Chapter 1.

■ 1b. The Gothic War of the alleged VI century. The Third Roman Empire ceases to exist in the alleged year 526 A.D. after the death of Theodoric, the last official emperor of Rome, albeit not a Roman. Then Amalasuntha and two of her minions (Amalaric and Athalaric) come to power and reign between the alleged years 526 and 536. A partial parallelism between Julia Maesa and Amalasuntha is studied in Chron2, Chapter 1.

2a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. Here we have the civil war of the alleged years 234-251. It is however more than just a civil war, but rather the famous Gothic war. The term “Gothic War” is used officially for referring to the period of the alleged years 238-251 A.D. nowadays ([579], pages 439-440).

■ 2b. The Gothic War of the alleged VI century. This is the famous Gothic War of the alleged years 536-552 A.D. All available sources also call it “Gothic”. As we point out above, this very war is also described by Titus Livy as the Tarquinian War.

3a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. Let us list the names of several Roman emperors, who had reigned in the epoch of the anarchy and the Gothic War of the alleged III century. The first name we encounter is Severus (222-235).

■ 3b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century. The Tarquinian clan comes from a northern land, as discussed above. The Goths also invade Italy from the North. The name Severus might be a derivative of the Slavic “Sever” (North) – as in “one who comes from the North” or “Northerner”.

4a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. The Gordian dynasty: Gordian I (238), Gordian II (238), Gordian III (238-244). Let us point out the similarity of the name Gordian and the Slavic word “gordiy” (proud), which, in turn, is apparently a derivative of the word “horde”. Therefore, there may be a link between the Horde and the Gordians (of which there were three).

■ 4b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century. As we already know, Titus Livy described the Gothic War as the Tarquinian War, while the entire clan of the Goths received the collective name of “Tarquin the Proud”. It is very likely that the Slavic “gordiy” (proud) and the name Gordian are two different derivatives of “horde”. Bear in mind that Livy tells us of three Tarquins: Tarquin Collatine, Tarquin Sextus and Tarquin the Proud.

5a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. Valerian and Balbinus. a) Emperor Valerian, 253-260 A.D.; b) Emperor Balbinus, 238 A.D.

■ 5b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century. Valerius/Belisarius and Baduila. a) The eminent Romean warlord Belisarius described as Valerius bu Livy. The name Valerius also resembles Valerian to a great extent; b) The famous military leader of the Goths named Baduila, also known as Totila ([196], Volume 1). Balbinus might be another version of Baduila.

6a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. The wife of Gordian III is called Furia Tranquillina ([579], page 438).

■ 6b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century. The wife of Tarquin the Proud (the famous Tullia, according to Livy) is said to have been a real fury – a malicious, power-hungry woman, in other words ([482]). We observe a pattern here: Gordian = proud (“gordiy”), Tranquillina = Tarquins, Furia = “fury” (as a characteristic of a woman according to Livy).

7a. The Gothic War of the alleged III century. The Gothic War that broke out in the middle of the alleged III century A.D. is supposed to have shaken Europe for either 13 or 16 years: 238-251 or 235-251. The official temporal framework of the Gothic War is supposed to fit into the period between 238 and 251 ([579], pages 439-440). Severus, the creature of Julia Maesa, had died in 235; his demise was followed by a period of anarchy.

■ 7b. The Gothic-Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century. The Gothic War of the alleged VI century is supposed to have lasted for either 16 or 18 years: 536-552 or 535-553. Titus Livy described it as the Tarquinian War, reporting its duration to equal 12 years ([482]). Thus, the 13/16 years from the previous paragraph concur well with the duration of the war given as 12, 16 or 18 years.

3.14.2. The Christian dating of the Trojan War

The Bible describes the kingdoms of Judea and Israel that had appeared under Jeroboam I. His immediate predecessors are named by the Bible as the “famous triad” of rulers – Saul, David and Solomon. The Scaligerian datings of their reigns are as follows:

- the alleged years 1020-965 or 1004 B.C. for Saul,

- the alleged years 1004-965 B.C. for David,

- and the alleged years 965-928 B.C. for Solomon ([72], page 192).

Thus, David had reigned in the alleged X century B.C. How does one make it concur with the Trojan chronicles indicating that the Trojan War took place in the reign of King David? For instance, one of the Trojan chronicles is called “The Tale of Troy’s Foundation and Captivity, as well as its Last Destruction that Took Place under David, King of Judea” ([851]). Another name is “Thus Fell Troy in the Reign of David king of Israel in Jerusalem” ([851], page 147). However, the Trojan War took place in the alleged XIII century B.C. (1225 B.C. according to [72]), whereas David had lived in the alleged X century. Scaligerian chronology demonstrates a discrepancy of roughly 250 years.

The New Chronology eliminates this discrepancy. The results of our research as described in Chapter 6 of Chron1 demonstrate that the history of the Israelite and the Judean kingdoms happens to be the ecclesiastically-hued rendition of the events that took place in the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century, as well as the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire of the alleged XIV-XVII century. Thus, the “great royal trio” consisting of Saul, David and Solomon can most probably be identified as a group of XIII-XV century characters, qv on our global chronological map in Chron1, Chapter 6. This corresponds well with our re-dating of the Trojan War to the XIII century A.D.

3.14.3. The datings of the Trojan War as offered by Hellanicus and Damastus

The “ancient” authors Hellanicus and Damastus claim (in [579], page 23) that the Trojan War was only separated from the foundation of Rome by the lifetime of a generation or two. According to Chron1, Chapter 6, the foundation of the Italian Rome is most likely to have taken place in the XIV century A.D. If we are to count two generations backwards from this date – roughly 50 years, that is – we shall end up with the XIII – early XIV century of the new era, which is when the Trojan/Gothic/Tarquinian War had taken place according to our reconstruction. Various scribes may have considered some of the war’s numerous reflections in the “Scaligerian history textbook” to have been authentic. Let us point out that there are at least 13 such reflections, no less! They are marked by black triangles on the global chronological map in Chron1, Chapter 6.

3.14.4. The Judean dating of the Trojan War

The mediaeval “Tale of Troy’s Foundation and Captivity as well as its Last Destruction that Took Place under David, King of Judea” tells us that “Troy was taken in the year 4016” ([851], page 136). Which chronology is this date in, and what did the chronicler refer to exactly? Scaligerian history considers such “great datings” of several millennia to have Genesis as the beginning of the scale, and one is to remember that there are several datings of the Genesis itself.

Apparently, the phenomena we encounter here owe their existence to the late mediaeval “scientific activity” of the XVI-XVII century chronologists who tried to order and date ancient events. Having put them into a wrong sequence and extended it arbitrarily, “experts” such as Matthew Vlastar and Joseph Scaliger would measure the intervals between various events in years and write the resulting erroneous figures into ancient chronicles and other old documents. Veracious sources would thus become corrupt with erroneous datings, and the motivations for this activity may even have been noble.

Let us return to 4016 as the dating of the fall of Troy. What “Genesis” does it refer to? Since the name of the book refers to David, King of Judea, it would be only natural to assume the chronicler to use the Judaic dating of the Genesis – the alleged year 3761 B.C. in Scaligerian chronology ([72], page 68). In that case, we shall obviously get the year 255 A.D. if we are to count 4016 years forwards. This dating falls well into the 235-251 A.D. interval where chronologists erroneously placed a phantom reflection of the XIII century war (Gothic = Trojan), or the decline of the Second Roman Empire. 255 A.D. is in close propinquity with 251 A.D. that marks the end of the Gothic War (the alleged III century A.D. reflection), qv in fig. 2.73.

Fig. 2.73 One of the erroneous datings of the Trojan War.

Thus, if some chronologist of the XVI-XVII century had fallaciously used a phantom duplicate for the dating of the Trojan War – the one that wound up in the III century A.D. – he was by all means entitled to include the words “Troy fell in 4016” into his chronicle, which we indeed witness to be the case.

3.14.5. The Scaligerian dating of the Trojan War

The identification of the Trojan War dating to the alleged 1225 year B.C. as the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. that ended in the alleged year 553 A.D. is one of the most obvious consequences of the rigid chronological shift of 1800 or 1780 years (1225 + 552 = 1777, or roughly 1780 years). Thus, the Graeco-Biblical chronological shift had transposed a duplicate of the Gothic War, which had wound up in the VI century A.D. by mistake (the correct dating being the XIII century A.D.), into an epoch even more ancient – the XIII century B.C. This is a perfect example of how the phantom duplicates of real mediaeval events would “multiply” due to false datings.

As one sees from the global chronological map in Chron1, Chapter 6, the most recent reflection of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War is located in the XIII century A.D. (on the far right). This is the very epoch when the creation of the greater bulk of the Trojan cycle begins, qv in fig. 2.36. Therefore, the rare “Trojan texts” that modern historians consider to predate the XIII century A.D. need to have their datings revised.

3.15. The table of heroes who had fought in the XIII century war (Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic) and their phantom doubles

Let us consider the entire collection of the phantom doubles that we have discovered. They all reflect the protagonists of the Trojan War of the XIII century A.D. We shall also consider all of the parallelisms related in the following chapters. We come up with the table below, which is most edifying. For the sake of simplicity, we shall limit ourselves to just four heroes, namely:

1) Achilles; 2) Agamemnon; 3) Odysseus/Ulysses – the “sequential Achilles”; 4) Patroclus. Let us keep their respective index numbers in order to refer to their duplicates in other phantom reflections of the Trojan War as listed in the table.

I. The Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C.

1) Achilles,

■ 2) Agamemnon,

■ ■ 3) Odysseus – Ulysses - “sequential Achilles”

■ ■ ■  4) Patroclus.

II. The Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C.

1) Valerius,

■ 2) Tarquin the Proud,

■ ■ 3) Larcius + Marcius Coriolanus,

■ ■ ■  4) Junius, the son of Marcus, Brutus (Brother?)

III. Civil war in Rome (the alleged I century B.C.)

1) Julius Caesar,

■ 2) Gnaeus Pompey Magnus,

■ ■ 3) Sulla and Cicero (NRSS, qv below),

■ ■ ■  4) Marcus Brutus (Brother?).

IV. Civil war in Rome (the alleged III century A.D.)

1) Constantius Chlorus,

■ 2) Diocletian the Great,

■ ■ 3) Lucius Aurelian,

■ ■ ■  4) ?

V. Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D.

1) Belisarius,

■ 2) Justinian (and Theodora),

■ ■ 3) Narses/Narcius,

■ ■ ■  4) John II.

VI. Civil war in Rome (the alleged years 901-924 A.D.)

1) Alberic,

■ 2) Theophylactus (and Theodora I),

■ ■ 3) Alberic I (?) and Marozia (?),

■ ■ ■  4) John X.

VII. Civil war in Rome (the alleged years 931-954 A.D.)

1) Alberic II,

■ 2) Hugo (and Theodora II),

■ ■ 3) ?

■ ■ ■  4) John XI.

VIII. War in the early days of the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century A.D.

1) Alberic II,

■ 2) Otto III,

■ ■ 3) Otto I, Otto II, Octavian Augustus,

■ ■ ■  4) ?

IX. The XIII century A.D. wars in Italy and Byzantium. The fall of Constantinople/New Rome in 1204 and 1261. The fall of the mediaeval Troy and the New City (Naples) in Italy. All of these reflect fragments of the original Trojan War.

1) Charles of Anjou,

■ 2) Innocent IV,

■ ■ 3) Charles of Anjou (NRSS, qv below),

■ ■ ■  4) John XXI.

Let us reiterate that the Scaligerian location of the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. in Italy is highly arguable. We have already demonstrated the famous Nika rebellion in the Byzantine New Rome to be a duplicate of the Gothic War. This is yet another fact to indicate that the original Trojan battlefield had been in Byzantium, and that Constantinople = New Rome = New City = Troy = Jerusalem. These events drifted towards Italy (in documents, naturally) as recently as the XIV-XV century A.D., when the Byzantine refugees had founded Rome here. The “ancient” Aeneas – a partial representation of Charles of Anjou, was their leader. The founders of Rome from the XIV century A.D. have then entered Livy’s “History” as Romulus and Remus.

See more about the escape of King Aeneas from the burning Troy and the foundation of Rome and the Roman Empire by his offspring in our book entitled The Dawn of the Horde Russia.

One needn’t be of the opinion that the four characters of the XIII century A.D. listed in the table are the “true prototypes” of the Trojan War heroes. Their real biographies have doubtlessly served as a foundation of some sort – however, a large amount of data was introduced into their biographies by later written sources. It shall thus require a great deal of work to separate the “reality skeleton” from the “fantasy flesh” grown thereupon due to the efforts of the mediaeval chroniclers. We have already seen them transform a real mediaeval aqueduct (or a wheeled mediaeval siege tower) into a phantom Trojan Horse by a quick flick of the quill, after all – it would be naïve to expect any less “transformation layers” to peel from the great mediaeval Achilles - an “ancient” Greek.

4.

The Great Triad of Kings in Roman history: Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The parallelism with the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War

It is hard to find characters in “ancient history” whose popularity could compare to that of Julius Caesar, Pompey, Brutus and Sulla. We are familiar with numerous works of art, historical novels, films and the like, all of which tell of, or are inspired by, the events of this great epoch’s legendary history. As we shall see, the “skeleton” of the “ancient” Roman events of the alleged I century B.C. happens to be yet another carbon copy of substantially more recent events, which took place in the XII-XIII century A.D. The mediaeval original has travelled backwards in time and landed in the I century B.C. due to the same primary chronological shifts of 333 and 1053 years, respectively. In Chapter 6 of Chron1 we demonstrated the “framework” of the Roman events from the alleged I century B.C. to mimic the events of the alleged X-XI and XIII century A.D. The resulting shift thus approximates 1053 or 1400 years. This parallelism is of a primary nature and stems from the already well-familiar Roman shift of 1053 years, or the equivalent formula T = X + 300 where T stands for years Anno Domini, while X corresponds to the Ab urbe condita dating as used by Titus Livy, for instance.

As we indicated in Chron1, Chapter 6, the following epochs duplicate the war of the XIII century A.D.: the Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C., the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C., the Gothic War of the alleged VI centuty A.D., likewise the epoch of Sulla, Pompey and Caesar of the alleged I century B.C.

Being duplicates of one and the same original, the respective four groups of documents must be related to each other to a greater or a lesser extent. In Chron2, Chapter 1, we relate the parallelism between the following two “great triads” of kings:

1. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar – the alleged years 82-45 B.C., early days of the Second Roman Empire;

2. Aurelian, Diocletian and Constantius I Chlorus – the alleged years 270-306 A.D., the beginning of the Third Roman Empire.

We shall proceed with a brief outline of the remarkable parallelism between the epoch of the Sulla/ Pompey/Caesar triad and the Gothic war of the alleged VI century A.D. A rough scheme of the parallelism is as follows:

- Pompey = Justinian,

- Julius Caesar = Belisarius,

- Sulla (and Cicero) = Narses (and Belisarius).

Let us point it out once again that the equal sign here must not be interpreted literally. It merely points out a manifest parallelism and proximity of form-codes, but not a complete similarity of descriptions. The authors of the texts differ, and belong to different epochs besides that – therefore, there are bound to be significant variations in many details.

a. The Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. See Procopius ([695]) and F. Gregorovius ([196], Volume 1).

■ b. The epoch of Sulla, Pompey and Caesar – the alleged I century B.C. See Plutarch ([660]).

■ ■ c. The Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C. See the Trojan Tales ([851]) and Homer ([180]).

■ ■ ■  d. The Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C. See Titus Livy ([482]).

1a. The Gothic War. Belisarius is a prominent Byzantine (Graeco-Romean) military leader. He is the “number one warlord” in the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. ([695] and [196]). His unvocalized name root transcribes as BLSR.

■ 1b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Julius Caesar is a famous Roman military commander and an emperor from the early years of the Second Empire. He is also the main military commander in the civil war and the external war of the alleged I century B.C. ([660]). His unvocalized name transcribes as LCSR. In fig. 2.74 one sees an old portrait of Caesar’s from Lucan’s work dating back to the alleged XIV century entitled De bello civili. “The miniature by Niccolo da Bologna shows Caesar after his victory over Pompey” ([1229], page 33). Julius Caesar is portrayed as a typical mediaeval knight in armour; the setting is also distinctly mediaeval.

Fig. 2.74. A miniature of the alleged XIV century from De bello civili by Lucan that portrays Julius Caesar after the victory over Pompey; the setting is typically mediaeval. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, Ms. 691, fol. 86v. Taken from [1229], page 33.

■ ■ 1c. The Trojan War. Achilles is a famous Greek hero and a military commander in the “ancient” Greece, who also ranks first among the heroes of the Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C. His unvocalized name is ChLSS, or LSS (since Ulysses/Odysseus happens to be his “successor” in this war – see [851]).

■ ■ ■  1d. The Tarquinian War. Valerius is an eminent military commander from the epoch of Regal Rome’s decline and the dawn of the Roman republic. He is the “number one warlord” in the Tarquinian war of the alleged VI century B.C. His unvocalized name transcribes as VLR (Valerius) + VLS (son of Valusius, qv above and in [482]). Thus, the complete name without vocalizations will be VLSR; one sees that all four unvocalized names resemble each other to some extent.

Commentary. We observe a distinct phonetic parallelism: Belisarius – Julius Caesar. We have already witnessed the superimposition of Valerius over Valusius to produce Belisarius. The name Achilles also contains the unvocalized root LS. Let us pay more attention to the names of Julius Caesar and Belisarius. The font that many Latin inscriptions are set in uses the same letter for U and V (qv on page 32 of [873], for example). Thus, the name of Julius Caesar may well have sounded as Velicaesar (or Belicaesar, considering the frequent flexion of V and B). Also, the words Caesar and Czar are related and possess the same unvocalized root CR. Thus, the name Velicaesar may have sounded as Veliczar, which is also similar to Belisarius. The name Belisarius may be a distorted version of the Slavic “Velikiy Tsar”, or “The Great King”. These considerations aren’t aimed at proving anything whatsoever, but may turn out useful for the understanding of the capacity of ancient names to become distorted after their migration from one language group to another.

2a. The Gothic War. Belisarius and Narses are the two military leaders of the Gothic War that “merge into one”, in a way. Let us remind the reader that it is Narses who brings the Gothic War to completion, having taken over the army after Belisarius, and crushes the Goths ([695] and [196]). We see is the pair Belisarius-Narses. The name Narses transcribes as NRSS (or NRCC) unvocalized.

■ 2b. Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar. Julius Caesar, Cicero and Sulla are all important figures of the civil war in Rome of the alleged I century B.C. (not to be confused with the “great triad” of Caesar, Sulla and Pompey). We are thus considering the triad of Caesar, Cicero and Sulla. Cicero’s name transcribes as CCRN (in its Tsitseron or Ciceron form), which is the same as the name of Narses in reverse. We know the reason for such transformations well enough – bear in mind that the Arabs and the Jews read from the right to the left, which may well transform Narses into Cicero.

■ ■ 2c. The Trojan War. Achilles and Ulysses are the two heroes of the Trojan War of the alleged XIII century B.C. They also constitute a single military commander after a manner, since Ulysses takes over from Achilles and brings his cause to victory, defeating the Trojans. We see the pair of Achilles and Ulysses as main figures ([851]). The other name of Odysseus/ Ulysses is Urexis (ibid). The unvocalized Ulysses-Urexis shall transcribe as LSRXS, or LSSRCSS.

■ ■ ■  2d. The Tarquinian War. P. Valerius and T. Larcius are the two primary military commanders of the Tarquinian War (in the alleged VI century B.C.). They have already been identified as the pair of Belisarius and Narses. Livy pays special attention to a triad of heroes here, namely, Valerius, Larcius and Marcius Coriolanus ([482]). The name Larcius (or Marcius) is obviously analogous to the name Narses (or Narcius).

3a. The Gothic War. The primary royal figure here is Justinian I, the Byzantine Emperor and the ruler of Greece and Romea ([695] and [196], Volume 1).

■ 3b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The “principal royalty” in the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. is Pompey Magnus (Pompey the Great), the Roman emperor ([660], Volume 2, page 338). Pompey Magnus is older than Julius Caesar ([660], Volume 2, pages 539 and 543).

■ ■ 3c. The Trojan War. The “principal royalty” is Agamemnon, the Greek ruler ([851] and [180]). His name may be related to that of Pompey Magnus. Agamemnon is also older than Achilles, the latter being the double of Julius Caesar, qv above.

■ ■ ■  3d. The Tarquinian War. The key royal figure here is Tarquin the Proud, King of Rome. Livy’s account ([482]) suggests Tarquin the Proud to have been older than the Roman military leader Valerius, the double of Caesar.

4a. The Gothic War. Belisarius had obeyed emperor Justinian in the beginning of the Gothic war, but is supposed to have plotted for the Italian throne at some point towards its end (see above for details; also [695] and [196], Volume 1). The relationship between Belisarius and Justinian had been an amicable one initially, but turned hostile later on. The quarrel with Justinian and the order for the arrest of Belisarius are soon to follow; Belisarius falls into disfavour.

■ 4b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Julius Caesar started his career with Pompey Magnus as his superior, since the latter had held all the key military ranks. However, Julius Caesar had gradually edged Pompey out, crushing his troops and seizing power in Rome ([660]). What we see is a deteriorating relationship between Pompey and Caesar – one that had led from initial amicability to a military conflict ([660]).

■ ■ 4c. The Trojan War. Achilles obeys Agamemnon at the beginning of the war. However, he subsequently plots for seizing royal power and ending the war with Troy (see details above and in [851]). Once again we see friendship transform into hostility leading to a quarrel, a severed relationship and even the “house arrest” of Achilles – a reflection of a similar event from the biography of Belisarius, qv above.

■ ■ ■  4d. The Tarquinian War. Valerius had initially been subordinate to Tarquin the Proud; however, mutual animosity had eventually developed between the two; Valerius struggles against Tarquin and deposes the latter. We see yet another neutral relationship turn hostile over the course of time and result in a violent military conflict between Tarquin the Proud and Valerius ([482]).

5a. The Gothic War. The “second greatest” military leader in this war is Narses the eunuch ([695] and [196], Volume 1). Thus, we see a triumvirate of important figures in this war – Justinian, Belisarius and Narses.

■ 5b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Pompey and Julius Caesar are accompanied by the Roman Crassus. This triad forms the group that we have dubbed the “first triumvirate” above (see Chron2, Chapter 1). The initial leader of the triumvirate was Pompey Magnus, likewise Agamemnon, his Trojan War double. Julius Caesar had been the main military commander in the war of the alleged I century B.C., just like Achilles, his double. Crassus had been a lay warrior and a wealthy citizen of Rome. He played a secondary role in regard to the first two military leaders, likewise his Trojan War double Menelaius. As we shall shortly witness, this power disposition in the “first triumvirate” is very similar to the situations arising in all other duplicates of this epoch.

■ ■ 5c. The Trojan War. The second most important royalty here is king Menelaius, the husband of Helen ([851] and [180]). We see yet another “triumvirate” here – Agamemnon/Menelaius/Achilles.

■ ■ ■  5d. The Tarquinian War. The second most important king in this war is Tarquin Collatine. There is no formal triumvirate here; however, one distinctly sees the most prominent figures of the epoch to equal three in their number: Tarquin the Proud, Tarquin Collatine and Publius Valerius ([482]).

We have already made numerous references to the “legend of a woman” that one encounters in all known versions of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War. It is most noteworthy that this very legend surfaces in Roman history of the alleged I century B.C. that we are considering presently.

6a. The Gothic War. The protagonist of this legend in the alleged VI century A.D. is Amalasuntha ([695]). Her double in the Second Empire is Julia Maesa.

■ 6b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The protagonist in the alleged I century B.C. is Pompey’s woman who is in close proximity with Julia ([660]). See details below.

■ ■ 6c. The Trojan War. The woman from the legend who had lived in the alleged XIII century B.C. is the famous Helen of Troy ([851] and [180]).

■ ■ ■  6d. The Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century A.D. We see Lucretia as the legendary character in this version, accompanied by Tullia ([482]).

Commentary to 6d. Back in the day when the relationship between Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus had still retained the exterior of amicability, “an unpleasant incident took place in Caesar’s home. There had been some man from a distinguished old gens who was renowned for his wealth . . . but his impudence and debauchery equalled him with any famous lecher. He had fallen in love with Pompeia, the wife of Caesar, enjoying her reciprocity… Aurelia, Caesar’s mother, would watch her daughter-in-law closely, making every rendezvous of the lovers hard and dangerous” ([660], Volume 2, page 455, “Caesar” IX).

Every year the Romans celebrated the mysteries of Bona Dea, “the Good Goddess”; the celebration could only be attended by the women. All of the men had vacated the house of Caesar, and the feast commenced. Clodius, Pompeia’s lover, had sneaked into the house hoping to meet Pompeia; however, one of Aurelia’s serving women discovered him, and he was chased out in great disgrace ([660], Volume 2, pages 455-456, “Caesar” IX-X). The next day the entire city of Rome was buzzing with the rumour of the sacrilege committed by Clodius – apart from the dishonour that he had inflicted upon the people involved, he was also guilty before the people and the gods. One of the tribunes accused Clodius publicly of ignominy, and some of the most influential senators spoke out against him” ([660], Volume 2, page 456, “Caesar” X). Caesar divorced Pompeia; Clodius got killed shortly afterwards, in the alleged year 52 B.C. during a skirmish on the Appian Way ([948], page 157). Let us now make a brief analysis.

7a. The Gothic War. Disgrace inflicted upon a woman served as a casus belli (Amalasuntha’s arrest and her incarceration on a distant island – see [695] and [196], Volume 1; also above). Let us point out that Amalasuntha had been queen of the Goths. Her double in the Second Empire is Julia Maesa. Mark the name Julia.

■ 7b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. is preceded by an “affront of a woman”: the attempt of Clodius to arrange a date with Pompeia, the wife of Caesar, during a holy feast of the women. The gender aspect is clearly emphasized ([660]). Pompeia is a relation of the “most important emperor” Pompey Magnus ([660], Volume 2, page 543, comment 12). See also [660], Volume 2, “Caesar” V. By her side we see Julia – the daughter of Caesar, and also the wife of Pompey Magnus ([660], Volume 2, page 465). We thus see a pair of women here – Pompeia and Julia, the respective wives of the “number one king” and the “number one warlord”. Notice that the name Julia surfaces here as well as in the Gothic War.

■ ■ 7c. The Trojan War. The casus belli in this case is perfectly similar to the above cases. Helen is abducted by force (there are actually several contradictory versions here, qv above) and taken away to Troy ([851]). The gender aspect of this abduction is also emphasized. Helen is the wife of Menelaius, one of the two “main kings”; afterwards, she becomes the wife of Paris the Trojan, or a member of the TRQN clan; Paris = PRS or P-Russ. The names Helen and Julia may have been identical.

■ ■ ■  7d. The Tarquinian War. Once again, the casus belli is a dishonourable act against a woman – the rape of Lucretia by one of the Tarquins ([482]). We see that the sexual aspect is also emphasized by Titus Livy. Lucretia is the wife of Tarquin Collatine, or the second most important royal figure. By his side we see Tullia (Julia?), the wife of Tarquin the Proud, the “primary royalty”. The events unfold around the clan of the Tarquins (TRQN). The name Tullia obviously resembles Julia, qv above.

8a. –

■ 8b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Rome of the alleged I century B.C. Aurelia is the mother of Julius Caesar; she plays an important part in the “insult of Pompeia”, Caesar’s wife, qv above.

■ ■ 8c. Trojan War. –

■ ■ ■  8d. The Tarquinian War. In this war Valerius acts as the double of Julius Caesar and is in the epicentre of events concerning the “rape of Lucretia”. Let us point out the obvious similarity between the names of the two protagonists: Aurelia the woman and Valerius the man. The fact that certain mediaeval scribes would occasionally confuse male and female names for each other should not surprise us, and we are to see more examples of such errors below.

9a. The Gothic War. One of the most important events here is the death of Amalasuntha. Its analogue from the Second Empire is the death of Julia Maesa. Both of the women were murdered, qv above. The Gothic War begins immediately after the death of the queen, and it had been her demise that served as reason for the war to break out in the first place. The affronter of Amalasuntha (= Julia Maesa) is Theodahad the Goth who dies a violent death himself shortly afterwards ([196], Volume 1).

■ 9b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The death of Julia takes place in the alleged I century B.C. in Rome. It happens rather suddenly, yet there is no report of a murder ([660]). The civil war in Rome begins after the death of Julia. Plutarch, for one, regards this death as the cause of the war. He tells us that “both Pompey and Caesar were cast into deep dejection [after the death of Julia; compare to Livy’s version – A. F.]; their friends were in confusion since the bond of blood that still helped to maintain peace and accordance in the country torn apart by embroilment had been severed… the public took the body of Julia to Campus Martius, despite the objections voiced by the tribunes of the people” ([660], Volume 2, page 465, “Caesar” XXIII). After the demise of Julia, the relationship between Pompey and Caesar rapidly deteriorates, and they “rise against one another” ([660], Volume 2, page 465, “Caesar” XXIII). Claudius, the Roman “offender” of Pompeia, is soon killed in the civil war ([660]).

■ ■ 9c. The Trojan War. It breaks out because of Helen, who was killed subsequently ([851]). However, in this version she dies already after the Trojan War, which does not stop her death from being paid particular attention as an important event. The “miscreant” Paris, who had abducted Helen, also dies a short while later, at the end of the Trojan War ([851]).

■ ■ ■  9d. The Tarquinian War. What we see here is the death of Lucretia. She stabs herself to death after having been raped ([482]). It is her death that causes the war in Rome ([482]). The “offender” of Lucretia, Tarquin Sextus who had raped her, is soon killed in the Tarquinian War ([482]).

10a. The Gothic War. The war begins with the exile of the Goths from Rome. The principal initiator of this exile is Belisarius, the Graeco-Romean military commander. He leads the troops against the Goths aided by General John (the double of the “ancient” Brutus described by Livy, qv above and in [196], Volume 1).

■ 10b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. When the war of the alleged I century B.C. began, Pompey Magnus was banished from Rome. The military leader Valerius masterminded his exile. Together with Brutus, yet another warlord, they conducted the campaign against Pompey Magnus ([660]).

■ ■ 10c. The Trojan War. Achilles leads the troops to fight the Trojans accompanied by Patroclus (= BRT, qv above). See [851] and [180]. Patroclus is the double of Brutus from the Tarquinian War and his namesake who had fought in the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C.

■ ■ ■  10d. The Tarquinian War. The war begins when the royal clan of the Tarquins gets deported from Rome. The exile is a brainchild of the military commander Valerius, who also leads the Roman revolt against the Tarquins with Brutus as his ally ([482]).

11a. The Gothic War. When the war begins, Belisarius is outside Rome, whereas the Goths led by king Theodahad are located in the city. Belisarius begins a military campaign against the Romans and soon chases the Goths out ([695] and [196], Volume 1).

■ 11b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. At the beginning of the civil war that broke out in the alleged I century B.C., Julius Caesar is initially located outside Rome, unlike Pompey Magnus ([660]). Then Caesar launches his Roman campaign, crosses the Rubicon (a famous “ancient” scene), and banishes Pompey and his allies from Rome. This event may well be called the “Exile of the Kings” (see more details in the commentary below).

■ ■ 11c. The Trojan War. When the war begins, Achilles the Greek has his camp outside the besieged Troy, the fortress of the TRQN = Trojans, qv above ([851]). As a result of the war, the Greeks banish the Trojans from Troy ([851] and [180]).

■ ■ ■  11d. The Tarquinian War. We see a reversal of the scenario in this particular case. Tarquin the Proud is outside Rome whilst Valerius is inside ([482]). Then the Tarquins are chased away from Rome by Valerius and Brutus, which is Livy’s famous “Exile of the Kings” from Regal Rome. The Tarquins counter with a campaign against Rome.

Commentary to 11b. According to Plutarch, “Caesar decided to depose Pompey a long time ago” ([660], Volume 2, page 467, “Caesar” XXIX). A civil war breaks out. Caesar’s troops march towards Rome, cross the Rubicon and seize Ariminum. “After the fall of Ariminum, the gates of war open wide in all the lands and on all the seas; all Roman laws were wiped out together with the border of the province (which is the same as Titus Livy tells us – A. F.]; it seemed as though it hadn’t just been the men and the women roaming all across Italy in terror, but the very towns and cities themselves left their sites and fled… as for Rome herself… authorities failed to maintain order with either orders or persuasion… conflicting passions and violent turmoil reigned throughout the land” ([660], Volume 2, page 471, “Caesar” XXXIII). A great embroilment flares up in Rome, resulting in the exile of Pompey Magnus.

This takes place in the following manner. In his belief that “the war had engulfed the entire country, he [Pompey – A. F.] had made a public declaration that the city was in turmoil and anarchy and left the city, ordering the senators and everyone who preferred fatherland and freedom to tyranny to follow his example… the consuls fled without even making the usual sacrifices before their departure; most of the senators also fled in great haste… the terrified people had lost their ability to think and allowed the current of this stampede carry them away for no reason whatsoever… before the great storm. Regardless of how much this mass emigration had hurt them, the Romans trusted the land of the exile to become their new fatherland in their love for Pompey and so they were leaving Rome” ([660], Volume 2, pages 471-472, “Caesar” XXXIII-XXXIV). Plutarch (Petrarch?) is most likely to be giving us a de facto account of the exile of the Tarquins from Rome (according to Livy, they were driven out by Publius Valerius), or the exile of the Goths by Belisarius in the Gothic version. The Trojan version places this “Exile of the Kings” at the end of the war, when Troy had already fallen.

By the way, in fig. 2.75 one can see a XV century miniature by Jean Fouquet painted around 1420-1477/81 depicting the troops of Caesar crossing the Rubicon ([1237]). Pay attention to the fact that we see the imperial bicephalous eagles on the flags of the “ancient” Roman legions, as well as the caparison of Caesar’s horse. Nowadays it is considered that they were on the official coat of arms of the “ancient” imperial Rome. At the same time, we know these symbols quite well from mediaeval history, qv in Chron7.

Fig. 2.75 A mediaeval miniature of the XV century that depicts the “ancient” Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon (Jean Fouquet, circa 1420-1477/81). We see the imperial bicephalous eagle on the “ancient” banners – one we know very well from the history of the XIV-XVII century A.D. Taken from [1237].

12a. The Gothic War. Rome is abandoned by the Goths, and Belisarius enters the city with triumph. Romans greet him as their liberator. Let us remind the reader that Belisarius had been the main military leader of Romean Greece.

■ 12b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Julius Caesar enters Rome abandoned by Pompey and his followers. Caesar is made dictator and vested with emergency powers for the course of the war ([660], Volume 2, page 473, “Caesar” XXXVII).

■ ■ 12c. The Trojan War. Achilles is the commander-in-chief of the Greek troops that hold Troy under siege ([851] and [180]).

■ ■ ■  12d. The Tarquinian War. Titus Livy tells us the following about Brutus, the ally of Valerius: “the city’s liberator was given a warm welcome in the camp, and the children of the king banished” ([482], 1:60, page 97).

Commentary to 12b. “Ancient” authors point out obvious similarities between the legends of Pompey Magnus and Agamemnon without any prompts from our part. This superimposition had already manifested in the parallelism that we are referring to. Plutarch, for instance, tells us that “everyone was accusing Pompey of cowardice, mockingly calling him Agamemnon, king of kings [the Trojan version does in fact refer to Agamemnon as the “king of kings” since he is the leader of the royal Greek heroes – A. F.]: his reluctance to let go of undivided power was allegedly making him proud of so many warlords having to come to his tent for orders” ([660], Volume 2, page 475, “Caesar”).

13a. The Gothic War. One of the heroes who liberate Italy from the Goths is called John MRC, the son of PRCT (Celius). The Roman pontifex John is also active in this epoch, while Belisarius is accompanied by General John, the double of the “ancient” Brutus ([695] and [196], Volume 1). See above.

■ 13b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C., Marcus Junius Brutus earns great fame as the liberator of the Roman people from tyranny. Also see the references to Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus below ([660]).

■ ■ 13c. The Trojan War. Here we see Patroclus/BRT who liberates Helen and fights for her honour ([851] and [180]).

■ ■ ■  13d. The Tarquinian War. Junius Brutus, the son of Marcus, liberates the people of Rome from the Tarquinian tyranny ([482]).

Commentary to 13b. We have to linger here for a short while in order to discuss such a famous “ancient” hero as Marcus Junius Brutus (Brother?) from the alleged I century B.C. Plutarch refers to yet another Brutus (Brother?) who is active in this epoch, namely, Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus. A careful study of Plutarch’s works ([660]) leaves one with the impression that he confuses one of them for the other, possibly due to the fact that they’re different reflections of one and the same mediaeval character. Indeed:

- *1) The name of the first Brutus is Marcus Junius Brutus ([660], Volume 2, page 312.

- *1) The name of the second Brutus is Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus ([660], Volume 2, page 545).

- *2) Marcus Junius Brutus had initially been a comrade of Julius Caesar, maintaining a close relationship with the latter. He had probably also been his comrade-in-arms.

- *2) Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus serves under Caesar in Gaul ([660], Volume 2, page 545, comment 95, “Caesar” LXIV, page 488).

- *3) Marcus Junius Brutus conspires against Julius Caesar ([660], Volumes 2 and 3).

- *3) Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus also takes part in the plot against Julius Caesar ([660], Volume 2, page 319).

Let us now return to the comparison of the war that took place in the alleged I century B.C. with the Tarquinian War.

■ 14b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the war of the alleged I century B.C., Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus + Marcus Junius Brutus (Brother?) act as the famed hero who saves Rome from Caesar the tyrant according to Plutarch, killing Caesar together with other plotters. Let us point out a possible etymological connection between the name Brutus and the word Brother.

■ ■ ■  14d. The Tarquinian War. Lucius Junius Brutus, son of Marcus, is a famous hero of the Tarquinian war – the one who had liberated Rome from the tyranny of the kings. His name is very similar to that of the “double Brutus” from the previous section: Lucius may be the same as Decius, Junius = Junius, Brutus = Brutus and Marcus = Marcus. We consider it necessary to remind the reader that, according to Titus Livy, Lucius Junius Brutus, son of Marcus, went down in Roman history (together with Publius Valerius) as the hero who had chased the Tarquins away from Rome and killed the king’s son, Tarquin Arruntius, the enemy of Rome (qv above and in [482]).

■ 15b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Marcus Junius Brutus was killed afterwards. His father (also a Brutus, by the way), died by the hand of Pompey ([660], Volume 2, “Pompey”, LXIV, page 379; also “Pompey” XVI, page 344. Pompey Magnus is the “main royalty” when the war begins; he is superimposed over Livy’s Tarquins.

■ ■ ■  15d. The Tarquinian War. Lucius, the son of Marcus Junius, was killed while fighting the Tarquins (he and Tarquin Arruntius had killed each other, qv in [482]).

Commentary to 15. Once again we witness the ancient authors to indicate direct analogies between Marcus Junius Brutus from the alleged I century B.C. and Lucius Junius Brutus, son of Marcus – a hero of the Tarquinian War that took place in the alleged VI century B.C. without any prompting from our part whatsoever and in perfect correlation with the chronological shifts. Furthermore, this “Bruti couple” is the only pair of famous people wearing the name of Brutus in “Classical Rome”. Plutarch tells us that “Junius Brutus [! - the hero of the Tarquinian War – A. F.] is the predecessor of Marcus Brutus [Marcus Junius Brutus, Julius Caesar’s contemporary, qv in [660], Volume 3, page 312, “Brutus” I; the reference in comment 1 – A. F.]; ancient Romans had placed his bronze statue wielding a sword on the Capitol hill among the statues of the kings, since it was to him first and foremost that the Romans owed the fall of the Tarquins ([660], Volume 3, page 312, “Brutus” I).

Also: “Brutus [Marcus Junius Brutus from the alleged I century B.C. – A. F.] had been exhorted to decisive actions [against the tyranny of Julius Caesar – A. F.] for quite a long time… the statue of the ancient Brutus, the one who had deposed the kings [Brutus, the hero of the Tarquinian War – A. F.] was covered in numerous graffiti saying “Oh, if you could only be with us today!” or “Had Brutus been alive!”. One morning, the magisterian hathpace where Brutus officiated as a praetor, had been found covered in tablets saying “Brutus, are you sleeping?” and “You aren’t a real Brutus!”. The ones responsible for this surge of rancour against the dictator [Plutarch refers to Julius Caesar, and Titus Livy – to Tarquin the Proud – A. F.] were his adulators who would keep inventing new honours for him, which the Romans had loathed… in hope that the populace would pronounce Caesar king; however, what really took place was the opposite” ([660], Volume 3, pages 317-318, “Brutus” IX).

All these ruminations, comparisons, parallels and explanations from the part of Plutarch (Petrarch?), possibly a late mediaeval author of the alleged XV-XVI century, who was obviously confused wherein these two “Brutus characters” were concerned, considering them two separate entities, whose deeds would nonetheless constantly get superimposed over each other (under the pressure of the Scaligerian chronology, naturally). This erroneous chronology had bound Plutarch hand and foot, and arbitrarily divided the same Brutus (Brother?) into two duplicates, one of which became shifted into the I century A.D., and the other – into an even earlier epoch, the VI century B.C. This resulted in the existence of two duplicate characters sharing the name Brutus, virtually indistinguishable from one another – Junius Brutus, son of Marcus, the liberator of the Romans from the Tarquinian tyranny, and Junius Brutus Marcus who delivered the Romans from the tyranny of Julius Caesar.

16a. The Gothic War. In this war we see General John, a possible “sequel” of John MRC, the son of PRCT, qv above. The Gothic war is both civil and external.

■ 16b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. We observe Marcus Junius Brutus die in the war of the alleged I century B.C. and his great posthumous glory ([660]). This war is also both civil and external.

■ ■ 16c. The Trojan War. What we see here is the death of Patroclus (BRT) in a battle at the walls of Troy and his fame of a Trojan War hero ([851] and [180]). The Trojan War is of an external nature.

■ ■ ■  16d. The Tarquinian War. Here we witness the death of Brutus, son of Marcus, in a battle against the Tarquins, and his Roman laurels ([482]). This war is also civil as well as external.

17a. The Gothic War. The Goths and the PRS (= Franks, or TRNK), or PRS = Persians, are the two primary opponents here, both defeated by the army of Romea, or Byzantium. We also see the siege of the New City (allegedly Naples in Italy, a famous fortress).

■ 17b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the war of the alleged I century B.C., the Pompeians had been the primary foe; the secondary enemy was PRS = the Gauls (Gaul/Galicia/France) as well as PRS = the Persians. Both enemies were defeated. We see a siege of the famous fortress Alesia in the course of this war. In the Gaulish (Galician?) war, Julius Caesar’s main opponents are the Gauls [possibly

the Slavic tribe of Galichi?]: “The lands of the Arverni (Arventi) and the Carnutes were the hotbed of rebellion” ([660], Volume 2, “Caesar”, XXV-XXVI, page 466. It is possible that these RVNT and CRNT are distorted versions of the clan name TRQN.

■ ■ 17c. The Trojan War. The Trojans are the main opponent here; the other one is PRS, or Paris. They’re both defeated. We see the siege of Troy, a famous “ancient” citadel. The enemies of Achilles, the double of Julius Caesar, are the Trojans = TRQN, qv above.

■ ■ ■  17d. The Tarquinian War. The Tarquinians are the number one enemy here, they have an ally by the name of PRS = Porsenna. Both are defeated. Rome is under siege. The Tarquins (TRQN) are also the enemies of Valerius.

Commentary to 17b. According to Plutarch, Caesar’s Gaulish (Galician?) war was “the greatest and the most violent [war – A. F.] … ever to rage in Gaul” ([660], Volume 2, page 466, “Caesar” XXV. Its description occupies an important place in Caesar’s “biography” according to Plutarch (Petrarch?). The war culminates in the siege of Alesia, a fortress of the utmost strength. “Most of the barbarians who had survived the battle [with Caesar – A. F.] concealed themselves in the town of Alesia. Caesar inflicted a great danger upon himself in the siege of this town that had seemed unassailable due to high walls and large numbers of the besieged, since the elite forces of all the Gaulish tribes… arrived to Alesia, whereas the number of the Gauls under siege had equalled a hundred and seventy thousand at least” ([660], Volume 2, page 467, “Caesar” XXVI. Plutarch proceeds to tell us that “the battle for Alesia was a most glorious one; no other war would give us an example of such brave and artful deeds” ([660], Volume 2, page 467, “Caesar” XXVII.

The name Alesia might be a corruption of “Achilles” – the double of Caesar = Belisarius. The siege and the fall of Alesia made their way into every military history textbook as examples of the art of war as practised by the “ancients” – see [172], Volume 1, for instance.

18a. The Gothic War. According to Procopius, the war rages in Italy ([695] and [196], Volume 1). Vittigis had been the king of the Goths shortly before the siege of the New City (Naples) began.

■ 18b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The fortress of Alesia is located in Italy, according to Plutarch ([660]). The defence of Alesia is led by King Vercingetorix who presided over the tribes of the Arverni (Arventi, or RVNT) and the Carnutes (CRNT). See [660].

■ ■ 18c. The Trojan War. Military action takes place in the vicinity of Friesia or Phrygia. The famous Trojan hero Hector is a royal figure leading the defence of Troy – the leader of the TRQN, in other words. One sees an obvious parallelism: the long name Vercingetorix is most probably a collation of two shorter names: Vittigis and Hector.

■ ■ ■  18d. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, the war takes place in Italy. The double of the Trojan Hector here is most probably Tarquin Arruntius ([482]).

19a. The Gothic War. The captivity of Vittigis ([695] and [196], Volume 1). The victor is commander-in-chied Belisarius.

■ 19b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C. we see the demise of Vercingetorix after his capitulation. The victor’s name is Julius Caesar, and he is a double of Belisarius. The account of the event given by Plutarch is as follows: “Vercingetorix, the leader of the entire army… rode out of the gates. He jumped off his horse, removed all of his armour and sat down at the feet of Caesar, remaining there until he was taken away to be kept under guard until the triumph” ([660], Volume 2, page 467, “Caesar” XXVII. Also: “Caesar’s triumph could only be celebrated six years hence. All the while Vercingetorix had remained captive; he was killed immediately after the triumph” ([660], Volume 2, page 544, comment 49).

■ ■ 19c. The Trojan War. The demise of Hector, whose body is taken “captive” by the victor Achilles ([851] and [180]).

■ ■ ■  19d. The Tarquinian War. What we see here is the death of Tarquin Arruntius in a battle ([482]).

20a. The Gothic War. The siege of the New City (Naples) resulted in the fall of the latter. Belisarius had to resort to cunning for the city to be taken. His troops secretly infiltrated the city through a gigantic old aqueduct that was constructed near the walls of the New City ([695] and [196], Volume 1).

■ 20b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged year I B.C., the siege of Alesia finally results in the fall of the city. Caesar also wins by ingenuity, ordering to erect a gigantic construction – namely, a double wall to surround the bastions of Alesia ([660]). See below for more details.

■ ■ 20c. The Trojan War. Troy falls after a prolonged siege. The Greek assailants use their guile to infiltrate the city, constructing an enormous “grey effigy of a horse” ([851]) and hiding therein (the famous “Trojan Horse”).

■ ■ ■  20d. The Tarquinian War. No analogue of the “Trojan Horse” here; this is where the parallelism breaks.

Commentary to 20b. Plutarch informs us that “clenched tight between such great forces (the Gauls – PRS and RVNT-CRNT – A. F.), Caesar was forced to erect two walls simultaneously; one to defend himself against the city, and the other to hold back the arriving Gauls, since it had been clear that the unification of his two enemies would mean his defeat… however, the most amazing thing is how Caesar had crushed the large army outside the city walls without letting anyone know [?! – this is a fantasy of the mediaeval author Plutarch who tried to make heads or tails of the sparse data contained in the old documents – A. F.]; not merely the besieged, but even those of the Romans who were guarding the wall that surrounded the city… thus, the vast force had been put to a complete rout, and most of the barbarians died in the battle. Finally, the defenders of Alesia also surrendered” ([660], Volume 2, page 467, “Caesar” XXVII).

We are of the opinion that the construction of a “double wall” by Caesar is highly unlikely, especially done furtively. We are most likely to be seeing yet another reflection of the same old remarkable ploy of Belisarius, who had used an old aqueduct constructed before the war – not built in several days, as Plutarch (Petrarch?) is trying to convince us. One has to point out that ancient aqueducts would often be built as very large chutes concealed by two vertical walls and held up with a footing, qv in fig. 2.67, for instance. The chute would then be covered with a roof which transformed it into a pipe. The “double wall” of Caesar is possibly a later distortion of the original image – the chute of an aqueduct. It becomes clear why Plutarch emphasizes that the walls were built with neither the besieged, nor the major part of the assailants noticing [?]. In our rendition of the Gothic War we already mentioned the fact that Belisarius kept this infiltration of a special brigade secret even from his own army.

21a. The Gothic War. Belisarius battles the kingdom of the Goths or the Germans whose predecessors were Odoacer and Theodoric the Goth. The war had raged for 16 or 18 years – namely, between 535-536 (the advent to Rome) and 552-553 (the defeat of the Goths). See [196], Volume 1. Justinian is the key royal figure in the Gothic War; he does not participate in military action personally.

■ 21b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The Gaulish (Galician?) War is a conflict between Julius Caesar and the Germanic tribes, one of which deserves special attention from the part of Plutarch – the Tencteri tribe (TNCTR unvocalized; possibly a duplicate of TRQN – see [660], Volume 2, page 464. The Gaulish (Galician?) war rages for “nearly ten years” ([660], Volume 2, page 459, “Caesar” XV. Pompey Magnus is the “Great King” of the first period; he does not take part in Caesar’s Gaulish War.

■ ■ 21c. The Trojan War. Achilles fights against the Trojans (TRQN) and the Friesians/ Phrygians, who are partially identified as the Germans, qv in the analysis above. The duration of the war is nine years and a half, or 9 (10) years according to other versions ([851], also see above). The “main king of the Greeks”, Agamemnon, does not participate in military action actively, which is all the more obvious from observing the activity of Achilles in this war.

■ ■ ■  21d. The Tarquinian War. According to Livy, Publius Valerius fights against the Tarquins (TRQN). The war lasts for 12 years; the primary royal figure (L. Tarquin the Proud) does actually participate in combat ([482]), which is where the parallelism breaks. However, the war durations in all four instances correlate with each other quite well.

22a. The Gothic War. Procopius describes the Gothic war as large-scale and extremely violent ([695]).

■ 22b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. According to Plutarch, the Gaulish War (the war in Galicia?) has been one of the greatest wars ever fought by humankind. We learn that “he [Caesar – A. F.] had conquered more than eight hundred towns and cities [in the course of the Gaulish or the Galician War – A. F.], and also three hundred nations [sic! – A. F.], with three million people as his enemies, one million of which were destroyed [!? – A. F.] in various battles” ([660], Volume 2, page 459).

■ ■ 22c. The Trojan War. Trojan chronicles also emphasize the unusually violent character of the war and numerous battles fought in its course)([851]).

■ ■ ■  22d. The Tarquinian War. According to Titus Livy, the Tarquinian war is one of the most important events that took place over many centuries of Roman history ([482]).

23a. The Gothic War. This war brings the demise of Totila and Teia (Teias), the two last Gothic kings. They die at the very end of the Gothic War ([196], Volume 1). The victors cut off Teia’s head, which is an important symbolic episode in the course of the Gothic War, qv above.

■ 23b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C., Pompey Magnus dies trying to flee from the battlefield ([660], Volume 2, pages 477-478). Pompey was decapitated, which is one of the war’s central episodes ([660], Volume 2, page 479).

■ ■ 23c. The Trojan War. Here we see all the principal Trojan royal figures die after the fall of Troy. Agamemnon, the double of Pompey Magnus, is treacherously killed. Troilus, the double of the Goths Totila and Teia, is beheaded; this event is also amongst the focal points of the Trojan War. Inasmuch as the original sources let us know, the episode with the severed head of a king is unique for each of the three wars – the Gothic War, the Trojan War, and the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C.

■ ■ ■  23d. The Tarquinian War. In this war, king Tarquin the Proud dies after his defeat in the battle with the Romans. He flees and dies in Cumas a short while later ([482]). The parallelism is broken here, since we find no decapitation episode.

24a. The Gothic War. Theodahad, King of the Goths, takes part in military action and gets killed as a result ([695] and [196], Volume 1; also see above.

■ 24b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. One of the important participants of the civil war that broke out in Rome in the alleged I century B.C. is called Theodotus ([660], Volume 2, pages 388-390). We see his name to be virtually identical to that of his Gothic counterpart; moreover, his fate is also similar, since he dies a violent death ([660], Volume 2, page 391.

■ ■ 24c. The Trojan War. King Teuthrates, the double of Theodahad the Goth, takes part in the war and also dies by violence ([851]). See above.

■ ■ ■  24d. The Tarquinian War. No duplicate found here.

25a. The Gothic War. Belisarius kills (executes?) the Gothic king Vittigis. Likewise, the legend of the battle between Belisarius and Vittigis reports the death of the latter ([196], Volume 1; also see above). Belisarius the military leader and his enemies – the Gothic kings Totila and Teia – are active around the same time.

■ 25b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Pompey Magnus is killed by a certain Achillas, the leader of the brigade responsible for the death of Pompey the enemy of Julius Caesar ([660], Volume 2, pages 389-390). Achillas acts as the double of Belisarius here; his death follows shortly ([660], Volume 2, page 391.

■ ■ 25c. The Trojan War. Achilles kills the Trojan king Troilus ([851]). As we have just witnessed, Troilus is the double of the Gothic kings Totila and Teias. Let us also point out the stunning similarity between the names Achillas and Achilles (who also dies in a short while).

■ ■ ■  25d. The Tarquinian War. We didn’t manage to locate a duplicate here.

26a. The Trojan War. Belisarius was accused of treason and harbouring intentions to seize royal power in Italy ([196], Volume 1). He had presumably promised the Goths to accept the royal crown from their hands. Belisarius himself had denied the accusation; nevertheless, Emperor Justinian withdrew Belisarius from military action and called him away from Italy.

■ 26b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Julius Caesar is accused of plotting to seize royal power in Rome. Many Romans offer to crown him ([660]). See more details below. Julius Caesar is forced to refute the accusation of treason publicly. The events take place in peaceful Rome, there is no war at the time. According to Plutarch, “Caesar’s aspiration to be vested in royal powers was the thing that provoked the utmost hatred for him and the wish to kill him in the populace, for whom this was Caesar’s main crime… the people who urged Caesar to accept this authority had spread rumours across the nation…” ([660], Volume 2, page 485). All of this leads to the growing unpopularity of Caesar, who claims to have no secret plans and yet appears dangerously close to seizing actual “royal power”. Caesar, likewise his doubles Belisarius and Volusius, does his best to demonstrate the falsity of these accusations, rejecting the royal title that his minions had given him ([660], Volume 2, pages 485-486). However, it does little to calm the Romans down, and the hostility keeps on growing. Plutarch proceeds to tell us about the destruction of Caesar’s house (or the fable thereof, qv in [660], Volume 2, page 488).

■ ■ 26c. The Trojan War. The hero Achilles is also accused of treason and plotting to seize absolute royal power ([851]). This results in his withdrawal from combat – either voluntary or forced.

■ ■ ■  26d. The Tarquinian War. After the Tarquins are deposed in Rome, the wish to seize royal power is also incriminated to Publius Valerius, who makes a public refutation. Nevertheless, Valerius is drawn away from both the consulate and military action ([482]). Livy also reports the destruction of the home of Caesar’s double Publius Valerius, and tells us that the accusation of plotting to seize absolute royal power was also supported by the fact that Valerius had been building his house on a hill, turning it into an impregnable fortress. Valerius is said to have craved the cessation of these rumours and ordered for the house to be destroyed, and then re-built in a valley ([482]).

27a. The Gothic War. What we witness next is Belisarius falling into disfavour, his arrest and the confiscation of his property, promptly followed by his death in utter poverty ([196], Volume 1).

■ 27b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. A plot against Caesar hatches up in Rome, resulting in the treacherous murder of Julius Caesar. He is killed by a strike from behind. Plutarch tells us that “it was Cascas who had delivered the first blow, striking him in the hind-head with a sword” ([660], Volume 2, page 490).

■ ■ 27c. The Trojan War. Here we also see a plot against Achilles which results in his getting murdered perfidiously – once again, with a blow dealt from behind ([851]).

■ ■ ■  27d. The Tarquinian War. It is possible that Publius Valerius, the double of Belisarius, also fell into disfavour, since it is reported that he had died in poverty ([482]). We learn nothing of his murder, though.

28a. The Gothic War. No duplicate found here.

■ 28b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Plutarch claims that Titus Livy had written a biography of Julius Caesar ([660], Volume 2, page 488). Plutarch refers to the part of Livy’s Ab urbe condita, which had allegedly failed to reach our time ([660], Volume 2, page 545, comment 94).

■ ■ 28c. The Trojan War. We find no duplicate here.

■ ■ ■  28d. The Tarquinian War. Apparently, Titus Livy did in fact write Caesar’s biography; however, he had known him under a different name, that of Publius Valerius. In this case the respective part of Livy’s history must have been preserved and reached our day and age ([482]). As we are beginning to realize, Plutarch (Petrarch?) must have been absolutely right in making this claim.

29a. The Gothic War. Apart from fighting the Goths (TRQN), Belisarius also battles the Persians (PRS), qv in [196], Volume 1. We thus see two major foes; apart from that, Belisarius also takes part in the African campaign against the Vandals.

■ 29b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Julius Caesar launches the Persian campaign against Farnakh ([660], Volume 2, p. 480). The name is very similar to TRNK due to the frequent flexion of F and T. Moreover, we have already witnessed the identification of TRNK with the Franks; “Farnakh” and “Franks” are all but identical phonetically. Julius Caesar also launches an African campaign ([660], Volume 2, p. 482).

■ ■ 29c. The Trojan War. Achilles fights against Paris (PRS) and the Trojans (TRQN). We see the same pair of PRS and TRQN/TRNK.

■ ■ ■  29d. The Tarquinian War. Valerius battles against the Etruscan Larth Porsenna (L-Horde PRSN) and the Tarquins (TRQN). The two groups of foes prove similar yet again.

30a. The Gothic War. After the withdrawal of Belisarius from military action, the final defeat of the Goths is carried out by Narses (Narces), qv in [196], Volume 1. He finishes that which was started by Belisarius and acts as his successor. His unvocalized name transcribes as NRSS or NRCS.

■ 30b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Cicero also acts as the successor of Julius Caesar, after a manner, being a legate and a legion commander in Caesar’s army ([660], Volume 2, page 544; also see below). The unvocalized transcription of the name Cicero (CCR, or CCRN) would transform into NRCC when read back to front, in the Hebraic or Arabic manner. Let us also point out a certain similarity between the names of Caesar and Cicero (Tsitseron in Russian): CSR and CCR (CCRN) unvocalized.

■ ■ 30c. The Trojan War. Ulysses (Odysseus) treads in the footsteps of Achilles, bringing the war to a victorious finale. The names of Ulysses and Achilles are similar.

■ ■ ■  30d. The Tarquinian War. Larcius (or Marcius Coriolanus) picks up where Publius Valerius had left off. Larcius defeats the Tarquins and acts as the successor of Valerius, bringing his cause to a victory. The name Larcius is similar to that of Narces or Narses.

Commentary to 30b. In the time of the Gaulish War (the Galician War?) Cicero had been a legate in Caesar’s army, according to Plutarch ([660], Volume 2, page 465, “Caesar”, XXIV. Historians consider this Cicero to have been a “brother” of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the famous orator. However, Plutarch doesn’t mention any “brothers” whatsoever, and refers to this character simply as “Cicero”. Nowadays it is presumed that the famous “ancient” Cicero the orator had not been a professional military man, likewise Narses, his double in the Gothic War, who had allegedly been a eunuch at the court of Justinian. However, Cicero the orator had been Caesar’s ally, and often took part in military action – for instance, during the occupation of Cilicia, Cicero was commanding an army of 1200 infantrymen and 2600 horsemen ([660], Volume 3, page 180, “Cicero” XXXVI). Plutarch tells us that “he [Cicero – A. F.] also took part in combat… and the soldiers had titled him emperor” ([660], Volume 3, page 185. Cicero had been a consul, and it is known that “he did not participate in the plot against Caesar” ([660], Volume 3, page 185).

After the death of Julius Caesar, a popular movement burgeoned in Rome. It had brought Cicero to the crest of the political current that would make him the successor of Caesar. “Cicero’s name would get mentioned often… it held a special charm for the populace, being the symbol of the republic ([948], page 174). Therefore, according to Plutarch (Petrarch?), Cicero acts as Caesar’s incomer, in perfect accordance with similar scenarios for Narses/Belisarius and Ulysses/Achilles.

31a. The Gothic War. Narses and Belisarius are presumed to have been friends. Narses took no part in the arrest of Belisarius and the repressions against the latter. Narses had been a eunuch (orbator in Latin), qv in [237], pages 709-710. The word orbator means “infecund” or “childless”; it can also mean “a eunuch” when applied to a man.

■ 31b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Cicero and Caesar had also been on friendly terms. Cicero did not participate in the conspiracy against Caesar ([660]). Cicero had been an orator ([237]).

■ ■ 31c. The Trojan War. Ulysses (Odysseus) was a friend of Achilles. He didn’t take part in the Trojan plot against Achilles ([851). As we already know, certain authors may have referred to Achilles as a eunuch, since he had once “served in the gynaeceum”, qv above. The Latin for “eunuch” is orbator ([237]).

■ ■ ■  31d. The Tarquinian War. Titus Livy does not report any animosity between Larcius and Publius Valerius. We learn nothing of either Valerius or Larcius (Marcius) being a eunuch here.

Commentary. The words orator and orbator are obviously similar; therefore, mediaeval authors could easily confuse them. Some of the chroniclers – Procopius, for instance – would try to decipher the sparse and random data that had reached them and then give us flowery accounts of the alleged infertility of Narses = NRCC, which brought Narses the eunuch into existence. Other authors, such as Plutarch (Petrarch?) would read the word in question as orator and glorify Cicero (CCR/CCRN) as a talented speaker. The reference to Latin is quite in place here, since it is Roman history that we’re analysing. What we see in action is obviously the same psychological mechanism as in the case of a mediaeval aqueduct transforming into the Trojan horse. A foreign scribe would misinterpret the vaguely familiar word, giving it a new meaning due to similar phonetics, and then use his own considerations to provide the details which were often of a fanciful nature; all of this literary activity would then make its way into history textbooks.

32a. The Gothic War. Narses is the only eunuch (orbator) mentioned in the case of the Gothic War ([695] and [196], Volume 1).

■ 32b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Cicero and Caesar are the only famous orators mentioned by Plutarch in the context of the Roman War that took place in the alleged I century B.C. Caesar is supposed to have been the second best orator after Cicero. The fact that CCR (CCRN) acts as the successor of Caesar is also manifest in Plutarch referring to the pair as to “gifted orators”. Both Cicero and Caesar have studied elocution in the same school of Apollonius ([660], Volume 2, page 451, “Caesar” III). Plutarch tells us nothing about any other participants of the alleged I century B.C. war being renowned for eloquence.

■ ■ 32c. The Trojan War. Achilles is the only “eunuch” mentioned in the course of the Trojan War ([851] and [180]).

■ ■ ■  32d. The Tarquinian War. No duplicate was found here.

33a. The Gothic War. The first scenario: after the end of the Gothic War, Narses has to go into exile (we can refer to this episode as “the ordeal of Narses”). The second scenario: Narses soon returns to Rome triumphant ([196], Volume 1). The third scenario: we know nothing about the death of Narses and its circumstances.

■ 33b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The first scenario: the exile of Cicero after the Gaulish (Galician?) War – “the ordeal of Cicero” ([948], page 156). Cicero remained in exile for a year and a half (ibid). “His house in Rome was destroyed, his villas looted, and a great part of his property became confiscated… giving shelter to the fugitive was forbidden on the pain of death (if he were to appear anywhere within the radius of 500 miles from Rome)” ([948], page 156). The second scenario: despite all of this, Cicero soon returns to Rome triumphant. “Over the time [of Cicero’s exile – A. F.] the political climate in Rome had changed… a council of the people decided to call Cicero back to Rome. In August of the year 57 Cicero lands in Brundisia, and his journey to Rome… becomes a march of triumph. He gives speeches of gratitude to the senate and the people of Rome” ([948], page 156). Third scenario: the tragic demise of Cicero during his escape ([660], Volume 3, page 189).

■ ■ 33c. The Trojan War. First scenario: the wanderings of Ulysses (Odysseus) after the Trojan War, qv in Homer’s Odyssey, or “the ordeal of Ulysses/Odysseus”. Second scenario: Ulysses returns home triumphant. Third scenario: we know nothing of how Ulysses/ Odysseus had died.

■ ■ ■  33d. The Tarquinian War. First scenario: Marcius (Coriolanus) has to roam for some period after the end of the Tarquinian War, which can be referred to as “the ordeal of Marcius”. Second scenario: Marcius Coriolanus returns to Rome as the leader of troops menacing his home town ([482]). Third scenario: the tragic death of Marcius Coriolanus during his escape ([482]).

We have exhausted all the primary scenarios in each of the four versions under comparison: we see their “skeletons” are identical. Therefore, one has a reason to consider them four different accounts of the same sequence of events that took place at some time in the Middle Ages. Let us now compare the remaining scenarios of minor importance, concentrating our attention on the comparison of the Gothic War with the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C.

34a. The Gothic War. Antonine, the wife of the military leader Belisarius, is one of the central figures emerging in this period ([695] and [196], Volume 1). She accompanies Belisarius for the entire duration of the Gothic War and is reported to have been a powerful and intelligent woman with a great influence over her husband.

■ 34b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Antonius is the closest comrade-in-arms of Julius Caesar; he is one of the primary characters emerging in the Roman civil war. Antonius accompanies Caesar for the entire duration of his war with Pompey ([660], Volume 2, page 474, “Caesar”). Let us remind the reader that the war in question is a duplicate of the Gothic War; one cannot help but notice the striking similarity between the names of Antonine and Antonius.

Commentary. What we see is obviously a result of confusion that arose somewhere in the mediaeval chronicles. The texts of the Gothic War consider “Antonine” a woman, whilst Plutarch tells us that “Antonius” had been a man. Also, Plutarch keeps comparing the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. that he describes with the Trojan War, apparently under the influence of the parallelism and without any prompting from our part. He is also forced to compare Antonius the “man” with Helen the “woman”: “Cicero in his Philippics tells us that while the Trojan War began because of Helen, the civil war was started by Antonius ([660], Volume 3, page 230). We shall see many more examples of gender confusion in the analysis of “ancient” Greek history; below we shall see that some of the scribes were making references to “the woman” Mathilda, while the others would tell us about “the man” Milthiades.

35a. The Gothic War. Antonine had been a famous prostitute. According to Procopius, she had only been second to Empress Theodora, the wife of Justinian and “prostitute number one”, in that respect ([695]). Therefore, Antonine could easily have been called a hetera.

■ 35b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The history of the civil war of the alleged I century B.C. calls Antonius an utterly debauched person. Plutarch tells us all sorts of legends about his depravity, qv below.

Commentary to 35b. According to Plutarch, “Antonius had been unbelievably handsome in his youth… Curio had aided him [Antonius – A. F.] to develop a taste for drunkenness, debauchery and wasting money in the most horrendous manner” ([660], Volume 3, page 227, “Antonius” II). Plutarch carries on with the description of Antonius and his favoured pastimes for many pages on end. Respectable civilians were “repulsed by the entire lifestyle of Antonius – his constant inebriation, throwing money left and right, as well as endless wenching” ([660], Volume 3, page 232, “Antonius” IX.

All of these characteristics make Antonius quite unique, since Plutarch doesn’t reveal any details of this sort in his description of any other characters that had lived in the alleged I century B.C. Thus, the automatic superimposition of Plutarch’s “debauched Antonius” over “Antonine the prostitute” serves to confirm the correctness of the parallelism that we observe manifest in Roman history yet again. The chronicles that modern historians date to the VI century A.D. call Antonine a hetera. However, one needn’t be of the opinion that the word “hetera” only translates as “prostitute”. It turns out that heterae had also been a word used for referring to horsemen from elite Roman troops ([660], Volume 2, page 531, comment 7). Therefore, a man from these troops could also become dubbed a “hetera”, which means we may have discovered the real reason why Antonius (male) had transformed into Antonine (female). Some mediaeval scribe came across the words “Antonius the hetera” in an ancient text and translated them erroneously as “Antonine the prostitute”, having instantly invented countless piquant details to embellish “her” biography.

36a. The Gothic War. Antonine the hetera, who had been the wife of Belisarius, the empire’s commander-in-chief, was obviously a frequent visitor at the court of Emperor Justinian ([695]).

■ 36b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Antonius the “hetera” had indeed been the leader of elite cavalry in Julius Caesar’s troops ([660]), qv below.

Commentary to 36b. Antonius the “hetera” was the leader of Roman cavalry ([660], Volume 3, page 228, “Antonius” III) who had personally commanded the troops on the battlefield – in the battle against Octavian Caesar, for instance ([660], Volume 3, page 270). Apart from that, we have to remember that Antonius commanded the cavalry of Julius Caesar, the double of Belisarius - “the great king” of the Gothic War, as Plutarch tells us; Procopius, on the other hand, tells us of Antonine the hetera who was obeying her husband Belisarius. Plutarch emphasizes the fact that “the leader of the cavalry was only second to the dictator” ([660], Volume 3, page 231, “Antonius” VIII. The persons he refers to are, respectively, Antonius and Julius Caesar.

37a. The Gothic War. Antonine the hetera is the wife of Belisarius ([695]).

■ 37b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C., the Roman “hetera” Antonius was married to “Julia from the house of the Caesars” ([660], Volume 3, page 227, “Antonius” II). We see an obvious confusion of two similar verbal formulae: 1) Antonine is married to Belisarius (Julius Caesar), and 2) Antonius is married to Julia from the house of the Caesars.

38a. The Gothic War. The famous hetera Theodora was married to the “main king”, Emperor Justinian I ([695]). According to Procopius, she eventually became the empress of Romea. Her numerous portraits adorn the temples of the New Rome (Constantinople), qv in [196], Volume 1. Theodora had been the most famous empress in Rome. Her name is similar to that of Flora that we are about to introduce into the narrative, and the two names may be related to each other. In fig. 2.78 one sees a golden medallion with a portrait of Justinian; in fig. 2.79 we see an old mosaic portraying Justinian from the church of St. Vitalius in Ravenna, and a similar mosaic with the portrait of his wife Theodora in fig. 2.80.

Fig. 2.78 A portrait of Justinian from a golden medallion that is currently lost. The medallion was kept in the British Museum (London). Taken from [1122], p. 1.

Fig. 2.79 Justinian. An inlay from the Church of St. Vitalius (Ravenna, Italy). Taken from [1122], p. 12. See also [328], p. 94, and [196], Vol. 2, p. 188, ill. 32.

Fig. 2.80 Theodora. An inlay from the Church of St. Vitalius (Ravenna, Italy). Taken from [1122], p. 13. See also [196], Vol. 2, p. 189, ill. 33.

■ 38b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C., the famous hetera Flora had been the lover of the “main king” Pompey Magnus, the double of Justinian ([660], Volume 2, pages 334-335, “Pompey” II). According to Plutarch, Flora’s fame had been so great that her portraits would adorn temples (?!) and be offered to the gods (?!), see [660], Volume 2, page 335, “Pompey” II. This seems an unlikely manner for treating a prostitute; however, the parallelism that we discovered gives us an instant explanation. Flora’s portraits were hung in temples since she is the double of the Romean empress Theodora in Plutarch’s rendition of the events, and not because of her fame as a prostitute, great as it may have been. However, her lifetime is misdated to the VI century A.D. – the correct dating would be a late mediaeval one. We do indeed see portraits of empress Theodora in the holy temples of Romea ([196], Volume 1). Once again we witness how our parallelism helps us understand the true events of the Middle Ages, wiping away confusion and distortions.

We shall proceed with comparing several more scenarios pertinent to the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. (“b” series) and the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C. (“d” series).

■ 39b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. According to Plutarch, in the epoch of the alleged I century B.C. a certain incident occurred, involving Romans called away from Rome “to seek freedom upon a mountain” ([660]; also see the details below).

■ ■ ■  39d. The Tarquinian War. According to Titus Livy, the Roman plebs had left Rome to search “freedom upon a mountain” ([482]).

Commentary. In his rendition of the XIII century events from the course of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War, the mediaeval Plutarch (Petrarch?) informs us of the fact that the proclamation of “freedom upon a mountain” had been rather famous in this epoch; the first and only time it ever sounded in the entire history of Rome up until the alleged I century B.C. had been in the epoch of the war with the Tarquins.

Therefore, Plutarch gives us direct indications of parallels exactly where they are supposed to be as a result of chronological shifts. In this case, he points out the parallelism between the war of the alleged I century B.C. and the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C., telling us that “Catullus had made a speech with numerous arguments against the law… however, since he hadn’t manage to convince anyone in the Popular Assembly, he addressed the Senate, shouting repeated proclamations from the orator’s dais and telling the senators that they should follow the example of their ancestors [sic! – A. F.] and retreat to some mountain or rock, which had to be found first in order to save freedom from peril” ([660], Volume 2, pages 354-355, “Pompey” XXX). Modern historians comment as follows: “he [Plutarch – A. F.] is referring to the first years of the Roman republic when the plebs, frustrated by the endless and fruitless struggle against the patricians, had left Rome and found retreat on the Holy Mountain” ([660], Volume 2, page 536, comment 41). A propos, Plutarch also mentions Catullus addressing the “popular assembly”, or the plebs.

■ 40b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In his description of the Roman war that broke out in the alleged I century B.C., Petrarch makes the sudden reference to an allegedly ancient event – namely, the rape of the Sabine women. The reference is a very timely one, since this is precisely where our parallelism places this scenario.

■ ■ ■  40d. The Tarquinian War. Titus Livy cites the famous legend of the rape of the Sabines when he tells us about the foundation of the City (allegedly Italian Rome, see [482]).

Commentary. Once again, Plutarch (the mediaeval Petrarch?) doesn’t require our prompt to include the legendary rape of the Sabines into his rendition of the war that took place in the alleged I century B.C., emphasizing its “repetition/revival” in the epoch of Julius Caesar. Let us remind the reader that Titus Livy places this legend in the epoch that precedes the foundation of Rome – the alleged VIII century B.C. As we already understand, the “rape of the Sabines” is an integral part of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War. Plutarch tells us that “Antistius the praetor… had felt sympathy for Pompey and offered the latter to marry his daughter… Pompey agreed to this, and so they signed a secret agreement” ([660], Volume 2, page 336). Bear in mind that, according to Livy, the rape of the Sabines was also plotted in secrecy.

Plutarch proceeds to tell us that “all secrecy notwithstanding… the populace learnt of the deal… as Antistius was voicing the verdict, the people started to shout “Talassia”, an ancient wedding exclamation… this custom harks back to the day when the bravest of Romans were abducting the Sabine women…” ([660], Volume 2, page 336, “Pompey” IV). Plutarch proceeds with his rendition of the actual legend. It has to be noted that Plutarch doesn’t mention the epoch that this custom belongs to originally; his mere mention of its being “old” does not imply that the legend has to be shifted several centuries backwards.

We shall end our brief overview of the parallelism between the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. and the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War. A concise graphical scheme of the parallelism is shown in figs. 2.81-2.84. We are using arbitrarily chosen geometrical figures in lieu of numbers; this provides for a more representative graph demonstrating each row to consist of different scenarios unrelated to each other. The parallelism that we have discovered manifests in the quadruple multiplication of one and the same row.

Fig. 2.81. A brief scheme of the parallelism between the Gothic, Trojan and Tarquinian War, as well as the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. Part one.

Fig. 2.82. A brief scheme of the parallelism between the Gothic, Trojan and Tarquinian War, as well as the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. Part two.

Fig. 2.83. A brief scheme of the parallelism between the Gothic, Trojan and Tarquinian War, as well as the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. Part three.

Fig. 2.84. A brief scheme of the parallelism between the Gothic, Trojan and Tarquinian War, as well as the Roman war of the alleged I century B.C. Part four.

5.

The rebellion of Spartacus as a vague and fragmented reflection of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War of the XIII century A.D.

Apparently, when the Scaligerites were busy shuffling mediaeval chronicles and their fragments, another partial duplicate of the XIII century war (Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic) made its way into the epoch of the “Great Triad” – the kings Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, that is. The situation we encounter here is perfectly similar to what we observe in the course of the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. – its history contains a brief account of itself disguised as the so-called Nika Rebellion in Constantinople = New Rome, all courtesy of the Scaligerian school in history. The documented history of the Roman civil war that took place in the alleged I century B.C. includes a concise rendition of the very same war – we're referring to the famous rebellion of Spartacus. In both cases we see that these “compressed versions” are referred to as mutinies or rebellions.

As we have already seen, in the war of the alleged I century B.C. the Romans oppose the TRQN as well as the PRS. What we provide below is but a brief outline of a possible parallelism here; enthusiasts are by all means welcome to delve further.

41a. The Gothic War. The war of the Romean Greeks and the Romans against the Persians (PRS) and TRQN (the Franks and the Goths). The war is dated to the alleged VI century A.D. It was won by the Romans/Romeans, Italy being the alleged primary battlefield ([695] and [196], Volume 1).

■ 41b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C. the Romans have an armed conflict with Spartacus, whose unvocalized name transcribes as SPR-TC. This may be a merged form of PRS and TK, which had once been used for referring to the Franks or the P-Russians, as well as the Turks. The war with Spartacus (SPR-TC) ends with a victory of the Romans ([660]), and supposedly takes place in Italy.

42a. The Gothic War. In all three primary duplicates of the XIII century war (Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic), the enemies of Rome are the TRQN – that is, the Goths = the Trojans = the Franks = the Turks (or the Tartars?), qv above. We shall re-emphasize the fact that the two primary opponents of Rome that we see here are the PRS and the TRK.

■ 42b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. Spartacus was Thracian by birth ([660], Volume 2, page 242). He is known to have been a sworn enemy of the “ancient” Rome. Thracia may well be Turkey (TRC or TRK sans vocalizations). We learn that most of the mutinous “slaves” (gladiators) in the Capuan school have been of Gaulish and Thracian origins. The actual word “gladiator” may be a derivative of the words “Gaul” and “Tur” (Gauls + Turks or Gauls + Tartars). We should also remember the famous mediaeval Galicia, which may have been known as Gaul at some point in time; apart from that, the name was also used for referring to France. Thus, we see two forces opposing Rome: PRS (Galicia/France, Paris or P-Russians) and TRK (the Franks, the Turks and/or the Tartars).

43a. The Gothic War. The Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War is considered to have been one of the greatest and bloodiest wars in the history of the empire.

■ 43b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. The war with Spartacus in the alleged I century B.C. had been an extremely hard and violent one. It had led to the devastation of the entire Italy. Plutarch wrote that “all of Italy was swept over by a wave of looting during the gladiator's rebellion, also known as the Spartacian War… the senate's irritation at the low and ignominous nature of the rebellion [of Spartacus – A. F.] gave place to fear and awareness of peril; therefore, the Senate sent both consuls to suppress the rebellion, as it would in case of an all-out war, brutal and bloody” ([660], Volume 2, pages 242-243.

44a. The Gothic War. Commander-in-chief Narses (the double of Julius Caesar and Cicero) finally triumphs over the PRS (Persians, or P-Russians) and the TRK (Franks/Goths) together with his liege, Emperor Justinian I (the double of Pompey Magnus), qv in [695] and [196], Volume 1.

■ 44b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. In the alleged I century B.C. Crassus and Pompey Magnus defeat Spartacus (SPR-TK), qv in [660], Volume 2, page 246. We have already witnessed the superimposition of Pompey over Justinian; the possible identification of Crassus as Narses is a novelty. The unvocalized name of Crassus transcribes as CRSS, which may be a misinterpretation of NRSS (Narses) resulting from the graphic similarities between the Slavic letters K and H (used for sounds K and N, respectively), as well as the Romanic N.

45a. The Gothic War. Bear in mind that during the siege of Alesia (the double of Troy = the New City = Naples) Julius Caesar builds a “double wall” around the besieged. As we have already pointed out, it is a distorted recollection of the aqueduct. Paris (PRS, or P-Rus) got killed in the Trojan War ([851]).

■ 45b. Sulla, Pompey and Caesar. We discover that a similar scenario applies to the rebellion of Spartacus. The Romans take the camp of Spartacus by guile: Crassus, the double of Narses and/or Caesar orders for the camp under siege to be surrounded by a wall and a moat “whose size and fortitude had been truly formidable” ([660], Volume 2, page 244). Spartacus (the double of Paris) also dies a violent death ([660], Volume 2, page 246.

Thus, what we see in the Byzantine/Romean history of the alleged VI century A.D. is: primo, a detailed account of the war known as the Gothic War from the alleged XIII century A.D. (subsequently described as the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D.); secundo, a brief version of the same war under the alias of “the Nika Rebellion”. The Roman history of the alleged I century B.C. is virtually the same – an in-depth rendition of the same XIII century war presented as the civil war in Rome (Sulla, Pompey and Caesar), and its shorter version, the story of Spartacus and his rebellion. This alone demonstrates us that both mediaeval Byzantine history of the alleged VI century A.D. and “ancient” Roman history of the alleged I century B.C. are but later copies of the same mediaeval original dating to the XIII century – or, quite possibly, an even more recent epoch.

6.

A general picture of the 1053-year chronological shift

6.1. The identification of the First Roman Empire (Livy's Regal Rome) as the Third Roman Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D. and the 1053-year shift

We have already made quite a few references to this parallelism above. Therefore, let us simply remind that it happens to mark the beginning of an extremely lengthy parallelism between the “ancient” and mediaeval Roman history; one that covers a span of some 1,500 years.

Let us now consider the next sequence of the parallelism that manifests if we consider the 1053-year shift.

6.2. Identifying the Second Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century as well as the Habsburg Empire of the XIV-XVII century. Two shifts – of 1053 and 1400 years, respectively

The superimposition of the “ancient” history over that of the Middle Ages (with the chronological shift of 1053 years taken into account) continues into the subsequent epochs. In particular, the Second Roman Empire (of the alleged centuries I B.C. – III A.D.) becomes identified as the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged years 962-1254 A.D. (see fig. 2.85). Bear in mind that the proximity coefficient for both of these dynasties equals 1.3 × 10–12.

Fig. 2.85 The parallelism between the Second Roman Empire of the alleged I century B.C. – III century A.D. and the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century A.D.

It is significant that the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century fits into the parallelism that we discovered perfectly – all the years that had passed between 1002 and 1271. Of all the rulers that the Second Roman Empire ever had, starting with Octavian Augustus and ending with Caracalla, only nine aren't represented in the parallelism, namely, Galba (who had reigned in the alleged years 68-69 A.D.), Vitellius (69 A.D.), Nerva (96-98 A.D.), Pertinax (193 A.D.), Didius Julianus (193 A.D.), Clodius Albinus (reigned as an independent ruler for less than one year in 193; also in 193-197), Pescennius Niger (around a year in 193-194 A.D.) and Geta (around 3 years in 209-212 A.D.), see [72] pages 236-237. They have all been short-term emperors, in other words, and may thus have been excluded from the parallelism as secondary figures.

Thus, insofar as the indicated timeframe is concerned, the parallelism exhausts the entire Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century, and almost all of the Second Empire, excepting several short-term rulers. Let us remind the reader that every ruler of the Holy Roman Empire had simultaneously been a German king and an emperor of Rome in that epoch, hence the double inauguration dates and double reign durations (one for Germany, the other for Rome). It is significant that in each case the parallelism in question relates to the German reign durations of the Holy Roman Empire rulers in the X-XIII century ([64], see table on page 250). The parallelism looks like this:

1a. Henry II the Holy + Conrad (Horde Khan?) Salian – 37 years (1002-1039 A.D.) Both reign durations are German, qv above. The name Henry (Heinrich) can be related to the words “Khan” and “Reich”, or “Rex”. The name Conrad may have meant “Khan of the Horde”.

■ 1b. Octavian Augustus – 37 years, or the first version of the reign (23 B.C. to 14 A.D.); see Chron2, Chapter 1.

2a. Conrad II Salian – 15 years: 1024-1039 A.D. The second Khan of the Horde?

■ 2b. Germanicus – 13 years between 6 and 19 A.D. This pair can be excluded, as a matter of fact, since despite the royal status of Germanicus in the Second Empire, he had been a co-ruler of a more renowned ruler – Tiberius.

3a. Henry III the Black – 28 years (1028-1056 A.D.)

■ 3b. Tiberius + Caligula – 27 years (14-41 A.D.)

4a. Henry V – 53 years between 1053 and 1106. The parallelism is broken here, since there is no similar reign in the Second Empire.

■ 4b. The parallelism is instantly restored if we are to study the full names of the Second Empire rulers. We find out that the four emperors Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero can be united into a sequence resembling a long reign of a single emperor. The matter is that all four of them had the formula Tiberius Claudius Nero as part of their name, which is their unique characteristic in the entire Second Empire ([72], page 236-237). Apparently, the scribes have collated them together, which resulted in a 54-year reign of a single “ruler” – Tiberius Claudius Nero. Thus, Tiberius + Caligula + Claudius + Nero – 54 years between 14 and 68 A.D.

5a. Henry V the Black ([64], page 227); German reign duration – 27 years between 1098 and 1125 A.D.; Roman reign duration – 14 years between 1111 and 1125 A.D.

■ 5b. Claudius + Nero – 27 years: 41-68 A.D., or 14 years for Nero alone (54-68 A.D.)

6a. Lothair – 12 years: 1125-1137 A.D.

■ 6b. Two kings sharing the name of Titus Vespasian – 12 years between 69 and 81 A.D.

7a. Conrad III Hohenstaufen – 14 years (1138-1152 A.D.) There is a possible link between Conrad and “Khan of the Horde”.

■ 7b. Domitian – 15 years (81-96 A.D.)

8a. Frederick I Barbarossa (a barbarian from Russia?) – 38 years between 1152 and 1190 A.D.

■ 8b. Trajan + Adrian – 40 years: 98-138 A.D. The unification of these two rulers may result from their sharing the name Trajan as part of their full names, qv in [72], pages 236-237.

9a. Henry VI – 28 years (1169-1197 A.D.)

9b. Antoninus Pius – 23 years (138-161 A.D.)

10a. Philip of Swabia – 10 years (1198-1208 A.D.)

■ 10b. Lucius Verus – 9 years (161-169 A.D.)

11a. Otho IV of Brunswick – 20 years (1198-1218 A.D.)

■ 11b. Marcus Aurelius – 19 years (161-180 A.D.)

12a. Frederick II – 39 years (1211-1250 A.D.) 1211 here is the date of the second inauguration in Germany – the final crowning.

■ 12b. Commodus + Caracalla – 37 years (180-217 A.D.). The reign of Commodus is calculated from the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius; this is therefore the second version (see Chron2, Chapter 1, the Second Empire list). We must point out that the merging of these two rulers into one and the same person is most probably explained by the fact that the full names of both Commodus and Caracalla contain the formula Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which happens to comprise half of each full name in question.

13a. Conrad IV – 17 years (1237-1254 A.D.). Conrad – Horde Khan?

■ 13b. Septimius Severus – 18 years (193-211 A.D.)

14a. Interregnum – 17 years (1256-1273 A.D.)

■ 14b. Interregnum (Julia Maesa and her minions, qv in Chron2, Chapter 1) – 18 years (217-235 A.D.)

Since our proximity coefficient is defined by the formula 1.3 × 10–12, both dynasties superimpose over each other quite well, considering the same universal rigid shift of 1053 years. We shall now give a brief outline of the biographical parallelism manifest here (the form-code parallelism).

1a. The Second Empire. The total lifetime of the Second Roman Empire equals about 299 years – the total period between the alleged years 82 B.C. and 217 A.D., qv in Chron2, Chapter 1. This empire is considered “purely Roman”, and its parent state is allegedly Italy.

■ 1b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The entire period of the Holy Roman Empire’s existence covers the span of roughly 292 years, starting with either 962 or 965 A.D. and ending with 1254 A.D. This state is supposed to have consisted of Italian and German lands, the parent state being Italy. The lengths of the temporal spans covered by both empires are quite similar.

2a. The Second Empire. A shift of 1053 years forward shall date the formation of the Second Roman Empire to 971 A.D. (the year 671 ab urbe condita + 300 years = 971 A.D.) Sulla, the first emperor of the Second Empire, was titled “Restorer of the City/State/Peace”. See Chron2, Chapter 1.

■ 2b. Empire of the X-XIII century. This empire came into existence in either 962 A.D., the year Otho was crowned in Rome, or 965 A.D., the year he conquered Italy ([64], page 205). Otho I, the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, is said to have “resurrected the Roman Empire” ([64]). Mark the parallelism with Sulla. This deed of Otho’s is important enough to make the headings of historical reviews. For instance, Paragraph 14 of [64] is entitled “The Revival of the Western Empire for the Benefit of Otho I (962)” ([64], page 206). Thus, we see the rulers standing at the roots of the two empires under comparison to bear the same title of “Restorer” or “Reviver” of the City (or the State). Let us point out the fact that the dates 962 and 965 all but coincide with the parallel date – 971 (see above).

3a. The Second Roman Empire. After a 1053-year shift forward in time, the dissolution of the Second Empire falls on the year 1270 A.D. This is where the end of Caracalla’s reign gets relocated (the alleged year 217 A.D.) Caracalla is the last emperor of the Second Empire; what we see after his reign is an 18-year period of wars (the alleged years 217-325 A.D. – the so-called Gothic War of the III century A.D. This is the epoch of Julia Maesa and her minions (see Chron2, Chapter 1).

■ 3b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The decline of the Holy Roman Empire is somewhat “marred” by the war and covers the period between either 1252 or 1254 and 1256 ([64]). 1254 is considered the year when the Empire of the X-XIII century ceased to exist officially, according to the Scaligerian chronology ([64], table on page 250). It is significant that the year 1254 is very close to the “parallel date” – 1270 A.D., qv above. Therefore, we witness the datings of the rise and the fall of both empires under comparison to concur very well with each other, if one is to consider a 1053-year shift. This period (ending in 1256) is followed by 17 years of anarchy and interregnum in Italy and Germany (1256-1273, qv in [76], Table 25. The durations of both “parallel wars” identifying as one and the same war are almost identical – 18 and 17. The parallelism is thus manifest in a very obvious manner.

4a. Second Empire. A large amount of “ancient” Roman golden coinage from the epoch of the Second Empire has reached our day (see [1070], [1163] and [1164]). See Chron1, Chapter 1 for more details. For the most part, these coins are of very fine mintage and resemble the golden coins of mediaeval Europe in quality as well as subjects – for instance, the ones minted in the XIV-XV century Italy. It may well be that these coins were made in the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century A.D., but became misdated by chronologists and “time-travelled” into a “distant age”.

■ 4b. Empire of the X-XIII century. It is most peculiar that there are hardly any golden coins of the Holy Roman Empire left in existence ([1070], [1163] and [1164]). See Chron1, Chapter 1. This bizarre fact was noticed by numismatists a long time ago, spawning a great many explanatory theories in numismatic literature. These coins are most probably known to us under a different name and erroneously dated to the epoch of the Second Empire, the chronological shift equalling 1053 years.

5a. Second Empire. The decline of this empire is roughly dated to the alleged year 217 A.D. It is interesting that in the Third Roman Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D. the amount of golden coinage is drastically lower than in the Second Empire that is supposed to have preceded it. Our explanation of this effect is a very simple one: most of these coins had remained in their “rightful place”, that is, the XIV-XVII century A.D.

■ 5b. Empire of the X-XIII century. In 1252 Italy “begins” to mint full-weight golden coins – quite unexpectedly for Scaligerian history ([1070], pages 20-21). Bear in mind that the end of the Second Roman Empire falls on the alleged years 1263-1270 A.D. after a 1053-year shift forward. This dating is very close to 1252 A.D. Thus, the numismatic data for both of the parallel empires concur well with each other, if we are to consider the 1053-year shift.

6a. Second Empire. This state is of a distinct republican/imperial character, and combines elements of a republic with those of an empire.

■ 6b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The Holy Roman Empire also has manifest characteristics of both a republic and an empire; said institutions managed to coexist in some way. The famous mediaeval Roman republic blossoms in the period of 1143-1155.

7a. Second Empire. Some of the emperors here share the formula of Germanicus Caesar Augustus between themselves as a common part of their respective full names – the emperors Germanicus, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and Vitellius, for instance ([72]; see also Chron2, Chapter 1).

■ 7b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The rulers of the Holy Roman Empire have simultaneously been Roman emperors and German Kaisers Augusti ([64], page 250). Thus, their full names would include the same formula of “Germanicus Caesar Augustus”, Kaiser being a version of Caesar.

8a. Second Empire. A famous eruption of the Vesuvius took place in the alleged year 79; this resulted in the destruction of Pompeii, the “ancient” town ([389]). This eruption is the only one observed over the first two centuries of the new era according to the Scaligerian chronology, qv in fig. 2.86. Let us quote the entire list of Vesuvius’ eruptions that became reflected in the chronicles of the last two alleged millennia (taken from page 28 of [389]). We have the Scaligerian Anno Domini datings before us: 79 A.D., 203, 472, 512, 685, 993, 1036, 1049, 1138, 1139, 1306, 1500, 1631, 1660, 1682, 1694, 1698, 1701, 1704, 1712, 1717, 1730, 1737, 1751, 1754, 1760, 1766, 1767, 1770, 1771, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, 1786, 1790, 1794, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1810, 1811, 1813, 1817, 1822, 1822, 1831, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1839, 1841, 1845, 1847 and 1847.

Fig. 2.86 The eruptions of Vesuvius according to the Scaligerian chronology. It is plainly visible that the two “ancient” eruptions, of 79 and 472 A.D., respectively (the ones that destroyed the “ancient” Pompeii) are most likely to be reflections of the eruptions that took place in 1138-1139 and 1500 across the 1053-year shift. Taken from [389], page 28.

The following report of V. Klassovsky is of a great interest to us: “some scientists (N. Ignarra, Laporte-du-Theil. v. magasin encycloped. 1803. t. IV. P. 145 Sqq.) tried to prove that it had not been the 79 A.D. eruption of the Vesuvius that brought Pompeii to the condition it was discovered in at the end of the XIX century. Indeed, Suetonius and Cassius Dio testify that Emperor Titus gave orders to rebuild it forthright, and so Pompeii continued to exist as a town under Hadrian and the Antoninii; it can even be seen on the Peutinger Map (Tabula Peutingeriana), which is dated to the IV century. However, since there are no subsequent references to Pompeii anywhere, it is presumed that it was destroyed by the eruption of 471 the earliest” ([389], pages 28-29).

Thus, we find out that Pompeii may have been destroyed a great deal later than 79 A.D. – in the alleged years 471 or 472 A.D., or four centuries later. Now let us try and estimate whether these two “ancient” eruptions of the Vesuvius can be phantom reflections of their mediaeval originals misplaced due to the 1053-year shift.

■ 8b. Empire of the X-XIII century. In fig. 2.86 one sees perfectly well that all three Vesuvius eruptions of the first alleged centuries of the new era (the ones dated to 79, 203 and 472 A.D.) are most likely to be phantom reflections of mediaeval eruptions dating to 1138-1139, 1306 and 1500 A.D. Thus, the “ancient” town of Pompeii had most probably been wiped out by the eruption of 1500 A.D. – in the beginning of the XVI century, that is. Its first partial destruction could have taken place in 1138-1139 A.D. Then both these eruptions “time-travelled” into the past as a result of the 1053-year shift and transformed into the eruptions of the alleged years 79 and 472 A.D. Let us point out that the 1138 eruption of Vesuvius had been an extremely powerful one ([544], Volume 2, page 106; also [389], page 28). It is reported that “Mount Vesuvius has been disgorging fire for 40 days” (quoting after [544], Volume 2, page 107). The chronicle of Falcone Beneventano dates this eruption to 1139. Let us point out that after a 1053-year shift forwards, 79 A.D. becomes 1132 A.D., which is a mere six years away from 1138 A.D. This discrepancy is infinitesimal considering the millenarian value of the chronological shift. Fig. 2.87 depicts the 1822 eruption of Vesuvius (an old engraving taken from [544], Volume 2, page 124, ill. 60).

Fig. 2.87 An engraving depicting the Vesuvius eruption of 1822. Taken from [544], Volume 2, page 124, ill. 60.

Commentary. In Chapter 1 of Chron1 we already discussed the fact that the archaeological findings from the “ancient” Pompeii are amazingly similar to their mediaeval counterparts in style and nature. Everything fits perfectly. If the eruption of 1500 (or even that of 1671) is to blame for the fate of Pompeii, it makes perfect sense that the destroyed city was mediaeval. The fossilized dust was removed during excavations, unveiling the quotidian realities of an Italian town the way it had been in the end of the XV century A.D. One should hardly wonder that V. Klassovsky cannot refrain from making the following perplexed comment to the engravings included in his book entitled A Systematic Description of Pompeii and the Artefacts Discovered There: “The picture of a bronze saucepan from Herculaneum can be seen in engraving XIII, number eight; if we’re to compare it to the kind used nowadays, we shall discover the two to be completely identical, which is most curious in itself” ([389], page 238). Nothing curious here; the “ancient” inhabitants of Pompeii were using saucepans resembling modern ones towards the end of the XV century. We begin to realise why Rafael’s frescoes are so much like the ones found in Pompeii (see Chron1, Chapter 1). Rafael and the “ancient” Pompeian artists had lived in the same epoch and the same country (Italy); thus, they all painted in a similar manner.

The famous astronomer Claudius Ptolemy is presumed to have lived in the II century A.D., or the epoch of the Second Roman Empire. In fig. 2.88 we can see a portrait of the “ancient” Ptolemy from a star chart by Albrecht Dürer dated to the alleged year 1515 ([515], page 185; also [90], page 9). Ptolemy’s “ancient” attire is most peculiar indeed! For instance, he is wearing a silk hat, which hadn’t been worn at any epoch preceding the XVII-XVIII century. Historians have naturally discovered this fact a long time ago, but tend to comment it with the utmost caution, rounding off rough chronological corners – for instance, they say that “one can see Ptolemy dressed in quite as strange a manner in the top right corner [of the map – A. F.]” ([515], page 187). A propos, modern historians are also irritated by how the “ancient” astronomer Aratus is represented in the top left corner of the map ([515], page 187) since it contradicts the consensual concept of “ancient clothing”.

Fig. 2.88 Fragment of a star chart drawn by Albrecht Dürer in the alleged year 1515. We see a portrait of the “ancient” Ptolemy who is supposed to have lived in the II century A.D. However, his attire cannot possibly predate the XVII century – mark the top hat on his head! Taken from [90], page 8.

Another question that arises in this respect concerns the real dating of Dürer’s star chart. It appears that early XVI century is too premature a dating – no silk hats had existed at that time. Dürer’s famous work isn’t likely to predate the XVII century.

Let us now return to the time when the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century was just being founded. We find out that yet another duplicate of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War wound up right here, in the X century. We shall linger on it for a short while.

6.3. Empire of the X-XIII century. The parallelism between the X century war and the “ancient” Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War

9) Empire of the X-XIII century. Senatrix Marozia = the “ancient” characters Tullia/Lucretia, Julia Maesa and Amalasuntha. The epoch in question is the X century, the very dawn of the Holy Roman Empire. Scaligerian chronologers have placed another duplicate of the XIII century war here (the original of the “ancient” Trojan War, that is). We shall point out all the main parallels between the events in the X century Rome (presumably in Italy) and those of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War.

The duration of the period between 931 and 954 A.D. equals 23 years, which is rather close to the 26 years of the Gothic war that took place in the alleged VI century A.D.: 536-552. The “legend of a woman” plays an important part in the history of the Tarquinian = Gothic War; the woman in question is either Amalasuntha (the alleged VI century A.D.), Tullia/Lucretia from the same century, or Julia Maesa from the alleged III century A.D.

The X century duplicate of this scenario is the story of Marozia, the Roman Senatrix. Let us remind the leader that Titus Livy mentions a strong will for power among Tullia’s primary qualities ([482]); the Tarquinian coup in Rome had been her idea. Chronicles dated to the X century A.D. nowadays characterize Marozia in the same way, telling us that “two minor popes had come in the wake of John X; there aren’t any doubts about both of them being creatures of Marozia, who had become omnipotent by that point” ([196], Volume 3, page 240).

This story is most likely to duplicate the legend of the “ancient” Amalasuntha = Julia Maesa. Bear in mind that Amalasuntha had made her sons Amalaric and Athalaric Gothic kings of Rome, whereas in the X century Marozia handed power over to her son John XI and then to two other servitors of hers. Just as it had been in the “ancient” days of Amalasuntha = Julia Maesa, “she [Marozia – A. F.] became the de facto secular ruler of the city [Rome – A. F.], with power to appoint popes… thus came the time when the Church and all of Rome were tyrannized by a woman” ([196], Volume 3, page 240).

10) Empire of the X-XIII century. Hugo, the X century King of Italy vs the “ancient” Tarquin the Proud. We have already witnessed the “ancient” husband of the ambitious Tullia, Tarquin the Proud, become superimposed over the Goths of the alleged VI century A.D., as well as the Hohenstaufens of the XIII century A.D. Apparently, Hugo, the husband of Marozia, King of Italy, also happens to be a phantom reflection of the Hohenstaufen (Staufen) clan shifted backwards in time by roughly 333 years. Don’t forget the negative attitude of the “ancient” Titus Livy to Tarquin the Proud and his wife Tullia; we witness the chronicles dated to the X century A.D. to refer to Hugo with similar animosity. We learn the following of King Hugo: “a perfidious, avaricious and lecherous schemer, bold and lost to shame, ready to use any means to further the borders of his Italian kingdom in the most unscrupulous manner imaginable ([196], Vol. 3, p. 241). As for Senatrix Marozia, we learn the following: “ambition made her send envoys to Hugo with the offer of her hand and power over Rome… her limitless greed for fame fed on the thought of changing the titles of senatrix and patricia for the royal crown” ([196], Vol. 3, p. 243).

11) Empire of X-XIII century. The legend of “a woman wronged”. Let us remind the reader that this legend plays a crucial role in the inchoation of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War (the rape of Helen in the Trojan War and Lucretia in the Tarquinian; the Gothic version of the alleged VI century tells us about the humiliation and incarceration of Amalasuntha. According to Titus Livy, this “harm inflicted upon a woman” led to a coup d’état, the exile of the kings from Rome and the subsequent formation of the Roman Republic. The same scheme is present in the chronicles dated to the X century nowadays.

The motif we encounter here is just the same – some woman was insulted during a marital rite. We learn of the following: “the scribes remain taciturn about the festivities that had accompanied this amazing wedding [of Marozia and King Hugo – A. F.]… however, an unanticipated political upheaval in Rome makes it impossible for Hugo to become crowned Emperor… certain of his imminent and utter triumph, Hugo [the double of the “ancient” Tarquin the Proud – A. F.] had adopted the manners of an arrogant suzerain, treating Roman aristocracy with the utmost scorn” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). The X century king Hugo is an outsider in Rome, as well as the “ancient” Tarquin.

Then King Hugo “mortally affronted his young stepson Alberic, who had been against his mother’s wedding, since it had stood in his own way” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). Thus, Alberic is a double of the “ancient” Valerius, the hero of the Tarquinian War. Even their names possess a slight similarity if we’re to consider the flexion of B and V.

Hugo insults Alberic mortally “by proxy of a woman”, likewise the “ancient” clan of the Tarquins, one of which had raped Lucretia and thus humiliated Valerius, the double of Alberic. Both duplicate versions emphasize the sexual undertones in this struggle for power.

The story dated to the X century nowadays informs us of the following details: “Insidious Hugo was already plotting to do away… with Alberic at the first opportunity… serving his stepfather as a page at the insistence of his mother, the youth had one day started to pour water over the king’s hands with resolved indexterity… and the latter had struck him in the face” ([196], Volume 3, page 245).

12). The Empire of the X-XIII century. The uprising in the X century Rome = the exile of the kings in the “ancient” Tarquinian War. Going back to the history of the Tarquinian War, let us remind the reader that, according to Livy, the “humilation of a woman” leads to a civil uprising in Rome. The X century scenario is just the same: “burning with desire for revenge, Alberic… had called upon the Romans and inspired them with a speech wherein he had made it clear for everyone what utter humiliation it was to obey a woman and allow… ill-mannered barbarians to be their rulers” ([196], Volume 3, page 245).

As we already know, the “ancient” Livy describes a similar situation, emphasizing the fact that the Tarquins had been of a foreign origin, which made their rule a disgrace for Rome. The following happened in the X century: “the Romans rose in indignation… the people grabbed whatever arms they had and… rushed to besiege the castle of St. Angelus, the residence of Hugo and Marozia. The king decided to flee, since he did not aspire to face out the siege” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). This is most probably a reflection of the event described by the “ancient” Titus Livy as the exile of the Tarquinian rulers from Rome. Both duplicates (Livy’s as well as the X century version) tell us of the king fleeing Rome and surviving the upheaval.

We learn some curious details concerning these events: “like a runaway galley-slave, he [King Hugo – A. F.] climbed across the wall using a rope… and hurried to the camp of his troops” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). The “ancient” Titus Livy tells us the exact same thing, reporting that the troops of the banished king Tarquin had been camped outside Rome. In the X century A.D. king Hugo “was forced to make his retreat with them, covered in dishonour… for he had lost his wife as well as the imperial crown” ([196], Volume 3, page 245).

Both duplicate versions that we have under study tell us that this event marks the end of the royal period in Rome; Titus Livy also tells us the “ancient” Valerius had become a de facto ruler of Rome with the aid of Brutus. We see the same motif in the X century: “the Romans managed to liberate themselves from the king, the emperor and the temporal power of the pope with just one blow, having claimed the city’s independence” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). According to the “ancient” Titus Livy, this is how the Roman Republic came into being. The parallelism that we observe here is a very explicit one.

Alberic was “pronounced ruler of Rome… his first action had been the incarceration of his mother [Marozia – A. F.]” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). One should bear in mind the similarities in the Gothic War, namely, queen Amalasuntha thrown into prison, qv above. F. Gregorovius is perfectly correct to point out that “the masterminds of this uprising had been of noble birth, and thus Rome transformed into a republic for the patriciate” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). This is exactly how Livy describes the proclamation of the “ancient” republic.

Further we learn that “the revolution of 932 made away with the illegitimate power of a woman who abused the power of her gens… and her husbands, who had not been Roman [sic! – A. F.]” ([196], Volume 3, page 245). The “ancient” Titus Livy was telling us the same story: the Romans overthrew the power of Tarquin, a foreigner, and his hyper-ambitious wife Tanaquil. We see this parallelism with the Tarquinian war continue into the X century: “the exile of Hugo [or the Exile of the Kings in Livy’s rendition – A. F.] was the means used by the Romans to make a loud and clear statement that they would never accept foreign rule, neither royal nor imperial, and that the ruling power should be of a national origin… Rome transforms into a free secular state” ([196], Volume 3, page 246).

As is the case with “Livy’s ancient Rome”, the Republican senate “makes a sudden comeback” in the X century. We are surprised to discover the fact that “the historians of the IX and X century make numerous references to the Senate, likewise the documents of the epoch. Since the revival of the Roman Empire, when the titles of Emperor and Augustus were restored and even the post-consulate of the emperors made a comeback [cf. the “ancient” Rome – A. F.], memories of the old days became animated again… the word “Senate” was used often enough for us to encounter it among the decrees of some church council” ([196], Volume 3, page 247.

Therefore, the historians who deny “the effective functioning of the Senate” in mediaeval Rome have reasons to reconsider their point of view. We see all of the so-called “ancient institutions” present in mediaeval Rome – not as “vague recollections” of any sort, as we are told nowadays, but rather as real and valid structures of Roman power. The only question that remains concerns the geographical identity of Rome in question; as we already mentioned many a time, it is most likely that the city in question is the New Rome on the Bosporus, or some other Rome – however, it could not have been the Italian Rome due to the nonexistence of the latter in the epochs preceding the XIV century (in its capacity of a capital, at least).

13) The Empire of the X-XIII century. The X century Alberic = the “ancient” Valerius. According to Titus Livy, Publius Valerius, the leader of the Romans, becomes consul in the very first days of the “ancient” Roman republic. We observe the same in the X century: the Romans vest all power in Alberic: “having made him [Alberic – A. F.] a lifelong consul, the Romans have marked his exclusive powers in the new Roman Republic [sic! – A. F.] by the title of the Senator of All Romans” ([196], Volume 3, page 250). All of the abovementioned events follow the version of the “ancient” Titus Livy almost word for word.

14) The Empire of the X-XIII Century. The demise of Alberic in the X century and the inauguration of his son Octavian. “Ancient” history describes it as the death of Julius Caesar and the inauguration of his stepson Octavian Augustus. The motif of the Greek woman Helen, who had played an important role in that epoch, is prominent in the course of the Trojan War. The X century chronicles also emphasise the Greek connections of Alberic. It is said that “Alberic’s aspirations to the hand of a Greek princess had been frustrated… this marriage did not take place. The successes of the Greeks brought them closer to Rome day by day” ([196], Volume 3, page 255). The following events of “Alberic’s biography” – the wars with the banished king Hugo, the siege of Rome etc – are very similar to the respective events from the history of the Tarquinian War in the version of the “ancient” Titus Livy. We shall skip this material, since a list of all parallels would prove rather bulky, and the general concept of this particular parallelism is becoming quite clear, at any rate.

Alberic’s epoch in the X century is followed by that of his son Octavian. Bear in mind that the double of Alberic in the Second Roman Empire is none other but Julius Caesar. The following is told of the X century: “the temporal power vested in Alberic was inherited by his young son after the death of the father… we must… find the most honourable place amongst all mediaeval Romans for this “senator” [Alberic – A. F.]. The glory of Italy had become synonymous to his name in that epoch… he was worthy of being a Roman, and had deserved the title of Magnus [sic! – A. F.] well enough… the line of Alberic did not die with him and his son Octavian” [196], Volume 3, page 270. As we shall see below, this X century Octavian becomes identified as the famous Octavian Augustus from the Second Empire.

6.4. The “ancient” Second Roman Empire in the X-XII century A.D. and the XIII-XVII century A.D.

Apart from the parallelism mentioned above, the respective historical currents of both the Second Empire and the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century have three famous and powerful rulers at their very beginning. Lucius Sulla, Pompey Magnus and Julius Caesar constitute such a triad in the Second Empire; in the Holy Empire of the X-XIII century we see a similar trinity consisting of Otho I (The Great), Otho II (The Fierce), and Otho III (the Red, or Chlorus – compare to the Third Empire). Let us now study their respective “biographies”.

15a. Second Empire. The famous emperor Octavian Augustus from the alleged I century B.C. – the beginning of the I century A.D. Let us remind the reader that Octavian Augustus had been the adopted son of Julius Caesar, qv in Chron2, Chapter 1. It has to be pointed out that a large number of “ancient” golden coinage minted under Octavian Augustus had reached our day. The numismatic catalogue [1142] dedicates several pages to the description of these coins ([1142], pages 44-46). As we shall witness, this “ancient Octavian” is also a prominent figure in the Scaligerian history of the alleged X century A.D.

■ 15b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Octavian from the X century A.D. The immediate predecessor of Otho I is Octavian, the son of Alberic. Bear in mind that the mediaeval Alberic is a double of the “ancient” Valerius, or Julius Caesar, qv above. The name Alberic (or Alveric) is somewhat similar to that of Valerius. F. Gregorovius tells us that “upon the demise of Alberic, his young son… Octavian became recognized as the legitimate ruler and senator of all Romans, with no objections from any part… he inherited full temporal power… no coins from Octavian’s epoch have survived until the present day, but it is certain that he had minted coins with his name and title engraved thereupon” ([196], Volume 3, page 278. Let us point out that “ancient” coins of the “ancient” Octavian Augustus had no problems with surviving until our age, qv above. Therefore, these golden coins were probably minted by the mediaeval Octavian in the alleged X century and subsequently thrown backwards in time, winding up in the phantom Second Empire and having thus effectively disappeared from the Middle Ages. And so, what we see in the numismatic catalogue that we are referring to is but a variety of mediaeval Octavian’s coins – the ones ascribed to the “ancient Octavian”.

16a. Second Empire. The “ancient” Octavian Augustus, stepson of Julius Caesar, had been 19 when he was crowned emperor in Rome. See Chron2, Chapter 1.

■ 16b. Empire of the X-XIII century. Virtually the same is reported of the mediaeval Octavian: “Octavian [son of Alberic, Julius Caesar’s double – A. F.] had hardly been 16 years of age when he became the ruler of Rome” ([196], Volume 3, page 278). The identification of the “ancient Octavian” as his mediaeval namesake that was made with the use of our empirico-statistical methods had been manifest in certain episodes before; an expert in the history of the “ancient” and mediaeval Rome of such magnitude as Gregorovius couldn’t fail to notice the parallelism in question. This is how he comments upon it: “pride and ambition made Alberic call his son Octavian, possibly harbouring the bold hope that his line would become imperial at some point” ([196], Volume 3, page 278).

17a. Second Empire. The “ancient” Octavian had received the title “Augustus” (The Holy). He had been both the temporal and the ecclesial leader of the Second Empire ([327]). This concurs well with the fact that his mediaeval double and namesake had occupied the Holy Papal See, as we shall witness below ([196], Volume 3, page 278).

■ 17b. Empire of the X-XIII century. “In autumn 955… the young ruler of the Romans becomes a pope. No one, excepting the Soractine scribe, mentions Octavian receiving any kind of theological education… Octavian had changed his emperor’s name to that of John XII” ([196], Volume 3, page 278). Also bear in mind that the “ancient” Octavian remained the temporal ruler of Rome after having received the title of Augustus (the Holy); the same is true for his mediaeval namesake, who remained the temporal ruler of Rome despite his holy papal title. “However, John’s [XII – A. F.] propensity for being a secular ruler was a lot greater than his willingness to take on ecclesiastical duties, and so his two natures – Octavian’s and John’s, were locked together in unequal struggle… Pope John XII… had given praises to the ancient gods” ([196], Volume 3, page 279). What we observe here is easily understandable. We see Gregorovius the historian run into multiple indications suggesting mediaeval Rome to be full of “anachronisms”, which makes him theorize about mediaeval Romans being extremely fond of “recollecting the antiquity” and “reviving ancient customs”.

18a. Second Empire. The “ancient” Octavian Augustus spreads the Roman influence over vast territories ([327]).

■ 18b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Octavian does the same. “We know little about the state of affairs in Rome in the first years of John’s pontificate… the young man… being both the sovereign and the pope, decided to launch several daring projects and extend his power far into the South” ([196], Volume 3, page 279).

19a. Second Empire. The “ancient” Octavian Augustus had reigned for 37 years: 23 B.C. to 14 A.D., qv in CHRON2, Chapter 1. He was succeeded by Tiberius, who had ruled for 23 years between the alleged years 14 and 37 A.D.

■ 19b. Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Octavian soon hands power over to Otho I the Great, who succeeds Octavian in a peaceful manner and proceeds with making Rome a stronger state. Octavian crowns Otho I in the alleged year 962: “Imperial power was thus… handed over to a foreign house of Saxon kings. One of Charles’ greatest successors was crowned by a Roman, whose name had been Octavian – what a bizarre twist of fate!” – as we can see, Gregorovius remains perplexed ([196], Volume 3, pages 280-281). If this transfer of power had also given a new name to Otho I (that of Octavian, which is what some of the chroniclers believe), we get a very important reign length correspondence – Otho I had reigned for 37 years (936-973 A.D.) as a German king; the reign duration of his “ancient” double Octavian also equals 37 years, qv above. Furthermore, his successor, Otho II, had ruled for 23 years (960-983 A.D.), which equals the reign duration of his double, Emperor Tiberius, qv above.

20a. Second Empire. This empire fights large-scale wars in the East ([327]).

■ 20b. Empire of the X-XIII century. This is the epoch of the famous crusades. Once again, F. Gregorovius, being well aware of both the “ancient” and the mediaeval history of Rome, points out an obvious parallel: “these bicentenary military developments in Europe [the crusades – A. F.] were a very strong influence, much like the Eastern Wars fought by the ancient Rome” ([196], Volume 3, page 410).

21a. Second Empire. Lucius Sulla rules in Rome between the alleged years 82 and 78 B.C.; he had presumably been titled Restitutor Urbis, or “Restorer of the City (State)”. Lucius Aurelian, the first emperor of the Third Empire, is supposed to have possessed a similar title (see the parallelism described in Chron2, Chapter 1). Therefore, we come across the title of “Restorer” in the early history of the Second Empire, likewise the Third, likewise the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century (Otho I had been titled similarly, qv above).

■ 21b. The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. A summary shift of 1386 years (1053 years + 333 years) identifies the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire of the XIII-XVII century as the Second Roman Empire, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6. This places the beginning of the “ancient Sulla’s reign” somewhere around 1304 A.D. The ruler that we see at the very beginning of the Habsburg Empire is Rudolf Habsburg (1273-1291). He is also known for his title of the “Restorer of the Empire” ([196], Volume 5, page 368). Scaligerian history therefore reports yet another “revival” of this sonorous title – however, these “revivals” are most likely to be of a mythical nature. Considering the shifts that we have discovered and discussed above, one sees several rulers with the same title of “Restorer” superimpose over each other and transform into the same king (from Nov-Gorod, or “New City”), who had founded the Empire at the end of the XIII – beginning of the XIV century A.D.

Commentary. The wrath of the XIII century Pope = the wrath of the “ancient” emperor Sulla. The parallelism between the Second Empire and the Habsburg Empire is so obvious that the historian F. Gregorovius could not fail to mention it in the following rather grandiloquent piece of commentary: “Palestrina [Pale-Strana, or Belaya Strana – the Slavic for “White Land”? – A. F.] surrendered to the pleas [of Pope Boniface – A. F.] Both cardinals… came dressed in funereal garments [in 1298 – A. F.]… and fell to the Pope’s feet… Palestrina and all of the fortifications… were surrendered instantly. Pope’s hatred for the mutineers… knew no limits. The punishment that he hastened to inflict upon Palestrina revealed his intentions. A strange fate poured the same cup of wrath over this city of fortune twice, with a long interval [one of 1386 years – A. F.]. After the capitulation of Praeneste, Sulla had levelled the town; 1400 years later [Gregorovius rounds 1386 off to 1400 – A. F.] the same town of Praeneste surrendered to the Pope, who had also stamped it out of existence with ancient Roman wrath” ([196], Volume 5, page 431).

In full accordance with the “ancient” events that were supposed to have taken place 1400 years earlier, “all of it ceased to exist in a mere couple of days… the ruins were ploughed over and salted. Boniface VIII apparently liked to emulate ancient Romans in his actions [theorizes Gregorovius – A. F.]” ([196], Volume 5, pages 432-433). The “emulated ancient Roman” in question is Sulla.

Therefore, according to the opinion of an eminent Scaligerite historian, the mediaeval Pope had been exceptionally well-read and fond of ancient history, trying to emulate the “role models from the days of yore” in every which way. What we’re being told is that the pope artfully copied his own life from the “ancient books” – rising early in the morning just to open the “classics” on the right page and learn about the course of his actions for the day. All this bizarre and far-fetched explanatory activity becomes useless once we realise that what we see is but a manifestation of the chronological shift that has duplicated real mediaeval events and sent their copy into a distant epoch in the past (see fig. 2.89).

Fig. 2.89 Separate remarkable parallelisms between the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire of the XIII-XVII century and the “ancient” Second = Third Roman Empire.

F. Gregorovius describes the end of the parallelism as follows: “he [Boniface – A. F.] had really destroyed one of Italy’s oldest cities, which had once perished in its ancient past… Boniface followed the example of Sulla, who had made a military colony settle on the site of the destroyed city, when he had ordered the wretched townsfolk… to build their new homes nearby. They built their huts upon a lowland” ([196], Volume 5, pages 432-433).

22a. The Second Empire. Ptolemy’s famous Almagest is supposed to have been written in the reign of Antoninus Pius, the Roman emperor who had reigned in the alleged years 138-161 A.D., qv in Chron1, Chapter 1.

■ 22b. The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. The famous emperor Maximilian I reigns in 1493-1519 A.D. A shift of about 1386 years identifies his reign as that of the ancient Antoninus Pius (see fig. 2.89). Indeed, a summary shift of 1053 + 33 = 1386 years places the “ancient” Antoninus Pius into the XVI century A.D., superimposed over the period of 1524-1547 A.D., which is close to the epoch of Maximilian I. Let us also remind the reader that it was in the reign of Maximilian I (1493-1519) and Maximilian II (1564-1576) that the publications of Ptolemy’s Almagest began – presumably “re-discovered at last” after many centuries of oblivion. The first Latin edition comes out in 1537, the Greek one – in 1538, the “translation” of the Trebizond edition is published in 1528 etc. Let us also recollect the fact that Maximilian’s name contains the formula Maximilian Kaiser Pius Augustus, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6 (Dürer’s engravings). It turns out that the Almagest could really have been created in the XVI century A.D. “in the reign of Emperor Pius”, or Maximilian Pius, hence the reference to a “Pius” in the Almagest. Therefore, the XVI century author of the Almagest didn’t deceive anyone by the inclusion of the ruler regnant at the time of the observations. As we are beginning to realise, most of the latter took place under Maximilian I; however, some of the data – the star catalogue, for instance – could have been obtained from earlier works on astronomy – those dating to the XI-XV century A.D. See Chron3, and also fig. 2.89.

23a. The Second Empire. The second half of the alleged I century A.D. is marked by the activity of the famous Vitruvius, “a Roman architect and engineer… the author of the tractate entitled Ten Books on Architecture containing a study of many issues pertinent to urbanism, engineering, technology and art, and encapsulating the entire body of Greek and Roman architectonic science” ([797], page 227). Modern scientists have made numerous references to the far-reaching parallels between the works of the “ancient Vitruvius” and the mediaeval architect Alberti ([18] and [544]).

■ 23b. The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. The famous Italian architect Leon Battista Alberti (1414-1471) lives and works in the XV century ([18], page 3). In Chapter 1 of Chron1 we point out obvious parallels between his work and that of the “ancient” Vitruvius ([18] and [544]). In particular, Alberti writes a famous tractate in the XV century that happens to bear the very same name – Ten Books on Architecture ([18], page 50). It turns out that a shift of approximately 1386 years makes the epochs of Vitruvius and Alberti coincide for the most part, qv in fig. 2.89. Apparently, the “ancient Roman architect Vitruvius” is merely a phantom reflection of the mediaeval Italian architect Alberti. Even the name “Vitruvius” contains what can be seen as traces of “Alberti” (or “Alverti”). Scaligerian history had created an ink-and-paper duplicate of Alberti and sent it 1400 years backwards in time, where it had transformed into “the great ancient scientist Vitruvius”, whilst the original remained in its due place. We did not compare their “biographies” in detail, which would be an interesting undertaking.

24a. The Second Empire. The famous Roman historian Tacitus is said to have been active in Rome around the alleged years 58-117 A.D. ([797], page 1304). Some of his books contain descriptions of “the ancient Rome”.

■ 24b. The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. In Chapter 7 of Chron1 we were telling the readers about Poggio Bracciolini, a famous Renaissance writer who had lived in the first half of the XV century ([21], [1195] and [1379]). Scientific literature contains many rather explicit indications of the fact that Poggio himself had in fact written the “ancient œuvres of Tacitus” that he had “discovered” ([1195] and [1379]). As we understand now, the 1386-year shift does indeed superimpose the epoch of the “ancient Tacitus” over that of the mediaeval Poggio Bracciolini (see fig. 2.89). Ergo, what we observe here is most probably yet another case of what had happened to Vitruvius and Alberti – “Tacitus” is but an alias of the XV century writer Poggio Bracciolini, who had spawned a doppelgänger on the pages of the Scaligerian history – one that wound up in the alleged I century A.D. under the name of Tacitus, while the original remained in the XV century.

25a. The Second Empire. The famous “ancient” Greek writer and historian Plutarch is active in the alleged years 45-127 A.D. ([797], page 1012).

■ 25b. The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. The famous writer and poet Petrarch is active in Rome in the XIV century (1303-1374; see [797], page 993. In Chapter 7 of Chron1 we entertained the idea that the “ancient Plutarch” might be a phantom reflection of the mediaeval Petrarch. In addition to those considerations, we discover that a shift of approximately 1386 years brings the two epochs close together, qv in fig. 2.89. By the way, this scheme demonstrates that Petrarch “predates” Plutarch on the time axis. According to another theory that we propose in the same chapter, the dating of Petrarch’s lifetime needs to be brought somewhat closer to our epoch.

26a. The Second Empire. We can call this empire “Holy” in the sense that all of its rulers, beginning with Octavian, bear the title “Augustus” – “Holy”.

■ 26b. The Empire of the X-XIII century. Its official name is “The Holy Roman Empire”, and it has been known as such ever since the XII century. Historians are of the opinion that this empire had been a “holy institution” ([459], Volume 1, page 153).

27a. The Second Empire. The “ancient” emperor Marcus Aurelius had reigned in the alleged years 161-180 A.D.

■ 27b. The Empire of the X-XIII century. A shift of approximately 1053 lifts Marcus Aurelius into the late XII century at the very least, and identifies him as Emperor Otho IV the Guelph (1198-1218). In Chapter 7 of Chron1 we report that, according to certain mediaeval sources, the famous equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius was made in the XII century and presumably erected in Rome ([196], Volume 4, page 568), comment 74. All of that notwithstanding, this statue is also considered “extremely ancient” – an artefact of the Second Empire, no less. It is one of the most famous “ancient” Roman relics. The explanation of this fact already presented itself to us: the “ancient Marcus Aurelius” is merely a reflection of Otho IV; therefore, his statue could not have been erected before the XII century, and its “journey backwards in time” is merely a consequence of the erroneous Scaligerian chronology.

6.5. Identifying the Third Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century as well as the Habsburg Empire of the XIV-XVII century. A 720-year shift and a 1053-year shift

In fig. 2.90 we see the already familiar parallelism between the Third Roman Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D. and the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century A.D. The proximity coefficient here equals 2.3 × 10–10, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6. The superimposition is observed with a 720-year shift; the primary common points are as follows:

Fig. 2.90 The parallelism between the “ancient” Third Roman Empire of the alleged III-VI century A.D. and the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged X-XIII century A.D.

1) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Frederick II = the “ancient” Theodoric.

The end of Friedrich’s reign in the mediaeval Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century (namely, the alleged year 1250) coincides with the last reign year of Theodoric the Goth – 526 A.D. (after a 724-year shift).

2) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Henry = the “ancient” Valens.

The mediaeval pair of Emperor Henry IV and “Hildebrand the Roman Pontifex” becomes identified as the “ancient” couple of Emperor Henry IV and St. Basil the Great, his famous contemporary. Bear in mind that the death of “Hildebrand” in 1085 coincides with that of St. Basil in the alleged year 378 after a 707-year shift, which is very close to 720 years, the average value of the shift.

3) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Otho III “the Red” = the “ancient” Constance Chlorus.

Furthermore, the mediaeval emperor Otho III (“the Red”), who died in the alleged year 1002, can be identified as the “ancient” emperor Constance I Chlorus, the latter being the word for “ginger”. We thus get a correspondence of names; both these emperors, in turn, merge into the single figure of the “ancient” Julius Caesar from the Second Empire, qv in Chapter 1 of Chron2. It would be interesting to find out whether or not Julius Caesar had ginger hair.

4) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Conrad IV = the “ancient” Gothic kings.

The mediaeval emperor Conrad IV (Horde Khan?) from the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century becomes superimposed over the “ancient” dynasty of male Gothic rulers from the Third Empire after the shift – he had ruled after the death of Theodoric the Goth in the alleged year 526 A.D. and until the death of the Gothic king Totila in the alleged year 541 A.D.

5) Empire of the X-XIII Century. The mediaeval Manfred = the “ancient” Totila.

The mediaeval Manfred is identified as the “ancient” Totila, whilst the mediaeval Conradin’s double is the “ancient” Teia. The average date shift here equals 723 years – very close to 720. Let us relate the parallelism between the respective declines of both empires (the Third and the Holy).

6) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval embroilment = the “ancient” strife.

History of the Third Empire tells us that Rome had been cast in turmoil and anarchy in the alleged year 455 A.D., which is the epoch of Recimer and his minions (see Chron2, Chapter 1). A shift of 720 years reveals to us the fact that Recimer also has a double in the Holy Empire of the X-XIII century: the reign of Philip the Ghibelline also ends in turmoil and anarchy. According to F. Gregorovius, “in 1198 the last visible remains of imperial power in Rome were finally wiped out” ([196], Volume 5, page 13).

A war breaks out, likewise in the Third Empire ([196], Volume 5, page 21). “The war broke out anew at the end of the same year 1199, when the strong man Pandulf from Subur became senator” ([196], Volume 5, page 23). It is possible that this mediaeval Subur (a native of Subur – possibly Siberia, or Sever – “the North”) became reflected in the “distant past” as Emperor Libius Severus (the alleged years 461-465 A.D.)

7) Empire of the X-XIII century. Mediaeval anarchy = “ancient” anarchy.

The following rulers are considered to have been principal figures in the epoch of the Third Empire’s decline (455-476 A.D.): Petronius Maximus, Avitus, Majorian, Recimer, Libius Severus, Anthemius (Procopius), Olybrius, Julius Nepos and Romulus Augustulus ([72]). 720 years later we observe a similar situation in the mediaeval Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century: “Rome was divided by the two opposing factions – the papists and the democrats… this violent urban conflict had been of a political nature” ([196], Volume 5, page 27).

Apart from the good concurrence of dates after a 720-year shift, we also see very conspicuous parallels between names: the “ancient” Severus = the mediaeval Subur; the “ancient” Petronius = the mediaeval Petrus; the “ancient” Recimer = the mediaeval Rainerius ([196], Volume 5, page 27).

8) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Otho IV = the “ancient” Odoacer.

We proceed to discover the superimposition of the mediaeval Otho IV over the “ancient” Odoacer. Their reign durations concur with each other very well indeed, qv in fig. 2.90. Otto IV is considered to have been German, whereas Odoacer had been the leader of the Germanic Heruli. The name Odoacer (Odo + CR) may have meant “Otho the Kaiser” or “Otho the Czar”. The “ancient” Odoacer had ruled in Rome; the mediaeval Otho IV was “declared king upon the Capitol Hill” ([196], Volume 5, page 52).

9) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval reign of Otho IV = the “ancient” reign of Odoacer.

The mediaeval Otho IV had reigned for 21 years as a German king: 1197-1218. His double, the “ancient” Odoacer, remained on the throne for 17 years (476-493 A.D.) The following fact is most curious: according to Volume 5 of [196], the mediaeval Otho IV was crowned King of Rome in 1201, which makes his “Roman reign” exactly 17 years long, 1201-1218, which coincides with the reign duration of the “ancient” Odoacer completely.

10) Empire of the X-XIII century. Parallels in the respective reign ends of the mediaeval Otho IV and the ancient Odoacer.

The end of the “ancient” Odoacer’s career was in close relation to the activity of Theodoric the Goth, who had succeeded Odoacer on the Roman throne. Theodoric must have been a great deal younger than Odoacer. The career of Otho IV in the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century is also closely linked to the early activities of Frederick II, who had also been a great deal younger than Otho IV.

11) Empire of the X-XIII century. Mediaeval feud = “ancient” vendetta.

In the Third Empire Odoacer is at feud with Theodoric. As one should rightly expect, in the Holy Empire of the X-XIII century Otho IV also has a feud with Frederick II: “Otho… had a mortal foe in the heir to the Hohenstaufen estate… Frederick’s youthful figure lurking in the distance would never fail to make a strong impression” ([196], Volume 5, page 57).

12) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Frederick = the “ancient” Theodoric.

The “ancient” king Theodoric had been a Goth by birth, but his life was committed to the Third Roman Empire. The end of his reign marks the outbreak of the Gothic War of the alleged VI century. Similar events take place 720 years later, in the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century: “Frederick became alien to the German nation from his early childhood… he had once again bound the destinies of Italy and Germany together, having immersed both nations… into a ceaseless struggle that would take over a century to die out” ([196], Volume 5, page 57). The epoch in question is the XIII century.

13) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Friedrich Gattin = the “ancient” Theodoric the Goth.

One cannot fail to notice the obvious similarity of the names Theodoric and Frederick (Friedrich). The “ancient” Theodoric had been king of the Goths; the title of his double, the mediaeval Friedrich (or Frederick – however, the I and not the II) also contains the word Goth in the form Gattin, qv on his coins in [1435], No 26 (the table). Furthermore, the word “Gattin” is very similar to the word “Hittite” – and we have already discovered the superimposition of the mediaeval Goths over the “ancient” biblical Hittites. Therefore, Friedrich must have been known as a Goth or a Hittite in the Middle Ages. It would also be appropriate to remember the German city of Göttingen – its name is probably derived from “Hettin” and “Gens”, or “the Hittite Gens”.

14) Empire of the X-XIII century. The two mediaeval Fredericks = the two “ancient” Tarquins. Events of the XII-XIV century A.D. on the pages of the Bible.

We have seen the two Tarquinian rulers of the First Roman Empire described by the “ancient” Titus Livy: the kings Tarquin the Ancient and Tarquin the Proud. A similar pair is present in the dynastic current of the Holy Empire in the X-XIII century – namely, the emperors Frederick I and Frederick II.

We have already pointed out the parallelism between the “ancient” Judean and Israelite kingdoms, and the Third Roman Empire. However, since the Third Empire is but a reflection of the Holy Roman Empire (X-XIII century) and the Habsburg Empire (XIII-XVII century), the Biblical kingdoms must also be reflections of the same empires. This was discovered independently with the use of the dynastic parallelism method, qv related in Chron1, Chapter 6; also see Chron6 for more details. We shall just examine one of such parallel scenarios herein.

Above we have already given an account of our discovery that Frederick II can be identified as Theodoric the Goth. One also has to bear in mind that a number of mediaeval documents dating to the XVI century confuse Friedrich (Frederick) I Barbarossa and Frederick II. For instance, we learn that one of the legends about Frederick II “was transposed into the biography of Frederick I, year 1519” ([459], Volume 1, page 220). Owing to the fact that Frederick I Barbarossa (Ross the Barbarian?) and Frederick II became reflected in the phantom past as the “Tarquinian pair”, there may be similar confusion in their respective “biographies”.

14a. Empire of the X-XIII century. Frederick II or Frederick I. Frederick I Barbarossa is a Roman and German emperor. He fights against Rome in 1167; his primary Roman opponent is Pope Alexander III ([196], Volume 4, page 483). Frederick I attacks Rome and suffers defeat ([196], Volume 4, pages 483-484). In fig. 2.91 we can see a mediaeval picture dating from the alleged year 1188 A.D. that portrays Frederick Barbarossa ([304], Volume 2, pages 294-295).

Fig. 2.91 Frederick Barbarossa dressed as a crusader. A miniature by an anonymous Bavarian clergyman, circa 1188. An exact copy from the original kept in the Library of Vatican. Taken from [304], Volume 2, pages 294-295.

■ 14b. The Third Roman Empire. Theodoric the Goth. He happens to be the ruler of both Rome and the Gothic Kingdom. Theodoric wages war on the New Rome; his troops are led by Vitalian. The main opponent of Theodoric is the Eastern Roman regent Anastasius, ruler of the New Rome. Vitalian leads Theodoric’s army against New Rome, but sustains a defeat.

■ ■ 14c. The Bible. II Kings. King Sennacherib. Sennacherib is the king of Assyria. As we have demonstrated above, Assyrians merge with the Goths, P-Russians, Germans or Russians. Sennacherib attacks Jerusalem, which once again becomes identified as the New Rome, or Constantinople. Sennacherib’s enemy is Hezekiah, king of Judah, whom we have already identified as Emperor Anastasius, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6. Sennacherib launches an unsuccessful assault against Rome (II Kings 19:35).

14'a. Empire of the X-XIII century. This defeat of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (Ross the Barbarian?) is a well-known event in the history of the Middle Ages, described in mediaeval chronicles in the following manner (according to modern historians, the chronicle in question refers to the Bible, which presumably already existed at that time, and draws parallels with Biblical events): “And the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land.” (II Chronicles 32:31). Gregorovius insists that “such is the imagery that Thomas of Canterbury weaves when he congratulates Alexander III [presumably the Pope – A. F.] with the retreat of Sennacherib, whose army was destroyed by the Lord… nearly all of the chroniclers [in their rendition of Frederick’s rout – A. F.] speak of divine retribution” ([196], Volume 4, page 496, comment 89).

■ ■ 14'c. This is how the famous legend of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, and his defeat, is told by the Bible: “And it came to pass that night [when Sennacherib the Assyrian besieged Jerusalem – A. F.], that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh” (II Kings 19:35-36).

Commentary. Nowadays historians try to convince us that the mediaeval chroniclers deliberately employed the “ancient” Biblical imagery due to the Bible’s long-term existence as a source of great authority that it had been customary to refer to, which is presumably the very reason why mediaeval scribes would often use archaic Biblical language to describe the events of their own epoch, disguising the contemporaneity in an “ancient Biblical attire”. Our results demonstrate that the reverse is more likely to have been the reality. Only parts of the Bible had existed back then, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6; its entire bulk was created around that very epoch, the XI-XVI century. Therefore, what we see is not a case of chroniclers referring to the Bible, but rather that of assorted mediaeval chronicle fragments comprising the final canon of the Bible, which was created relatively recently – in the epoch of the XV-XVI century.

We shall conclude with some details pertinent to the abovementioned famous event (allegedly dating to the XII century A.D. – the defeat of Frederick Barbarossa, or possibly Ross the Barbarian, which would then become reflected in the second book of the Kings as the defeat of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (Russia?). F. Gregorovius relates the contents of mediaeval chronicles in the following manner: “Rome became the second Jerusalem, with emperor Frederick playing the part of the loathsome Sennacherib. On 2 August [of the alleged year 1167 – A.D.] dark clouds erupted over the city in a thunderstorm; the malaria, which is so perilous here in August, assumed the semblance of plague. The elite of the invincible army died a honourless death; equestrians, infantry and sword-bearers alike would fall ill and perish, often unexpectedly, riding or walking along a street… Frederick lost his finest heroes in just seven days… death claimed a great multitude of hoi polloi and aristoi alike. Rome suffered from the plague just as much… the city hadn’t faced afflictions this horrendous for centuries… the Germans were gripped by panic; they were saying that the Lord poured his anger over them for attacking a holy city… the emperor was forced to break camp in despair already on 6 August; his army of ghostlike warriors set on their way back… more than 2000 of his people had died en route” ([196], Volume 4, page 484).

15) Empire of the X-XIII century. The parallelism between the Roman campaigns of the mediaeval Otho IV and the “ancient” Odoacer.

Likewise the “ancient” Odoacer, the mediaeval Otho IV the Guelph was “crowned king [of Germany – A. F.]… it had been declared that Otho would set forth against Rome” ([196], Volume 5, page 58). In full accordance with the scenario, the “ancient” Odoacer launches a campaign against Rome and conquers the city. We see history repeat itself in 720 years, when Otto IV gathers a great army in 1209 and conquers Rome after a successful campaign, becoming crowned king of Rome as a result. However, “the Senate and the armed citizens held the Capitol hill… the decisive battle took place in Leonine city; both sides sustained heavy casualties; finally, Otho managed to smite the opposition and become King and Emperor of Rome, conquering the entire Italy subsequently” ([196], Volume 5, page 66). Thus, the conquest of Italy by Otho in the Middle Ages became reflected as the Italian conquest of the “ancient” Odoacer after a shift of roughly 720 years backwards.

16) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Otho I = the mediaeval Otho IV.

Actually, the 333-year shift is also manifest here. Indeed, 1209, the year Otho IV conquers Italy, becomes the year 976 after a shift of 333 years backwards. It is significant that the conquest of Italy by Otho I falls over this very year – more precisely, the period between 962 and 965. Otho I also conquers all of Italy; thus, certain biographical fragments pertinent to Otho I may reflect passages from a more recent “biography” of Otho IV.

17) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Otto IV = the “ancient” Odoacer.

The Pope summons young Frederick II to Italy so that he could assist him with getting rid of Otho IV ([196], Volume 5, page 66).

The “ancient reflection” of this event is a similar appeal of the Byzantine emperor Zeno to Theodoric the Goth – to lead the Gothic troops to Italy and rule there instead of Odoacer. We re-emphasize the superimposition of the mediaeval Hohenstaufen dynasty over the “ancient” Goths. In Chron5 we also point out the parallel between the Goths and the nations of Gog and Magog – the Tartars and Mongols, in other words.

6.6. War of the XIII century as the original reflected in the “ancient” Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War

18) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval war of the XIII century = the “ancient” Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War.

Bear in mind that the Gothic War began when the hostile Greek troops had disembarked in Sicily. The Trojan version reflected this as the invasion of the “ancient” Greeks onto Isle Tenedos. We observe the same in the XIII century: Frederick II, the young king of Sicily in the Middle Ages, initiates an all-out war ([196], Volume 5, page 74).

His main ally was Anselm von Justingen ([196], Volume 5, page 71). We instantly recognize the “ancient” Justinian in this hero, the contemporary of the “ancient” Theodoric the Goth and the double of Frederick II. The Trojan = Gothic War is a crucial event in the “ancient” history; its original is the war of the XIII century A.D., of which we learn that “the moment that he [Pope Innocent – A. F.] had offered the King of Sicily [Frederick II – A. F.] to capture the Roman Crown had been one of the most fatal ones in the entire history of papacy. It had led to the struggle that proved destructive for both the church and the empire, and eventually the domination of the House of Anjou as well… as well as the “Avignon captivity” ([196], Volume 5, page 75). Below we shall see that the mediaeval “Avignon captivity” is the double of the “ancient” Babylonian captivity of the Judeans described in the Bible.

19) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval couple of Otho IV and Frederick = the “ancient” couple of Odoacer and Theodoric.

In 1212 Frederick II enters Rome as king, and becomes the de facto co-ruler of Otho IV, who hadn’t been stripped of his rank yet. We see a carbon copy of this very situation in the “ancient” Third Empire, where Theodoric and Odoacer had ruled jointly for a while (see Chron2, Chapter 1). Then Theodoric the Goth defeated Odoacer the German in the Third Empire; we see the same happen in the Holy Empire of the X-XIII century: “after his triumph over the wretched enemy [Otho IV – A. F.], whose glory was tarnished on 27 July 1214 after the Battle of Bouvines, Frederick II became crowned… in Aachen” ([196], Volume 5, page 78).

20) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century succession = the “ancient” succession.

Theodoric proceeds to concentrate all power in his hands in the alleged year 493, after the death of Odoacer in the Third Empire. A similar scenario develops in the Holy Empire of the X-XIII century: Frederick II inherits absolute power in 1218, after the death of Otho IV, the double of the “ancient” Odoacer. The dates (1218 and 493) are 725 years apart, which is close to the 720-year value of the shift.

21) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century reforms = the “ancient” reforms.

In 1220 Frederick II gives Rome a constitution and instigates serious reforms ([196], Volume 5, page 97). This activity resembles the legislation reforms of the “ancient” Theodoric a great deal (see Chron2, Chapter 1). Just like the “ancient” kingdom of the Ostrogoths, the mediaeval Italian state of Friedrich II is also called a kingdom ([196], Volume 5, page 104).

22) Empire of the X-XIII century. Parallels between the Middle Ages and the antiquity that F. Gregorovius could not fail to notice.

The parallelism between the “ancient” Third Empire and the mediaeval Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century is conspicuous enough to have been commented upon by several historians in a variety of contexts. F. Gregorovius, for instance, writes that “in the Middle Ages, Viterbo had played the same role for the Romans as Veas in the antiquity… the Roman populace [in the middle of the XIII century – A. F.] was riding a new wave of inspiration; just as it had been done in the distant days of Camillus and Coriolanus [the epoch of the “ancient” Tarquinian War, according to Livy – A. F.], they set forth to conquer Tuscia and Latium… the battlefields would once again see Roman banners bearing the ancient initials S.P.Q.R. against a golden-red field, as well as the national army of Roman citizens and their allies from vassal cities led by senators” ([196], Volume 5, pages 126-127). Gregorovius is also perplexed by the fact that “it is amazing how… the Romans recollected the Roman customs, having put up border stones with the initials S.P.Q.R. to mark the boundaries of Roman jurisdiction” ([196], Volume 5, pages 129-130).

23) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Roman colours = the “ancient” Roman colours.

The official colours of the “ancient” Rome are considered to have been red and gold, qv above. However, we find out that the official colours of the mediaeval papal Rome had been the same: “red and gold remain the colours of the city of Rome until this day. It has been so since times immemorial, and the colours of the church had been the same… only in early XIX century the popes adopted white and gold as the ecclesial colours” ([196], Vol. 5, p. 141, comment 34).

24) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century titles = the “ancient” titles.

We proceed to find out that “right about this time [in 1236 – A. F.], the Roman aristocracy had added another title to the ones already in use, one of ancient origins – Romans of noble birth have started calling themselves proconsuls of the Romans upon the occupation of a high rank in the city council, without so much as a shade of self-irony”, as Gregorovius tell us in amazement. “The ancient title of Consul Romanorum… had still been in use by that time” ([196], Volume 5, page 148).

We hear the voice of the “antiquity” ring loud and clear from the pages of mediaeval documents. To continue with quoting, “the loot taken at Milan was put up for demonstration on the Capitol hill, upon the hastily erected ancient columns” ([196], Vol. 5, p. 151).

25) Empire of the X-XIII century. The mediaeval Peter de Vineis = the “ancient” Boetius.

Let us reiterate that F. Gregorovius with his extensive knowledge of the Roman history keeps pointing out the parallels between the “antiquity” and the Middle Ages, which can be explained well by the chronological shifts that we have discovered. For instance, he writes that “the death of Peter de Vineis, the famous capuchin citizen, cast a black shadow over the life of the great emperor [Frederick – A. F.], just like the death of Boetius had been the harbinger of Theodoric’s demise [sic! – A. F]. Both of these German kings [the mediaeval Frederick II and the “ancient” Theodoric – A. F.] resemble each other in what concerns the end of their lives as well as the fast and tragic decline of their gentes” ([196], Volume 5, pages 202-203).

Both the mediaeval Vineis and the “ancient” Boetius fell prey to the emperor’s suspiciousness ([196], Volume 5, page 202). Kohlraush also compares Theodoric the Goth to Frederick II in [415], praising their wisdom and religious tolerance, among other things.

26) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century Frederick II = the “ancient” Theodoric the Goth.

Kohlraush points out the following in his story of Frederick II: “he hadn’t been of great utility to Germany because of his partiality to Italy… a great many Germans would follow the Hohenstaufens to Italy” ([415], Volume 1, page 309). We observe a similar process in the “ancient” Third Empire – namely, the “hoards of Goths” that fill Italy. Titus Livy reports the same telling us about the advent of the “ancient” Tarquins to Italy.

The “ancient” Theodoric dies a natural death, just like the mediaeval Frederick II. Both of them act as the last rulers of Italy before the outbreak of a disastrous war. One of the reign duration versions for Theodoric the Goth is 29 years (the alleged years 497-526 – see version #2 in Chron2, Chapter 1). The Roman reign of Frederick II lasted 30 years. He was crowned in 1220 and died in 1250 ([5]). Reign durations are similar.

27) Empire of the X-XIII century. Frederick II as the “Pharaoh” in the XIII century.

F. Gregorovius refers to a number of ancient documents telling us that “Innocent IV had seen his great opponent [Frederick II – A. F.] as the very antichrist, or the Pharaoh” ([25], Volume 5, page 205). The term “Pharaoh” that appears here corresponds perfectly to the superimposition of the mediaeval epoch that we have under consideration presently over the Biblical description of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War, qv in Chron2, Chapter 1.

When certain ancient documents use the word “Pharaoh” for referring to Frederick II, they confirm the parallelism between the mediaeval Roman history and the Biblical history of Israel and Judea. Frederick II had really been a pharaoh. However, we must also note that all these documents – papal epistles and the like – were edited in the XVII-XVIII century, when historians had already been of the opinion that the XIII century war and the Biblical war with the pharaoh were two unrelated events. Therefore, the entire Biblical terminology was declared to be “referring to deep antiquity” in mediaeval documents, notwithstanding the fact that it had really referred to mediaeval contemporaneity. Another detail that drew our attention was that the name Innocent may have originally sounded as “John the Khan”.

28) The X-XIII century Empire. Beginning of the XIII century war as the original of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War.

The primary parallelisms with the “antiquity” are as follows. The mediaeval Conrad IV can be identified as the “ancient” group of Gothic kings from the alleged VI century: Amalaric + Athalaric + Theodahad + Vittigis + Uriah + Hildebald, their summary reigns adding up to the period between the alleged years 526 and 541 A.D.

Further on, we discover that the mediaeval Manfred = the “ancient” Totila, the mediaeval Conradin = the “ancient” Teias (Teia), the mediaeval Charles of Anjou = the “ancient” Narses, and the mediaeval Innocent = the “ancient” Justinian.

Thus, the reign of Conrad IV (1237-1254) becomes superimposed over the dynasty of the Gothic kings (excluding queen Amalasuntha) that had reigned in the alleged years 526-541 A.D. A comparison of durations gives us 17 and 15 years, respectively – almost equal values. In 1252 Conrad IV invades Italy, starting one of the greatest wars in European history, which would immerse the entire continent into the vortex of chaos for many a decade” ([196], Volume 5, page 213).

“The barons swore fealty to him… all cities up to Naples acknowledged his power” ([196], Volume 5, page 213). In the Gothic War of the alleged VI century, the ascension of the Goths to the Roman throne in 526-541 coincides with Justinian, Belisarius and Narses turning their attention to Italy and beginning an invasion. We see the same happen in the XIII century: “the achievements of Frederick’s sons [or, as we now understand, Theodoric’s “ancient Goths” – A. F.] made Innocent [John the Khan? – A. F.] set about the plan that was conceived a while back in Lyon… he decided to hand this kingdom over… to a foreign prince; this démarche proved fatal for Italy [a war began – A. F.]… he offered the crown of Sicily to Charles of Anjou, the brother of the French king” ([196], Volume 5, page 214).

29) Empire of the X-XIII century. Identifying certain mediaeval characters as their “ancient” doubles.

The mediaeval Charles of Anjou can therefore be identified as the “ancient” Belisarius/Narses. Bear in mind that Narses the commander-in-chief acts as a successor of Belisarius in the Gothic War of the alleged VI century. Innocent [John the Khan?] becomes identified as emperor Justinian – “the just”.

If we’re to reverse the unvocalized root of Conrad’s name (CNRD), we shall get DRNC – or the already well-familiar TRNK – Trojans/Franks/Turks/Tartars. The name Conrad can also be a reference to “Horde-Khan”, or the Khan of the Horde. Also, the title of the mediaeval Manfred von Tarent (see [196], Volume 5) transcribes as TRNT unvocalized. It is likely to be yet another modification of the name TRQN which is already known quite well to us. Thus, the names of the two key leaders of the Hohenstaufen dynasty (the Gog dynasty?) that appeared on the historical arena after the death of Frederick II are distinctly similar to the name TRQN. A propos, the successor of Manfred and the one to end the war is Conradin, whose unvocalized name also gives a version of TRNK reversed. The name Conradin might also stand for “Khan-Horde”, “KHAN ORDYNskiy” (“Khan of the Horde”) or “Khan Ratniy” (“The Warlord Khan”).

30) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century Manfred = the “ancient” Totila.

Conrad IV dies in 1254 “lamenting his fate and the misery of the empire whose decline he had foreseen” ([196], Volume 5, page 216). He is succeeded by the famous hero Manfred – the double of the “ancient” Gothic king Totila. Bear in mind that Totila had reigned for 11 years in 541-552. Manfred had ruled for 12 years, 1254 (the year Conrad IV died) to 1266, the year of his death on the battlefield. The same fate befalls his “ancient” double Totila (see Chron2, Chapter 1). Thus, we see that the durations of the parallel reigns (11 and 12 years, respectively) concur well with each other.

31) Empire of the X-XIII century. Brancaleone in the XIII century and the “ancient” Goths.

Before the very death of Conrad IV, temporal power in Rome is inherited by Senator Brancaleone (BRNC + Leo?). This mediaeval Roman ruler had been an ally of Frederick II: “he has taken part in the Lombardian War fighting on the side of Frederick” ([196], Volume 5, page 226). Brancaleone is a foreigner – not of Roman birth, which makes him similar to the “ancient” Goths.

“When the foreign senator arrived in the city that had called him, he was given a honourable welcome [just like the “ancient” Goths that had ruled in Rome after Theodoric – A. F.]… this had been the first time [since the alleged VI century – A. F.] that the cream of the urban magistracy had consisted of foreigners exclusively” ([196], Volume 5, page 233). It is reported that “the spirit of the ancients… was reborn in this great citizen of Bologna [Brancaleone – A. F.]” ([196], Volume 5, page 252).

It is most peculiar that there are no traces of Brancaleone’s activities left anywhere in the Italian Rome – there are neither inscriptions nor monuments of any sort ([196], Volume 5). One is only right to wonder whether it is in fact true that the events in question took place in the city of Rome in Italy. Could it be that the chronicles were referring to an altogether different city – the New Rome on the Bosporus, for instance?

32) Empire of the X-XIII century. Brancaleone and Manfred in the XIII century = the “ancient” Goths.

The enemies of Conrad and Manfred (the doubles of the “ancient” TRQN clan and Totila) in the XIII century war are the Pope and his ally, Charles of Anjou. The Pope is the “master of Rome”, and thus can be regarded as the “primary ancient king” of the Trojan = Gothic War. The Pope attempts to drive Manfred out of Italy ([196], Volume 5). The “ancient” Justinian was doing the very same thing in the alleged VI century, chasing the Goths away from Italy. Troy suddenly surfaces in many ancient chronicles in the context of this mediaeval war – particularly the references to Naples, or the New City. We learn that “the legate fled Troy; his army was scattered, and he hurried to Naples” ([196], Volume 5, page 238). Brancaleone in Rome and Manfred in Sicily enter into a pact, and face the “Pope/King” united, just like the “ancient” Goths.

33) Empire of the X-XIII century. Galeana/Helen in the XIII century = the “ancient” Helen.

The wife of the mediaeval Brancaleone was called Galeana; her name is evidently similar to that of the Trojan Helen. Indeed, Helen (Helena) may well have been transcribed as Gelena or Galeana. Apart from that, there was a “real Helen” in the XIII century war – the wife of Manfred, a key historical figure of the epoch ([196], Volume 5, page 274). Moreover, this mediaeval Helen turns out to have been “a daughter of the despot of Epirus” ([196], Volume 5, page 174), which makes her Greek – likewise the “ancient” Trojan Helen.

34) Empire of the X-XIII century. The destructive war of the XIII century = the destructive Trojan War.

In the XIII century Italy was cast into utter devastation. For example, it is reported that in 1257 more than 140 fortified towers were destroyed in Rome ([196], Volume 5, page 250); the city in question is most likely to have been the New Rome on the Bosporus. The war had dire consequences for Germany as well: “exhausted by Italian wars [of mid-XIII century – A. F.], Germany drifted into a state of inner corruption and impuissance, which the old empire never truly emerged from again” ([196], Volume 5, page 267).

35) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century Charles of Anjou = the “ancient” Belisarius/Narses.

In the Gothic war of the alleged VI century, the warlord Belisarius/Narses invades Italy from a foreign territory; the scenario “recurs” in about 720 years, when the Pope “made Italy open for a foreign ruler yet again, who had come filled with greed and whose victory eradicated the national mentality” in the XIII century ([196], Volume 5, page 276).

Charles of Anjou was rather unexpectedly elected senator in Rome; he is supposed to have come from France as the leader of the French army. We see yet another superimposition of the French (PRS) over the “ancient Persians” (PRS once again).

Let us remind the reader that in the “ancient” Gothic War the Byzantine army of the Romean Greeks invaded Sicily first, qv above. The mediaeval invasion of the XIII century began similarly – Charles of Anjou launched a campaign against Sicily, which had been the domain of Manfred, the double of the “ancient” Goth Totila. We learn the following: “the Sicilian campaign of Charles of Anjou ranks amongst the boldest and most victorious undertakings of the crusaders in that epoch” ([196], Volume 5, page 286). In 1266 Charles of Anjou becomes crowned King of Sicily. Once again, F. Gregorovius confirms the existence of a chronological shift without even being aware, pointing out the parallel that corresponds to the results of our research ideally. The text of Gregorovius deserves to be cited in its fullness:

“The sinister figure of Charles of Anjou enters the ancient arena that had seen many a battle between the Romanic and the Germanic nations just like Narses, whilst Manfred became the tragic representation of Totila. History made a cycle [sic! – A. F.] – although the balance of powers had been different, the actual scenario was virtually the same – the Pope summoning foreign invaders to Italy in order to liberate it from the German rule. The Swabian dynasty [of Frederick and the Conradines – A. F.] fell just like its Gothic predecessor. The amazing decline of both kingdoms and their heroes marks history by a double tragedy on the same classical arena, the second tragedy being a twin of the first” ([196], Volume 5, page 287).

It has to be mentioned yet again that all the parallels pointed out by F. Gregorovius are explained perfectly by the system of chronological shifts discovered by the authors inside the “Scaligerian textbook”.

36) The reasons why “King of Anjou” may have been read as “Narses”.

The discovered superimposition of the mediaeval Charles of Anjou over the “ancient” Narses is unexpectedly confirmed by a comparative study of how these names were written.

The name Charles used to mean “king”, which is plainly visible on Charlemagne’s coins, for instance. On the XIII century coins we also see the name Charles transcribed as Karolus or Carolus ([196], Volume 5, page 296, comment 42) - “The King”, in other words. Therefore, the name Charles of Anjou may have simply meant “King of Anjou”, or Caesar (Cesar) D’Anjou; a shortened version would transcribe as Cesar-An; it obviously transforms into Narasec when read back to front, after the Hebraic or Arabic manner – virtually the same as “Narses”.

Therefore, some of the chroniclers may well have turned Charles of Anjou into Narses having reversed his name or vice versa. It goes without saying that the consideration in question is of a hypothetical nature and neither confirms nor disproves anything per se; however, in the row of consecutive parallelisms that we observe over a rather lengthy time period, it becomes worth something.

Let us conclude with the observation concerning Charles of Anjou being characterized as “a cold and taciturn tyrant” ([196], Volume 5, page 314) – in exactly the same terms as his “ancient” double Narses.

37) The “exile of the kings” in the XIII century = the “ancient” exile of the kings.

Bear in mind that in the Gothic War of the alleged VI century Belisarius captures Rome and banishes the Gothic kings that reign there ([695]). This event is identical to the exile of the kings described by Titus Livy ([482]). We see the same happen in the XIII century. Charles of Anjou, the double of the “ancient” Belisarius/Narses, captures the city of Rome: “his escapade of mad daring was accompanied by blind luck” ([196], Volume 5, page 287).

Charles of Anjou encounters no opposition in his invasion of Rome; his troops arrive from both the sea and dry land – the same happens in the VI century, qv in [196], Volume 5, pages 286-287. This “exile of the kings” from the XIII century Rome takes place in a relatively peaceful manner, without excessive bloodshed. The same is reported by Livy in his rendition of the Tarquinian War, ([482]) as well as the history of the Gothic War by Procopius ([695]). For instance, according to Procopius, Belisarius entered Rome peacefully, already after the departure of the Gothic troops, qv above. The troops of Charles were met with similar exultation in the XIII century Rome.

38) Empire of the X-XIII century. The “poverty” of Charles of Anjou in the XIII century = the poverty of the “ancient” Belisarius/Valerius.

History of the alleged VI century characterizes Belisarius/Narses as a fortunate military leader. The same is told about the XIII century Charles of Anjou ([196], Volume 5, page 288). The motif of the “poverty” that befell Belisarius/Valerius is emphasized in the history of the Gothic War dating to the alleged VI century A.D. and the Tarquinian War of the alleged VI century B.C.

A similar scenario is constantly discussed in the chronicles referring to Charles of Anjou. Mark that the actual motif of a great hero being poverty-stricken is unique in itself, and its resurgence after many centuries cannot fail to draw our attention. We learn that “the Count of Anjou arrives in Rome empty-handed” ([196], Volume 5, page 288). As the XIII century war progressed, there were more references to the poverty of Charles, such as “Manfred… was well aware of just how great a need for money was experienced by Charles in Rome… it was seldom that an enterprise as great would be undertaken with such sparse funds… the poverty of Charles had been great, and his debts were numerous…” ([196], Volume 5, page 300). The lamentable financial condition of Charles of Anjou is described on several pages of [196], Volume 5 – 300 to 304.

39) The XIII century quarrel with the Pope = the “ancient” quarrel with the “King of Kings”.

The quarrel between Belisarius/Valerius/Achilles and the “main royalty” is paid a lot of attention in chronicles relating the events of the Gothic War (the alleged VI century A.D.), the Tarquinian War (the alleged VI century B.C.) and the Trojan War (the alleged XIII century B.C.), qv above. A similar event takes place in the XIII century.

What we see here is a somewhat odd quarrel between the Pope and Charles of Anjou, which is supposed to have happened “because of a house [sic!]” ([196], Volume 5, page 289). And it was precisely that, “a dwelling-place”, which served as reason for Valerius being accused of treason (see above). The XIII century events unfurled as follows: Charles of Anjou, upon his arrival in Rome, “had occupied quarters in Lateran without giving it a second thought” ([196], Volume 5, page 289). This had infuriated the pope, which led to a quarrel. Despite the fact that Charles had found a different residence eventually, animosity prevailed in his interactions with the pontiff, since both had suspected each other of harbouring ambitions to seize absolute power. This opposition becomes particularly pronounced towards the end ot the XIII century war ([196], Volume 5, page 303). We have witnessed the same happen in the “ancient” biographies of Narses, Valerius and Achilles.

40) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century letter to the Romans = the “ancient” letter to the Romans.

Narses was appointed vice-regent of Italy in the Gothic War of the alleged VI century, whereas his double, Charles of Anjou, received the right of “temporary rule with terms defined in the agreement” ([196], Volume 5, page 290). The situations are similar.

Furthermore, the chronicles of both the Gothic War and the Tarquinian War tell us that the king who had been banished from Rome addressed an admonitory epistle to the Romans, qv above. This missive is discussed in detail by the chroniclers of both duplicate wars, and deemed extremely important - Titus Livy and Procopius even quote its content. The same thing happens in the XIII century. Manfred, the double of the Goths and the Tarquins, sends a letter to the Romans. The second chapter of the 10th book from Volume 5 of [196] begins with a special paragraph entitled “Manfred’s epistle to the Romans” ([196], Volume 5, 298). Manfred’s missive is similar to its “ancient” duplicates from the Gothic and the Tarquinian versions.

41) Empire of the X-XIII century. The XIII century Battle of Troy = the “ancient” Battle of Troy.

The final phase of the Gothic War in the alleged VI century is marked by the brilliant victories of Belisarius and Narses; the XIII century war ends similarly.

We learn that “the conquest of Charles had been nothing but… endless scenes of disruption, misery and death. This campaign is distinguished by the rampancy and the ferocity of the French [PRS = Persians or P-Russians – A. F.]… the French started with assaulting the Cyclopean castle of Arce that stood on a steep slope and was considered an impregnable fortress [successfully – A. F.]… the entire vicinage was shaken by so unanticipated an event: 32 fortresses capitulated to Charles” ([196], Volume 5, page 305).

The fall of the New City = Naples = Troy signifies the culmination of the Trojan = Gothic War. We see the same events recur in the XIII century: the fierce battle of Beneventes and the New City (Naples, which is located in the vicinity of Beneventes) taken. The famous Italian city of Troy is located nearby (it exists to this day); we find out that “the Greeks had built a fortified town not far from Beneventes [the epoch in question is mediaeval – A. F.] and named it after the immortal ciry of Troy” ([196], Volume 4, page 20). Apparently, this name appeared in Italy as recently as the XIII century, when the entire country was occupied by the troops of the king known to modern historians as Charles of Anjou. Then the events of the XIII century Trojan War were copied into the Italian chronicles; their epicentre had originally been in the New City = the New Rome on the Bosporus. We can thus compile the following parallelism table:

a. The Trojan version of the alleged XIII century B.C.: 1) The battle of Troy. 2) The fall of Troy.

■ b. The Gothic version of the alleged VI century A.D.: 1) The New City (Naples) captured. 2) The final battle of Naples (New City). The death of Totila, King of the Goths.

■ ■ c. The war of the X-XIII century A.D.:

1. The battle of Beneventes (in the vicinity of Troy and the New City, or Naples).

2. The fall of Beneventes and the New City. The death of Manfred (the double of Totila, King of the Goths).

42) Fierce battles of the XIII century war = the “ancient” Battle of Troy.

Let us provide a brief rendition of the final phase of the XIII century war, since it had most probably served as the original for all the “ancient” wars – the Gothic, the Trojan and the Tarquinian. However, we must re-emphasize that the Scaligerian rendition of this war known to us today is very likely to contain severe distortions, the first of them being the transfer of the key events from the New Rome on the Bosporus to Italy, which had not possessed any sort of capital in Rome at that epoch.

Manfred, the double of Totila the Goth, “hastened to move his troops to Beneventes in order to block the passage to Naples [New City – A. F.] for Charles and engage in battle with the latter” ([196], Volume 5, page 307). The fall of the New City (Naples = Troy) is considered a great and tragic event in the “ancient” history of the Gothic War and the Trojan War, likewise the final battle at the walls of the city. We are told the same about the XIII century war: “each of the parties had 25.000 people maximum. It took several hours to bring the long and terrible war between the church and the empire, as well as the Romanic and Germanic peoples, to its final conclusion on a two-by-twice battlefield” ([196], Volume 5, page 309).

The looting and the destruction of the “ancient” Troy = New City after its fall is emphasized in both the Gothic and the Trojan version; the destruction of Beneventes is described in similar terms ([196], Volume 5, page 313). After that, Charles of Anjou, the double of Belisarius = Valerius = Achilles “entered Naples triumphant… this was the advent of the French [PRS, or P-Russian – A. F.] tyranny” ([196], Volume 5, page 315).

43) Empire of the X-XIII century. The death of young Manfred in the XIII century = the demise of young Totila in the alleged VI century.

The double of Manfred – Totila, King of the Goths, dies in the last battle of the Gothic War – the battle of Naples, or the New City. The Goths are defeated.

The very same situation repeats in the XIII century: “the valiant Germans, [the army of Manfred – A. F.] the last representatives of the German nation that ceased to exist with Frederick II, had fought and fallen as doomed heroes, just like the ancient Goths” – Gregorovius doesn’t hesitate to point out the parallel in [196], Vol. 5, p. 310. Manfred is killed in this battle, and becomes a legendary hero of the XIII century (ibid).

Bear in mind that Totila, King of the Goths also dies a young man (see [196], Volume 1, and above) – likewise Manfred, his double: “Manfred died at 34; he had been as gallant as Totila in life and death alike. Just like this Gothic hero, whose brief life was full of glory, had restored the empire of Theodoric, Manfred made the Italian empire of Friedrich rise from the ruins and… fell prey to the luck of a foreign invader armed by the Pope” ([196], Volume 5, page 312).

Gregorovius is perfectly correct to point out the parallels between the “ancient” Totila and the XIII century Manfred as well as the “ancient” Theodoric, the XIII century Frederick II, and their respective empires.

We thus see that certain experienced historians would constantly refer to the most obvious parallels between the “antiquity” and the Middle Ages in a variety of contexts. However, they were forced to interpret them as either chance occurrences, or strange cyclic phenomena, trusting the Scaligerian history and possessing no objective dating methods; either that, or they would ignore the multitude of such facts altogether. Either stance is easy to understand: they had no comprehension of the general picture of chronological shifts that spawn all such parallels.

44) Empire of the X-XIII century. The tragic fate of the XIII century Helen = the tragic fate of the “ancient” Helen.

A brief rendition of Helen’s biography in the history of the Trojan War is as follows: beauty – bride – war – death (see above and in [851]).

The very same scheme can be applied to the life of one of her originals, namely, Helen, the wife of Manfred in the XIII century. “The victor [Charles of Anjou – A. F.] had been a cold and taciturn tyrant. Helen, the young and beautiful wife of Manfred… fled… abandoned by the barons in her misery, she arrived in Trani, where she was welcomed with splendorous festivities as a princess in 1259” ([196], Volume 5, page 314).

Thus, we see the mediaeval town of Trani – or Troy, in other words, and so one can say that true history does in fact reach us through the documents of the Middle Ages, their thorough editing and processing by the Scaligerites in the XVII-XVIII century notwithstanding. Let us remind the reader that Helen had received a grandiose welcome in Troy, where she came with Paris (P-Russ?) as a Greek princess.

The fate of the “ancient” Helen was tragic: death, qv above and in [851]. The very same thing happens in the XIII century: “Helen had died after five years of imprisonment [she was handed over to the mercenary cavalry of Charles of Anjou – A. F.]… her daughter Beatrice remained incarcerated for eighteen years in a fortress… in Naples” ([196], Volume 5, page 314). We already know the legend of the incarceration and death of a queen from the history of the Gothic War (Queen Amalasuntha, “the instigator of the war”). Let us point out that the old documents concerning Helen and Manfred are kept in Naples ([196], Volume 5, page 326, comment 37). It would be most interesting to study them now, from an altogether new viewpoint, since they are bound to contain a large amount of valuable data.

45) Empire of the X-XIII century. Young Conradin succeeding Manfred in the XIII century = young Teias succeeding Totila in the “ancient” Gothic War.

Let us remind the reader that the history of the Gothic War of the alleged VI century A.D. contains a very remarkable final episode – the story of the brief reign of Teias (Teia), the young king of the Goths who had succeeded Totila. Teia had reigned for two years maximum – in 552-553; he died on the battlefield, and his death had decided the final outcome of the entire Gothic War.

The XIII century prototype of the “ancient” Teia is most probably the famous young hero Conradin (Horde Khan?), the last representative of the dying dynasty (presumably German). His brief career is practically identical to that of the “ancient” Teia. Conradin had been only 14 years of age when Manfred, the original of Totila, died. Gregorovius tells us the following: “political history knows very few such… cases as the destiny of this youth” ([196], Volume 5, p. 322). The “ancient” Teia had ruled for a year or two, allegedly in 552-553; the mediaeval Conradin’s reign length also equals 2 years (1266-1268, A.D., qv in [196], Volume 5, page 340). Their reign durations coincide.

46) Empire of the X-XIII century. The beheading of Conradin in the XIII century = the decapitation of the “ancient” Teia.

In 1268 Conradin (Horde Khan?) led his troops forth in an attempt to reclaim the crown of Manfred, the double of the “ancient” Totila. However, he was defeated by the army of Charles of Anjou ([196], Volume 5, pages 341-342). The “ancient” reflection of this event is the rout of Teia’s army in the battle with Narses in the alleged VI century.

An important detail of the “ancient” Gothic War is the decapitation of Teia the Goth. This episode is the only one of this kind in the entire history of the war, and a lot of symbolic meaning is attached thereto. We see the same happen in the XIII century: Conradin was beheaded in Naples (the New City, which figures as the double of Troy yet again) in 1268 ([196], Volume 5, page 348). This episode finalizes the history of the Gothic dynasty in Italy, whereas its double marks the end of the Swabian dynasty, which had “reached its final demise claiming Conradin as the last victim” ([196], Volume 5, page 349-350).

We shall conclude with the following detail of the parallelism that pertains to a different shift, the 333-year one. It identifies the Habsburg Empire as the Empire of the X-XIII century: “it is known that Conradin was executed in Naples… the marble statue of the last Hohenstaufen is kept in the church… it was erected by Maximilian II the Bavarian, and the remains of the wretched Swabian prince are buried under its pedestal” ([196], Volume 5, page 360, comment 66). Pay attention to the fact that a 333-year shift backwards transposes Maximilian II (1564-1576) into the period of 1231-1243, which is very close to Conradin’s epoch (the alleged years 1266-1268). The discrepancy is minute, considering the summary length of the empires compared – a mere 25 years. It would be interesting to study the history of this statue, especially bearing in mind that Conradin had been from Bavaria, just like Maximilian II ([196], Volume 5, page 322).

47) Empire of the X-XIII century. The death of Charles of Anjou in the XIII century = the death of the “ancient” Belisarius/Narses.

The further biography of Charles is largely parallel to the final period of the military leader Belisarius/Narses in the alleged VI century. The quarrel between the Pope and Charles of Anjou develops despite their alliance in the struggle against the Conrads (Horde Khans?) in the XIII century. Charles of Anjou falls into disfavour, just like Belisarius, his “ancient” double. After that, Charles becomes “stripped of senatorial power” ([196], Volume 5, page 316).

The “ancient” reflection of this event (which took place in 1266) must be the legend of Valerius = Belisarius = Achilles falling from grace and losing power. It has to be emphasized that the “disfavour of Charles” preceded the final defeat of the Swabian dynasty in the XIII century. In exactly the same manner, the “ancient” disgrace of Belisarius (the Great King?) began before the final defeat of the Goths in the alleged VI century. The parallel continues; one is to remember that Belisarius = Valerius was exculpated. Similarly, in the XIII century the Pope restores the influence of Charles after the disfavour. “He had even appointed the king [Charles – A. F] paciarius” ([196], Volume 5, 330). As a matter of fact, the senatorial palace in Rome still contains a statue of Charles of Anjou – or, as we understand now, the symbolic representation of Belisarius/Narses = Valerius = Achilles.

48) Empire of the X-XIII century. The equestrian statue in the XIII century Naples and the “ancient” Trojan horse (aqueduct).

The famous tale of the Trojan horse, or aqueduct, is know to us from the history of the Trojan – Gothic War, qv above. We could not find its complete reflection in the XIII century; however, we learn of an odd occurrence that deserves to be mentioned here. We have already discovered the siege of the New City (Naples) to be the duplicate of the siege of Troy. And so, it turns out that “there was a curse on Conrad [in the XIII century – the Horde Khan? - A. F.]… which didn’t stop him from conquering Naples; however, the Neapolitans have hated him ever since his order to put a rein on the old equestrian statue that stood on the city square and was revered as a political halidom” ([415], Volume 1, page 309).

Let us emphasize that the statue in question was that of a horse and not of a mounted person; therefore, the New City had a statue of a horse, most probably without a rider, standing on the city square – moreover, the statue was considered a political halidom of the city! This very circumstance is far from typical, and therefore draws our attention instantly. Indeed, does one see a statue of a horse without a rider on many city squares? It is most likely that what we see is yet another distorted version of the legend of the Trojan Horse – the one that the besieged Trojans are supposed to have brought into the city and mounted in the middle of a square.

One needn’t get the impression that Kohlrausch, the author of the book that we are quoting from, mentions equestrian statues on every page – far from it. The entire first volume of his book, the one that deals with the history of the “ancient” and mediaeval Germany and Italy, only contains two references to a “horse statue” - the first one being to the Italian equestrian statue of the alleged VI century A.D., no less; the second – to the “political halidom” of the XIII century Naples (New City) that we were discussing above ([415], Volume 1, pages 166 and 309). It is significant that the first such reference should be made to the VI century A.D. - the epoch that the Gothic War is dated to nowadays.

49) The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. Dionysius Petavius of the XVI-XVII century = the “ancient” Dionysius Exiguus.

A 1053-year shift backwards identifies Dionysius Petavius, the famous chronologist, as his phantom colleague and namesake Dionysius Exiguus, who had lived in the alleged VI century A.D. and presumably died in 540 or 556 (see fig. 2.89). We already discussed the parallelism between these two characters in Chapter 6 of Chron1, providing a table to illustrate it. Bear in mind that “petavius” is the Gallicized version of the name “little” (petit).

As we are beginning to understand, the falsification of ancient history and the introduction of the erroneous chronology are the fault of the school of J. Scaliger and D. Petavius; therefore, it shouldn’t surprise us that the parallelism in the “Scaligerian history textbook” ends with none other but Dionysius Petavius.

Furthermore, his phantom duplicate, “Dionysius Exiguus” from the alleged VI century had calculated the date of Christ’s birth as preceding his own time by 560 years and declared it the beginning of the “new era”. If we are to count 560 years backwards from the epoch of Dionysius Petavius, we shall come up with roughly the year 1050 A.D. Now, Petavius had lived in 1583-1652; therefore, the epoch that we come up with falls on the middle of the XI century, which is the time when Jesus Christ had lived, according to the mediaeval tradition that we managed to reconstruct (one that contains a centenarian error). The character identified as Jesus had really lived in the XII century, qv in our book entitled King of the Slavs.

Therefore, Scaligerian history is more or less correct (in a way) when it tells us that Christ had been born some 500 years before Dionysius Exiguus. It just has to be elaborated that under said character we have to understand the real chronologist Dionysius Petavius, who had died in 1652. If we are to subtract roughly 500 years from this date, we shall come up with the middle of the XII century as the epoch when Christ had lived.

50) The Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire. The orders of the Franciscans and the Dominicans.

In 1534 Ignatius Loyola founded the famous monastic order of the Jesuits – “The Society of Jesus” (Societas Jesu), qv in [797], page 476. The order was officially established in 1540. This organization is considered to have been “a tool in the hands of the Counter-Reformation” ([797], page 476). A shift of 333 years backwards superimposes the foundation of the Jesuit order over that of the Dominican order around 1220, approximately 1215 ([797], page 406), as well as the foundation of the Franciscan order around the same time, in 1223 (the alleged years 1207–1220–1223). Ignatius Loyola dies in 1556, which becomes 1223 after a 333-year shift.

It is therefore possible that the Franciscan and the Dominican orders were but other names of the Jesuit order founded in the XVI century A.D. – its reflections, as it were.

As we are told nowadays, the struggle against the Reformation was defined as one of the Jesuit order’s primary objectives. It is also presumed that the Dominicans took charge of the Inquisition as early as the alleged year 1232 ([797], page 406). Nowadays, “Dominicans” translates as “God’s Hounds” – however, the name may also be a derivative of the Slavic “Dom Khana” – “The Khan’s House”, or maybe “Domini Khan” – “The Divine Khan”. The actual word “order” may also be derived from the word “Horde”, which is considered to be of a “Tartar-Mongol” origin nowadays.

What mainstream historians say about the New Chronology?

The New Chronology is a fringe theory regarded by the academic community as pseudohistory, which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854-1946), although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) can be viewed as an earlier predecessor. However, the New Chronology is most commonly associated with Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (b. 1945), although published works on the subject are actually a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians. The concept is most fully explained in History: Fiction or Science? book series, originally published in Russian.

The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is “folded” onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko’s claims, the written history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no information about events between AD 800–1000, and most known historical events took place in AD 1000–1500.

The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. The majority of scientific commentators consider the New Chronology to be pseudoscientific.

History of New Chronology

The idea of chronologies that differ from the conventional chronology can be traced back to at least the early XVII century. Jean Hardouinthen suggested that many ancient historical documents were much younger than commonly believed to be. In 1685 he published a version of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History in which he claimed that most Greek and Roman texts had been forged by Benedictine monks. When later questioned on these results, Hardouin stated that he would reveal the monks’ reasons in a letter to be revealed only after his death. The executors of his estate were unable to find such a document among his posthumous papers. In the XVII century, Sir Isaac Newton, examining the current chronology of Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt and the Ancient Near East, expressed discontent with prevailing theories and proposed one of his own, which, basing its study on Apollonius of Rhodes’s Argonautica, changed the traditional dating of the Argonautic Expedition, the Trojan War, and the Founding of Rome.

In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the II and III centuries.

In 1909, Otto Rank made note of duplications in literary history of a variety of cultures:

“… almost all important civilized peoples have early woven myths around and glorified in poetry their heroes, mythical kings and princes, founders of religions, of dynasties, empires and cities—in short, their national heroes. Especially the history of their birth and of their early years is furnished with phantastic [sic] traits; the amazing similarity, nay literal identity, of those tales, even if they refer to different, completely independent peoples, sometimes geographically far removed from one another, is well known and has struck many an investigator.” (Rank, Otto. Der Mythos von der Geburt des Helden.)

Fomenko became interested in Morozov’s theories in 1973. In 1980, together with a few colleagues from the mathematics department of Moscow State University, he published several articles on “new mathematical methods in history” in peer-reviewed journals. The articles stirred a lot of controversy, but ultimately Fomenko failed to win any respected historians to his side. By the early 1990s, Fomenko shifted his focus from trying to convince the scientific community via peer-reviewed publications to publishing books. Beam writes that Fomenko and his colleagues were discovered by the Soviet scientific press in the early 1980s, leading to “a brief period of renown”; a contemporary review from the journal Questions of History complained, “Their constructions have nothing in common with Marxist historical science.” (Alex Beam. “A shorter history of civilization.” Boston Globe, 16 September 1991.)

By 1996, his theory had grown to cover Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, and Egypt [Emp:1].

Fomenko’s claims

According to New Chronology, the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the “true” chronology shifted back in time by significant intervals with some further revisions. Fomenko claims all events and characters conventionally dated earlier than XI century are fictional, and represent “phantom reflections” of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental misdatings of historical documents. Before the invention of printing, accounts of the same events by different eyewitnesses were sometimes retold several times before being written down, then often went through multiple rounds of translating and copyediting. Names were translated, mispronounced and misspelled to the point where they bore little resemblance to originals.

According to Fomenko, this led early chronologists to believe or choose to believe that those accounts described different events and even different countries and time periods. Fomenko justifies this approach by the fact that, in many cases, the original documents are simply not available. Fomenko claims that all the history of the ancient world is known to us from manuscripts that date from the XV century to the XVIII century, but describe events that allegedly happened thousands of years before, the originals regrettably and conveniently lost.

For example, the oldest extant manuscripts of monumental treatises on Ancient Roman and Greek history, such as Annals and Histories, are conventionally dated c. AD 1100, more than a full millennium after the events they describe, and they did not come to scholars’ attention until the XV century. According to Fomenko, the XV century is probably when these documents were first written.

Central to Fomenko’s New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the “Russian Horde”, which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the XVII century. The various peoples identified in ancient and medieval history, from the Scythians, Huns, Goths and Bulgars, through the Polyane, Duleby, Drevliane, Pechenegs, to in more recent times, the Cossacks, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongols, and others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.

Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantium, known for his failed reforms; his traits and deeds reflected in ‘biographies’ of many real and imaginary persons (A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Czar of the Slavs (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Neva, 2004.). The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old Testament prophet Elisha (850-800 BC?), Pope Gregory VII (1020?-1085), Saint Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong, or “Son of Heaven”, emperor of Western Xia, who reigned in 1032-1048), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and time frame of the authors of said accounts and biographies.

Fomenko also merges the cities and histories of Jerusalem, Rome and Troy into “New Rome” = Gospel Jerusalem (in the XII and XIII centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle (A. T. Fomenko, G. V. Nosovskiy. Forgotten Jerusalem: Istanbul in the light of New Chronology (in Russian). Мoscow: Astrel, AST, 2007). To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua’s Hill which Fomenko alleges is the hill Calvary depicted in the Bible.

Fomenko claims the Hagia Sophia is actually the biblical Temple of Solomon. He identifies Solomon as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566). He claims that historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the hill overlooking the Bosphorus.

On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word “Rome” is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. He claims the “First Rome”, or “Ancient Rome”, or “Mizraim”, is an ancient Egyptian kingdom in the delta of the Nile with its capital in Alexandria. The second and most famous “New Rome” is Constantinople. The third “Rome” is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople (again), Rome in Italy, and Moscow. According to his claims, Rome in Italy was founded around AD 1380 by Aeneas, and Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great “Russian Horde.” Similarly, the word “Jerusalem” is actually a placeholder rather than a physical location and can refer to different cities at different times and the word “Israel” did not define a state, even not a territory, but people fighting for God, for example, French St. Louis and English Elizabeth called themselves the King/Queen of Israel.

He claims that parallelism between John the Baptist, Jesus, and Old Testament prophets implies that the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. Fomenko claims that the Bible was being written until the Council of Trent (1545–1563), when the list of canonical books was established, and all apocryphal books were ordered to be destroyed. Fomenko also claims that Plato, Plotinus and Gemistus Pletho are one and the same person; according to him, some texts by or about Pletho were misdated and today believed to be texts by or about Plotinus or Plato. He claims similar duplicates Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Dionysius Petavius. He claims Florence and the House of Medici bankrolled and played an important role in creation of the magnificent ‘Roman’ and ‘Greek’ past.

Specific claims

In volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4 of History: Fiction or Science?, Fomenko and his colleagues make numerous claims:

- Historians and translators often “assign” different dates and locations to different accounts of the same historical events, creating multiple “phantom copies” of these events. These “phantom copies” are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.

- This chronology was largely manufactured by Joseph Justus Scaliger in Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. The Jesuit Dionysius Petavius completed this chronology in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).

- Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology.

- No single document in existence can be reliably dated earlier than the XI century. Most “ancient” artifacts may find other than consensual explanation.

- Histories of Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy - mostly on the basis of documents of their own making.

- The Old Testament represents a rendition of events of the XIV to XVI centuries AD in Europe and Byzantium, containing “prophecies” about “future” events related in the New Testament, a rendition of events of AD 1152 to 1185.

- The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and the birth of Jesus), Bacchic Christianity (XI and XII centuries, before and after the life of Jesus), Christianity (XII to XVI centuries) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

- The Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy, traditionally dated to around AD 150 and considered the cornerstone of classical history, was compiled in XVI and XVII centuries from astronomical data of the IX to XVI centuries.

- 37 complete Egyptian horoscopes found in Denderah, Esna, and other temples have unique valid astronomical solutions with dates ranging from AD 1000 and up to as late as AD 1700.

- The Book of Revelation, as we know it, contains a horoscope, dated to 25 September - 10 October 1486, compiled by cabbalistJohannes Reuchlin.

- The horoscopes found in Sumerian/Babylonian tablets do not contain sufficient astronomical data; consequently, they have solutions every 30–50 years on the time axis and are therefore useless for purposes of dating.

- The Chinese tables of eclipses are useless for dating, as they contain too many eclipses that did not take place astronomically. Chinese tables of comets, even if true, cannot be used for dating.

- All major inventions like powder and guns, paper and print occurred in Europe in the period between the X and the XVI centuries.

- Ancient Roman and Greek statues, showing perfect command of the human anatomy, are fakes crafted in the Renaissance, when artists attained such command for the first time.

- There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of yoke and slavery, because the so-called “Tartars and Mongols” were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. So, Russia and Turkey once formed parts of the same empire. This ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called “blood tax”). The Mongol “invasions” were punitive operations against the regions of the empire that attempted tax evasion. Tamerlane was probably a Russian warlord.

- Official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia to legitimize the usurpingRomanov dynasty (1613-1917).

- Moscow was founded as late as the mid-XIV century. The battle of Kulikovo took place in Moscow.

- The tsar Ivan the Terrible represents a collation of no fewer than four rulers, representing two rival dynasties: the legitimate Godunov rulers and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.

- English history of AD 640–1040 and Byzantine history of AD 378–830 are reflections of the same late-medieval original.

Fomenko’s methods

Statistical correlation of texts

One of Fomenko’s simplest methods is statistical correlation of texts. His basic assumption is that a text which describes a sequence of events will devote more space to more important events (for example, a period of war or an unrest will have much more space devoted to than a period of peaceful, non-eventful years), and that this irregularity will remain visible in other descriptions of the period. For each analysed text, a function is devised which maps each year mentioned in the text with the number of pages (lines, letters) devoted in the text to its description (which could be zero). The function of the two texts are then compared. (Chron1, pp. 187–194.)

For example, Fomenko compares the contemporary history of Rome written by Titus Livius with a modern history of Rome written by Russian historian V. S. Sergeev, calculating that the two have high correlation, and thus that they describe the same period of history, which is undisputed. (Chron1, pp. 194–196.) He also compares modern texts, which describe different periods, and calculates low correlation, as expected. (Chron1, pp. 194–196.) However, when he compares, for example, the ancient history of Rome and the medieval history of Rome, he calculates a high correlation, and concludes that ancient history of Rome is a copy of medieval history of Rome, thus clashing with mainstream accounts.

Statistical correlation of dynasties

In a somewhat similar manner, Fomenko compares two dynasties of rulers using statistical methods. First, he creates a database of rulers, containing relevant information on each of them. Then, he creates “survey codes” for each pair of the rulers, which contain a number which describes degree of the match of each considered property of two rulers. For example, one of the properties is the way of death: if two rulers were both poisoned, they get value of +1 in their property of the way of death; if one ruler was poisoned and another killed in combat, they get -1; and if one was poisoned, and another died of illness, they get 0 (Fomenko claims there is possibility that chroniclers were not impartial and that different descriptions nonetheless describe the same person). An important property is the length of the rule. (Chron1, pp. 215–223.)

Sample Fomenko parallelism.

Fomenko lists a number of pairs of unrelated dynasties – for example, dynasties of kings of Israeland emperors of late Western Roman Empire (AD 300-476) – and claims that this method demonstrates correlations between their reigns. (Graphs which show just the length of the rule in the two dynasties are the most widely known; however, Fomenko’s conclusions are also based on other parameters, as described above.) He also claims that the regnal history from the XVII to XX centuries never shows correlation of “dynastic flows” with each other, therefore Fomenko insists history was multiplied and outstretched into imaginary antiquity to justify this or other “royal” pretensions.

Fomenko uses for the demonstration of correlation between the reigns exclusively the data from the Chronological Tables of J. Blair (Moscow, 1808-1809). Fomenko says that Blair’s tables are all the more valuable to us since they were compiled in an epoch adjacent to the time of Scaligerian chronology. According to Fomenko these tables contain clearer signs of “Scaligerite activity” which were subsequently buried under layers of paint and plaster by historians of the XIX and XX centuries.

Astronomical evidence

Fomenko examines astronomical events described in ancient texts and claims that the chronology is actually medieval. For example:

- He says the mysterious drop in the value of the lunar acceleration parameter D” (“a linear combination of the [angular] accelerations of the Earth and Moon”) between the years AD 700–1300, which the American astronomer Robert Newton had explained in terms of “non-gravitational” (i.e., tidal) forces. By eliminating those anomalous early eclipses the New Chronology produces a constant value of D” beginning around AD 1000. (Chron1, pp. pp.93-94, 105-6.)

- He associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the AD 1140 (±20) supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of AD 1170 (±20). He also believes that Crab Nebula supernova could not have exploded in AD 1054, but probably in AD 1153. He connects it with total eclipse of AD 1186. Moreover he holds in strong doubt the veracity of ancient Chinese astronomical data.

- He argues that the star catalog in the Almagest, ascribed to the Hellenistic astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, was compiled in the XV to XVI centuries AD. With this objective in sight he develops new methods of dating old stellar catalogues and claims that the Almagest is based on data collected between AD 600 and 1300, whereby the telluric obliquity is well taken into account.

- He refines and completes Morozov’s analysis of some ancient horoscopes, most notably, the so-called Dendera Zodiacs—two horoscopes drawn on the ceiling of the temple of Hathor—and comes to the conclusion that they correspond to either the XI or the XIII century AD. Moreover, in his History: Fiction or Science? series finale, he makes computer-aided dating of all 37 Egyptian horoscopes that contain sufficient astronomical data, and claims they all fit into XI to XIX century timeframe. Traditional history usually either interprets these horoscopes as belonging to the I century BC or suggests that they weren’t meant to match any date at all.

- In his final analysis of an eclipse triad described by the ancient Greek Thucydides in History of the Peloponnesian War, Fomenko dates the eclipses to AD 1039, 1046 and 1057. Because of the layered structure of the manuscript, he claims that Thucydides actually lived in medieval times and in describing the Peloponnesian War between the Spartans and Athenians he was actually describing the conflict between the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Spain from AD 1374 to 1387.

- Fomenko claims that the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia is of little use for dating of events, as the astronomical phenomena they describe recur cyclically every 30–40 years.

Rejection of common dating methods

On archaeological dating methods, Fomenko claims:

“Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century.” (Chron1.)

Dendrochronology is rejected with a claim that, for dating of objects much older than the oldest still living trees, it isn’t an absolute, but arelative dating method, and thus dependent on traditional chronology. Fomenko specifically points to a break of dendrochronological scales around AD 1000.

Fomenko also cites a number of cases where carbon dating of a series of objects of known age gave significantly different dates. He also alleges undue cooperation between physicists and archaeologists in obtaining the dates, since most radiocarbon dating labs only accept samples with an age estimate suggested by historians or archaeologists. Fomenko also claims that carbon dating over the range of AD 1 to 2000 is inaccurate because it has too many sources of error that are either guessed at or completely ignored, and that calibration is done with a statistically meaningless number of samples. Consequently, Fomenko concludes that carbon dating is not accurate enough to be used on historical scale.

Fomenko rejects numismatic dating as circular, being based on the traditional chronology, and points to cases of similar coins being minted in distant periods, unexplained long periods with no coins minted and cases of mismatch of numismatic dating with historical accounts. (Chron1, pp. 90-92.)

He fully agrees with absolute dating methods for clay tablets or coins like thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating, archaeomagnetic, metallographic dating, but claims that their precision does not allow for comprehensive pinpointing on the time axis either.

Fomenko also condemns the common archaeological practice of submitting samples for dating accompanied with an estimate of the expected age. He claims that convergence of uncertainty in archaeological dating methods proves strictly nothing per se. Even if the sum S of probabilities of the veracity of event produced by N dating methods exceeds 1.00 it does not mean that the event has taken place with 100% probability.

Reception

Fomenko’s historical ideas have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who brand them as pseudoscience, but were popularized by former world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Billington writes that the theory “might have quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia” if not for Kasparov’s writing in support of it in the magazine Ogoniok. Kasparov met Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko’s conclusions concerning certain subjects were identical to his own regarding the popular view (which is not the view of academics) that art and culture died during the Dark Ages and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks living under the banner of Byzantium could fail to use the mounds of scientific knowledge left them by Ancient Greece and Rome, especially when it was of urgent military use. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology. Russian critics tended to see Fomenko’s New Chronology as “an embarrassment and a potent symbol of the depths to which the Russian academy and society have generally sunk … since the fall of Communism.” Western critics see his views as part of a renewed Russian imperial ideology, “keeping alive an imperial consciousness and secular messianism in Russia.”

In 2004 Anatoly Fomenko with his coauthor Gleb Nosovsky were awarded for their books on “New Chronology” the anti-prize of the Moscow International Book Fair called “Abzatz” (literally ‘paragraph’, a euphemism for a vulgar Russian word meaning disaster or fiasco) in the category “Esteemed nonsense” (“Pochotnaya bezgramota”) awarded for the worst book published in Russia.

Critics have accused Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics by selecting matches from the historical record which support his chronology, while ignoring those which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko’s statistical arguments. The new chronology was given a comprehensive critical analysis in a round table on “The ‘Myths’ of New Chronology” chaired by the dean of the department of history of Moscow State University in December 1999. One of the participants in that round table, the distinguished Russian archaeologist, Valentin Yanin, compared Fomenko’s work to “the sleight of hand trickery of a David Copperfield.” Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak argued that by using the Fomenko’s approaches one can “prove” any historical correspondence, for example, between Ancient Egyptian pharaohs and French kings.

James Billington, formerly professor of Russian history at Harvard and Princeton and currently the Librarian of Congress placed Fomenko’s work within the context of the political movement of Eurasianism, which sought to tie Russian history closely to that of its Asian neighbors. Billington describes Fomenko as ascribing the belief in past hostility between Russia and the Mongols to the influence of Western historians. Thus, by Fomenko’s chronology, “Russia and Turkey are parts of a previously single empire.” A French reviewer of Billington’s book noted approvingly his concern with the phantasmagorical conceptions of Fomenko about the global “new chronology.”

H.G. van Bueren, professor emeritus of astronomy at the University of Utrecht, concluded his scathing review of Fomenko’s work on the application of mathematics and astronomy to historical data as follows:

“It is surprising, to say the least, that a well-known (Dutch) publisher could produce an expensive book of such doubtful intellectual value, of which the only good word that can be said is that it contains an enormous amount of factual historical material, untidily ordered, true; badly written, yes; mixed-up with conjectural nonsense, sure; but still, much useful stuff. For the rest of the book is absolutely worthless. It reminds one of the early Soviet attempts to produce tendentious science (Lysenko!), of polywater, of cold fusion, and of modern creationism. In brief: a useless and misleading book.” (H. G. van Bueren, Mathematics and Logic.)

Convergence of methods in archaeological dating

While Fomenko rejects commonly accepted dating methods, archaeologists, conservators and other scientists make extensive use of such techniques which have been rigorously examined and refined during decades of use.

In the specific case of dendrochronology, Fomenko claims that this fails as an absolute dating method because of gaps in the record. However, independent dendrochronological sequences beginning with living trees from various parts of North America and Europe extend back 12,400 years into the past. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. These and other data have provided a calibration curve for radiocarbon dating whose internal error does not exceed ±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve.

In fact, archaeologists have developed a fully anchored dendrochronology series going back past 10,000 BCE. “The absolutely dated tree-ring chronology now extends back to 12,410 cal BP (10,461 BC).”

Misuse of historical sources and forced pattern matching

Critics of Fomenko’s theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.

“Fomenko … provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.”

They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is very rough, because it does not take into account the many possible sources of variation in length outside of “importance.” They maintain that differences in language, style, and scope, as well as the frequently differing views and focuses of historians, which are manifested in a different notion of “important events”, make quantifying historical writings a dubious proposition at best. What’s more, Fomenko’s critics allege that the parallelisms he reports are often derived by alleged forcing by Fomenko of the data – rearranging, merging, and removing monarchs as needed to fit the pattern.

For example, on the one hand Fomenko asserts that the vast majority of ancient sources are either irreparably distorted duplicate accounts of the same events or later forgeries. In his identification of Jesus with Pope Gregory VII (Chron2, p. 51) he ignores the otherwise vast dissimilarities between their reported lives and focuses on the similarity of their appointment to religious office by baptism. (The evangelical Jesus is traditionally believed to have lived for 33 years, and he was an adult at the time of his encounter with John the Baptist. In contrast, according to the available primary sources, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of Fomenko’s John-the-Baptist equivalent John Crescentius.)

Critics allege that many of the supposed correlations of regnal durations are the product of the selective parsing and blending of the dates, events, and individuals mentioned in the original text. Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and effectively making this whole theory an ad hoc hypothesis.

Selectivity in reference to astronomical phenomena

Critics point out that Fomenko’s discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, choosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating. For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko’s dating. Statistical analysis using the same method for all “fast” stars points to the antiquity of the Almagest star catalog. Rawlins points out further that Fomenko’s statistical analysis got the wrong date for the Almagest because he took as constant Earth’s obliquity when it is a variable that changes at a very slow, but known, rate.

Fomenko’s studies ignore the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. Among these texts is a series of Babylonian astronomical diaries, which records precise astronomical observations of the Moon and planets, often dated in terms of the reigns of known historical figures extending back to the VI century BCE. Astronomical retrocalculations for all these moving objects allow us to date these observations, and consequently the rulers’ reigns, to within a single day. The observations are sufficiently redundant that only a small portion of them are sufficient to date a text to a unique year in the period 750 BCE to 100 CE. The dates obtained agree with the accepted chronology. In addition, F. R. Stephenson has demonstrated through a systematic study of a large number of Babylonian, Ancient and Medieval European, and Chinese records of eclipse observations that they can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BCE. In contrast to Fomenko’s missing centuries, Stephenson’s studies of eclipse observations find an accumulated uncertainty in the timing of the rotation of the earth of 420 seconds at 400 BCE, and only 80 seconds at 1000 CE.

Magnitude and consistency of conspiracy theory

Fomenko claims that world history prior to 1600 was deliberately falsified for political reasons. The consequences of this conspiracy theory are twofold. Documents that conflict with New Chronology are said to have been edited or fabricated by conspirators (mostly Western European historians and humanists of late XVI to XVII centuries). The lack of documents directly supporting New Chronology and conflicting traditional history is said to be thanks to the majority of such documents being destroyed by the same conspirators.

Consequently, there are many thousands of documents that are considered authentic in traditional history, but not in New Chronology. Fomenko often uses “falsified” documents, which he dismisses in other contexts, to prove a point. For example, he analyzes the Tartar Relation and arrives at the conclusion that Mongolian capital of Karakorum was located in Central Russia (equated with present-day Yaroslavl). However, the Tartar Relation makes several statements that are at odds with New Chronology (such as that Batu Khan and Russian duke Yaroslav are two distinct people). Those are said by Fomenko to have been introduced into the original text by later editors.

Many of the rulers that Fomenko claims are medieval doppelgangers moved in the imaginary past have left behind vast numbers of coins. Numismatists have made innumerable identifications of coins to rulers known from ancient sources. For instance, several Roman emperors issued coinage featuring at least three of their names, consistent with those found in written sources, and there are frequent examples of joint coinage between known royal family members, as well as overstrikes by kings who were known enemies.

Ancient coins in Greek and Latin are unearthed to this day in vast quantities from Britain to India. For Fomenko’s theories to be correct, this could only be explained by counterfeit on a very grand and consistent scale, as well as a complete dismissal of all numismatic analyses of hoard findings, coin styles etc.

Popularity in forums and amongst Russian imperialists

Despite criticism, Fomenko has published and sold over one million copies of his books in his native Russia. Many internet forums have appeared which aim to supplement his work with additional amateur research. His critics have suggested that Fomenko’s version of history appealed to the Russian reading public by keeping alive an imperial consciousness to replace their disillusionment with the failures of Communism and post-Communist corporate oligarchies.

Alexander Zinoviev called the New Chronology “one of the major scientific breakthroughs of the XX century.”

(Wikipedia text retrieved on 2nd August, 2015)

Afterword from the publisher

Dr. Fomenko et al as scientists are ready to recognize their mistakes, to repent and to retract on the condition that:

- radiocarbon dating methods pass the black box tests, or

- astronomy refutes their results on ancient eclipses, or

- US astrophysicist Robert Newton was proved wrong to accuse Ptolemy of his crime.

At present, historians do not, can not, and will not comply. The radiocarbon dating labs run their very costly tests only if the sample to be dated is accompanied with an idea of age pronounced by historians on basis of … subjective … mmm … gutfeeling … and the history books they have been writing for the last 400 years. Radiocarbon labs politely bill for their fiddling and finetuning to get the dates “to order” of historians. Circulus vitiosus is perfect.

Bibliography

Separate books on the New Chronology

Prior to the publication of the seven-volume Chronology, we published a number of books on the same topic. If we are to disregard the paperbacks and the concise versions, as well as new re-editions, there are seven such books. Shortened versions of their names appear below:

1. Introduction.

2. Methods 1-2.

3. Methods 3.

4. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome.

5. The Empire.

6. The Biblical Russia.

7. Reconstruction.

• Book one. Introduction.

[Intro]:1. Fomenko, A. T. New Experimental Statistical Methods of Dating Ancient Events and their Application to the Global Classical and Mediaeval Chronology. Pre-print. Moscow, The State Television and Radio Broadcast Committee, 1981. Order #3672. Lit. 9/XI-81. No. BO7201, 100 p.

[Intro]:2. Fomenko, A. T. Some New Empirico-Statistical Methods of Dating and the Analysis of Present Global Chronology. London, The British Library, Department of Printed Books, 1981. Cup. 918/87. 100 p.

[Intro]3. Fomenko, A. T. A Criticism of the Traditional Chronology of the Classical Age and the Middle Ages (What Century Is It Now?). Essay. Moscow, Publishing House of the Moscow State University Department of Mechanical Mathematics, 1993. 204 p.

[Intro]:4. 2nd edition, revised and expanded. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Criticism of the Traditional Chronology of the Classical Age and the Middle Ages (What Century Is It Now?). Moscow, Kraft-Lean, 1999. 757 p. Kraft Publications released a concise version of this book in 2001. 487 p.

[Intro]:5. Another revision. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. What Century Is It Now? Moscow, AIF-Print Publications, 2002. 511 p.

• Book two, part one: Methods-1.

[Meth1]:1. Fomenko, A. T. The Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and their Chronological Applications. (The identification and dating of dependent texts, statistical chronology of the antiquity, as well as the statistics of ancient astronomical accounts.) Moscow, The MSU Publishing House, 1990. 439 p.

[Meth1]:2. 2nd revised edition came out in 1996 as The Methods Of Mathematical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological applications. Moscow, Nauka Publications, 1996. 475 p.

[Meth1]:3. Several chapters of the book came out in 1996, revised and extended, as a separate book: Fomenko, A. T. The New Chronology of Greece. Antiquity in the Middle Ages, Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education, 1996. 914 p.

[Meth1]:4. The English translation of the book, extended and revised to a large extent, was released under the following title: Fomenko, A. T. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating. Vol. 1, The Development of the Statistical Tools. Vol. 2, The Analysis of Ancient and Mediaeval Records. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. Vol. 1: 211 p. Vol. 2: 462 p.

[Meth1]:5. A Serbian translation titled Фоменко А. Т. Статистичка хронологиjа. Математички поглед на историjу. У ком смо веку? was published in 1997. Belgrade, Margo-Art, 1997. 450 p.

[Meth1]:6. The book was published in a revised and substantially extended version in 1999 as Volume 1 in a series of two: Fomenko, A. T. The Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications. Vol. 1. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999. 801 p.

[Meth1]:7. A revised version of the book was published as two volumes (the first two in a series of three) in 1999 in the USA (in Russian) by the Edwin Mellen Press. Fomenko, A. T. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology, Vols. 1 and 2. The publication is part of the series titled Scholarly Monographs in the Russian Language, Vols. 6-7. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. Vol. 1: 588 p. Vol. 2: 564 p.

• Book two, part two: Methods-2.

[Meth2]:1. Fomenko, A. T. Global Chronology. (A Research of the Classical and Mediaeval History. Mathematical Methods of Source Analysis. Global Chronology.) Moscow, MSU Publications, 1993. 408 p.

[Meth2]:2. A revised and substantially extended version of the book as the second volume in a series of two: Fomenko, A. T. The Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications, Vol. 2. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999. 907 p.

[Meth2]:3. A revised version of the book was published as the last volume in a series of three in the USA (in Russian) under the title: Fomenko A. T. Antiquity in the Middle Ages (Greek and Bible History), the trilogy bearing the general name: Fomenko A. T. New Methods of the Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts and their Chronological Application. The publication is part of the series titled Scholarly Monographs in the Russian Language. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999. 578 p.

• Book three: Methods-3.

[Meth3]:1. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. USA: CRC Press, 1993. 300 p.

[Meth3]:2. The Russian version of the book was published in 1995 in Moscow by the Faktorial Publications under the title: Kalashnikov V. V., Nosovskiy G. V., Fomenko A. T. The Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue. Statistical and Geometrical Analysis. 286 p.

[Meth3]:3. A substantially extended and revised version of the book: Kalashnikov, V. V., G. V. Nosovskiy, and A. T. Fomenko. The Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. The Almagest. Zodiacs. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publications, 2000. 895 p.

[Meth3]:4. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Egypt. The Astronomical Dating of Ancient Egyptian Monuments. Research of 2000-2002. Moscow, Veche Press, 2002. 463 p.

• Book four: Russia, Britain and Rome.

[RBR]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology and Conception of the Ancient History of Russia, Britain, and Rome. Facts, Statistics, Hypotheses. Vol. 1, Russia. Vol. 2, Britain and Rome. Moscow, MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education. Two editions, 1995 and 1996. 672 p.

[RBR]:2. A somewhat adapted and revised version of the book came out in 1997: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Russia and Rome. How correct is our understanding of Eurasian history? Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Olymp Publications, 1997. 2nd edition 1999. The next three volumes from this series of five were published in 2001. Vol. 1: 606 p. Vol. 2: 621 p. Vol. 3: 540 p. Vol. 4: 490 p. Vol. 5: 394 p.

[RBR]:3. A revised version of the first volume was published in 1997 as a separate book: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia. Moscow, Faktorial Publications, 1997. Re-editions 1998 and 1999. 255 p.

[RBR]:4. A new, substantially extended and revised version of the first two-volume edition as a single volume: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome. Moscow, Anvik, 1999. 540 p.

[RBR]:5. A new revised version of this book came out as a single volume: Fomenko A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publications, 2001. 1015 p.

• Book five: The Empire.

[Emp]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Empire (Russia, Turkey, China, Europe, Egypt. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity). Moscow, Faktorial, 1996. Re-editions 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002. 752 p.

• Book six: The Biblical Russia.

[BR]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Mathematical Chronology of the Biblical Events. Moscow, Nauka Publications, 1997. 407 p.

[BR]:2. A substantially revised and extended version: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Faktorial, 1998. Vol. 1: 687 p. Vol. 2: 582 p.

[BR]:3. A somewhat condensed version, which nevertheless contained some important new material: Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Horde-Russia on the Pages of the Biblical Books. Moscow, Anvik Publications, 1998. 430 p.

[BR]:4. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters I (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. History of the Manuscripts and Editions of the Bible. The Events of the XI-XII Century A.D. in the New Testament. The Pentateuch.). Moscow, Faktorial, 1999. 173 p.

[BR]:5. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters II (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. History of the XIV-XVI Century in the Last Books of the Kings. The History of the XV-XVI Century in the Last Chapters of the Books of the Kings. History of the XV-XVI Century in the Books of Esther and Judith. The Reformation Epoch of the XVI-XVII Century). Moscow, Faktorial Press, 2000. 223 p.

• Book seven: Reconstruction.

[Rec]:1. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History (The New Chronology). Book 1. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publishers, 1999. 735 p.

[Rec]:2. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. The Research of 1999-2000 (The New Chronology). Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publishers, 1999. 615 p.

[Rec]:3. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. Joan of Arc, Samson, and the History of Russia. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial Publishers, 2002.

We have to point out that the publication of our books on the New Chronology has influenced a number of authors and their works where the new chronological concepts are discussed or developed. Some of these are: L. I. Bocharov, N. N. Yefimov, I. M. Chachukh, and I. Y. Chernyshov ([93]), Jordan Tabov ([827], [828]), A. Goutz ([220]), M. M. Postnikov ([680]), V. A. Nikerov ([579:1]), Heribert Illig ([1208]), Christian Blöss and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz ([1038], [1039]), Gunnar Heinsohn ([1185]), Gunnar Heinsohn and Heribert Illig ([1186]), Uwe Topper ([1462], [1463]).

Our research attracted sufficient attention to chronological issues for the Muscovite publishing house Kraft to print a new edition of the fundamental work of N. A. Morozov titled Christ, first published in 1924-1932.

Sources in Russian

[1]. Abalakin, V. K. The Essential Ephemeris Astronomy. Moscow, 1979.

[2]. Abbas, Shalabi. The Entire Egypt, from Cairo to Abu-Simbel and Sinai. 2nd extended Russian edition. Florence, Bonechi, 1996.

[2:1]. Avadyaeva, E., and L. Zdanovich. The Hundred Great Afflictions. Moscow, Veche, 1999.

[3]. Agathius. The Reign of Justinian. Moscow-Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences Publications, 1953. See also Agathius, Scholasticus. Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri quinque. Berolini, 1967.

[4]. Mez, Adam. The Muslim Renaissance. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. German edition: Mez, A. Die Renaissance des Islams. Heidelberg, 1922.

[5]. Azarevich, D. I. The History of the Byzantine Law. Yaroslavl, 1876-1877.

[6]. Aydarova-Volkova, G. The Priceless Experience. A Cultural Dialogue. Looking Across the Centuries. The Kazan magazine, Issue 9-10 (1999): 13-21.

[7]. Acropolite, George. The Chronicle of the Great Logothete George Acropolite. St. Petersburg, 1863.

[8]. The Historical Acts Compiled and Published by the Archaeographical Commission. St. Petersburg, The State Document Preparation Expedition Typography. Vols. 1 and 2. 1841.

[9]. Nazarov, V. D., ed. The Acts of the State of Russia. Archives of the Muscovite Monasteries and Cathedrals. The XV – early XVII century. Moscow, The Ladomir Research and Publication Centre, 1998.

[10]. Alexandria. A Novel about Alexander the Great Based on a Russian Chronicle of the XV century. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1966.

[11]. Petrukhno, A. S., N. I. Shirinya, S. A. Gleybman, and O. V. Zavgorodniaya. Alexander’s Village (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, or, literally, “The Freemen’s Village of Alexander”). An Album. The Russian Federation Ministry of Culture. City of Alexandrov. The State Museum of Art, History, and Architecture of Alexander’s Village. The City Council of the City of Alexandrov. 1996.

[12]. Alexander’s Village (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda). The materials of a scientific and practical conference. Vladimir, Golden Gate Publications, 1995.

[13]. Alexandrovsky, M. I. A Historical Reference Book for the Churches of Moscow. Moscow, The State Museum of History, Department of Visual Arts, the Architectural Graphics Fund, 1917 (with an additional written before 1942).

[14]. Alexeyev, M. P. On the Anglo-Russian Relations in the Time of Yaroslav the Wise. The Scientific Bulletin of the Leningrad State University (4, 1945): 31.

[15]. Alexeyev, Y. My Monarch Sent Me to the Sultan. The Rodina magazine, No. 2 (1997): 31-36.

[16]. Alessandro, Angelini. Piero della Francesca. The Great Italian Masters series. Moscow, Slovo, 1997. The Italian edition: Italy, Scala, Instituto Fotografico Editoriale, 1995.

[16:1]. [Altarpieces] Caterina Limentani Virdis and Mari Pietrogiovanna. Altarpieces. The Art of the Early Renaissance. Translated from Italian. Byely Gorod, 2002. Arsenale editrice, Italy, 2001.

[17]. The Alphabetic Syntagm of Matthew Vlastar. Translated from Greek by Rev. Nikolai Ilyinsky, a teacher from the Seminary School of Tauris. Simpheropol, 1892. A new edition: Moscow, Galaxy Publications, 1996.

[18]. Alberti, L. Leon Battista Alberti. A collection of essays. Moscow, the USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1977. Complete ed. Oxford, Phaidon, 1977.

[19]. Amalrik, A. S., and A. L. Mongayt. The Essential Archaeology. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1963.

[19:0]. [Amartoles, George]. Matveyenko, V., and L. Shchegoleva. The Chronicle of George the Monk. Russian text, comments, indications. Moscow, Bogorodskiy Pechatnik, 2000.

[19:1]. The catalogue of the exhibition 500 Years Since the Discovery of America. The Hermitage. Russian National Library. St. Petersburg, Slavia-Interbook, Inc., 1993.

[20]. Amousin, I. D. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Moscow, Nauka, 1960.

[21]. Amphitheatrov, A. Collected Works in 8 Volumes. Vol. 4. St. Petersburg, Prosveshchenie, 1911.

[22]. Anastasov, L. A New Direction in Science? Be careful! The Science and Technology magazine (Moscow), No. 8 (1983): 28-30.

[23]. Müller, V. K., comp. The English-Russian Dictionary. 70,000 words. Moscow, The State National and Foreign Dictionary Publishing House, 1961.

[24]. Andreyeva, V., V. Kuklev, and A. Rovner. An Encyclopedia of Symbols, Signs, and Emblems. Moscow, Lokid/Myth/Ad Marginem, 1999.

[25]. Anninskiy, S. A. The News of the Tartars in Europe Brought by the Hungarian Missionaries. Included in The Historical Archive, 71-112. Moscow-Leningrad, The RAS Institute of History, RAS Publications, 1940.

[26]. Antwerp and its Sights. Antwerp, Editions THILL S.A. Brussels, 1999. In Russian.

[27]. Antonov, A. V. Genealogical Murals of Late XVII Century. The Archaeographical Centre. The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The Russian Historical Research, No. 6. Moscow, the Archaeographical Centre Publications.

[28]. Antonova, V. I., and N. E. Mneva. The Catalogue of Ancient Russian Art from the Tretyakov Gallery. Moscow, 1963. Vol. 1: p. 256; Vol 2: pp. 413 and 421.

[29]. The Apocryphal Jesus, Holy Family, and Christ Witness Legendry. Sventsitskaya, I. S., and A. P. Skogorev, comp. Moscow, Kogelet, 1999.

[30]. Apollodorus. The Mythological Library. Leningrad, Nauka, 1972. English edition: Apollodorus. The Library. London-New York: Loeb Classical Library, 1921.

[30:1]. Arago, F. The Biographies of the Famous Astronomers, Physicists, and Geometricians. Books 1 and 2 (Vols. 1-3). Translated by D. Perevoshchikov. Moscow-Izhevsk, The Scientific Research Centre for Regular and Chaotic Dynamics, 2000.

[31]. Arenkova, Y. I., and G. I. Mekhova. The Don Monastery. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1970.

[32]. Aristaenetus. The Love Epistles. Eustathius, Macrembolites. The Story of Ismene and Istmenias. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1965. Also see Aristaenetus. The Love Epistles. In W. Kelley. Erotica. London, Bohn’s Classical Library, G. Bell & Sons, 1848. Eustathius, Macrembolites. Ismene and Istmenias. London, 1788.

[33]. Zdanovich, G. B., ed. Arkaim. Research. Prospects. Findings. A collection of essays. From the series titled The Historical Pages of Southern Ural. The Arkaim Reserve works, State University of Chelyabinsk, the Specialized Arkaim Nature and Landscape Centre of History and Archaeology. The State Reserve of Ilmen. Chelyabinsk, the Kamenny Poyas Creative Group, 1995.

[34]. Arnold, Y. El Señor Kon-Tiki. Moscow, Mysl, 1970.

[35]. Aronov, V. The Elseviers (A History of Literary Art). Moscow, Kniga, 1975.

[36]. The Chronicler of Archangelsk. A complete collection of Russian chronicles, Vol. 37. Leningrad, Nauka, 1982.

[37]. Archangelskiy, Leonid. The Samurai Steel. An article for the magazine called Magnum. The New Magazine on Arms (November-December 1998): 18-21.

[38]. Avdousina, T. D., and T. D. Panov. Archaeological Antiquities: The Muscovite Kremlin. The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture. Moscow, 1996.

[39]. Serge, Archbishop. The Complete Oriental Menology. Vols. 1-3. Vladimir, Typography & Lithography of V. A. Parkov in Vladimir, 1901. Reprinted Moscow, Orthodox Encyclopaedia Centre of Ecclesiastic Research, Palomnik Publications, 1997.

[40]. Archimedes. The Works. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1962. English edition: Archimedes, The Works of Archimedes. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1912.

[40:0]. Asov, A. I. The Book of Veles. Moscow, Menedzher, 1995, 2nd edition.

[40:00]. Asov, A. I., Konovalov, M. Y. The Ancient Aryans. The Slavs. Russia. Moscow, Veche, 2002.

[40:1]. Gentili, Augusto, William Barcham, and Linda Whiteley. The National Gallery of London. From the The Great Museums of the World series. Moscow, Slovo, 2001. A translation of the Italian edition Udine: Magnus Edizioni, 2000.

[41]. Nikitin, Afanasiy. Voyage over the Three Sees. Published in the Literary Monuments of Old Russia. 2nd Half of the XV Century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1982.

[42]. Nikitin, Afanasiy. Afanasiy Nikitin’s Voyage over the Three Sees. 1466-1472. Foreword, translation, text preparation and commentary by N. I. Prokofiev. Moscow, Sovietskaya Rossiya, 1980.

[43]. Akhmanova, O. S., and others. Precise Methods of Language Study. Moscow, 1961.

[44]. Bayev, K. L. Copernicus. From the Celebrity Biographies series, Issue 7 (55). Moscow, The Magazine and Newspaper Consociation, 1935.

[45]. Beyer, Rolf. The Queen of Sheba. From the Mark In History series. Rostov-on-Don, Fenix Publications, 1998. A translation from the German original by Beyer, Rolf. Die Königin von Saba. The Question Mark series, Gustav Lübbe Verlag GmbH, Bergisch Gladbach. 1987.

[46]. Balandin, R. K. A Miracle or a Scientific Enigma? Science and Religion Discussing the Shroud of Turin. Moscow, Znaniye, 1989. The Question Mark series, Issue 1, 1989.

[47]. Balandin, R., and L. Bondarev. Nature and Civilization. Moscow, Mysl, 1988.

[48]. Baldin, V. I., and T. P. Manushkina. The Laura of Serge and The Trinity. The Architectural Set and the Collections of Ancient Russian Art of the XIV-XVII Century. Moscow, Nauka, 1996.

[49]. Baranov, V. Logic Isn’t Facts. The Science & Technology magazine (Moscow), No. 4 (1983): 24-28.

[50]. Baronius, C. The Ecclesial and Secular Annals from the Birth of Christ and until the Year 1198. Typography of P. P. Ryabushinsky, from Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198. Moscow, 1913.

[51]. Bartenev, S. The Moscow Kremlin in the Antiquity and Nowadays. Moscow, Synodal Typography, 1912.

[52]. de las Casas, Bartólome. History of the Indias. Leningrad, Nauka, 1968.

[53]. Baskakov, N. A. Russian Names of Turkic Origin. Moscow, Nauka, The Main Oriental Literature Editing Board, 1979.

[54]. Magarichev, Y. M., ed. and comp. The Cultural and Historical Reserve of Bakhchisaray. Simferopol, Tavria, 1995.

[55]. Bakhshi, Iman. Jagfar Tarikhy. A Collection of Bulgarian Manuscripts from 1680. Russian translation of the Bulgarian text by I. M. K. Nigmatoullin. Orenburg, The Orenburg Press Contact, KOPF, editorial board of the Bulgaria Courier, 1993.

[56]. Bashmakova, I. G., and G. S. Smirnova. The Naissance and the Development of Algebra. Published in the Aperçus on the History of Mathematics edited by B. V. Gnedenko. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1997.

[57]. Belenkiy, M. S. Judaism. Moscow, Gospolitizdat, 1966.

[58]. Bellosi, Luciano. Giotto. Moscow, Slovo Press, 1996. Translated from the 1995 Italian edition by Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale.

[59]. Belova, A. G. The Historical Morphology of the Arabic Language. Moscow, 1994.

[59:0]. Belova G. A, Sherkova T. A. Russians in the Land of Pyramids. Travellers, Scientists, Collectioners. Moscow, Aleteya, 2003.

[59:1]. Belyavsky, V. A. Legendary and Historical Babylon. Moscow, Mysl, 1971.

[60]. Belyavsky, M. T. M. V. Lomonosov and the Foundation of the Moscow University (1755-1955). Edited by M. N. Tikhomirov. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1955.

[61]. Belyaev, D. V. Byzantine. Essays, Materials and Notes concerning Byzantine Antiquity. Book III. St. Petersburg, 1891-1906.

[62]. Belyaev, L. A. The Ancient Monasteries of Moscow According to Archaeological Data. Moscow, The Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology. Research and materials concerning the archaeology of Moscow. Vol. 6. 1995.

[63]. Belyaev, Y. 100 Monsters of Antiquity. An illustrated encyclopaedia of mythology. Moscow, Raritet, 1997.

[64]. Bémont, C., and G. Monod. The Mediaeval History of Europe. Petrograd, 1915. French edition: Bémont, C., and G. Monod. Histoire de l’Europe au Moyen Âge. Paris, 1921.

[64:1]. Berg, L. S. The Discovery of Kamchatka and Bering’s Expedition. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1946.

[64:2]. Berg, L. S. Essays on the History of Russian Geographical Discoveries. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1946.

[65]. Berry, A. Concise History of Astronomy. Translated by S. Zaimovskiy. Moscow-Leningrad, GITTL, 1946.

[66]. Archimandrite Nicephor. The Biblical Encyclopedia (The Full Illustrated Biblical Encyclopedia). Moscow, The A. I. Snegiryova Typography, 1891. A modern reprint was published by the Laura of St. Serge and the Holy Trinity in 1990.

[67]. The Bible. 10th edition. St. Petersburg, 1912.

[68]. The Bible. Books from the Old and the New Covenant in Russian Translation with Anagoges and Appendices. Moscow, Moscow Patriarchy Press, 1968. There are numerous re-editions in existence, for instance, the one published by the Russian Biblical Society in Moscow, 1995.

[69]. The Bible. Books of the Holy Writ from the Old and the New Covenant. Russian translation with appendices. 4th edition. Brussels, Life with God Press, 1989.

[70]. The Bible, or the Books of the Holy Writ from the Old and the New Covenant with Anagoges. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg, Synodal Typography, 1900. Reprinted by the Russian Biblical Society in Moscow, 1993. (This version of the Bible dates to the 1st half of the XVIII century and is therefore occasionally called Elizabethan.)

[71]. Scorina’s Bible. A facsimile edition of the Bible published by Francisco Scorina in 1517-1519. Volumes 1-3. Minsk, The Petrus Brovka Byelorussian Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia Press, 1990.

[72]. Bickerman, E. Chronology of the Ancient World. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. Translated from the English edition published in London by Thames & Hudson, 1968-1969.

[73]. Biroulia, Y. N. Russian Naval Charts of 1701-1750. Copies from originals (Atlas). St. Petersburg, The Military Navy Publications, 1993.

[74]. The Book of Good Tidings. Interpretations of the Holy Gospel by St. Theophilactus, the Archbishop of Bulgaria. The Gospel According to Mark Interpreted. St. Petersburg, P. P. Soykin’s Publications. Reprinted St. Petersburg, Satis Press, 1993.

[75]. Blazhko, S. N. A Course of Practical Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[76]. Blair, G. Chronological Tables Spanning the Entire Global History, Containing Every Year since the Genesis and until the XIX Century, Published in English by G. Blair, a Member of the Royal Society, London. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow University Press, 1808-1809. The English edition: Blair’s Chronological and Historical Tables, from the Creation to the Present Time, etc. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1882.

[77]. Bobrovnitskaya, T. A. The Royal Regalia of the Russian Rulers. The Kremlin in Moscow. Published to Commemorate the 500th Anniversary of the State Coat of Arms and the 450th Anniversary of the Inauguration of the First Russian Czar Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1997.

[78]. Bobrovnitsky. The Origins and the Process of the Roman Catholic Liturgy. Kiev, 1873.

[79]. Bogdanov, Ivan. Name Lists of the Bulgarian Khans. Sofia, Otechestvenia Front Press, 1981.

[80]. Gousseva, E., A. Lukashov, and others. Our Lady of Vladimir. A collection of materials. Exhibition catalogue. The State Tretyakovskaya Gallery, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture. Moscow, Avangard Press, 1995.

[80:1]. Boguslavskiy, V. V. The Slavic Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, OLMA-Press, 2001.

[81]. Bozhilov, Ivan. The Asen Dynasty (1186-1460). Genealogy and Prosopography. Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Press, 1994.

[82]. Bolingbroke. Epistles on Historical Studies and their Utility. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[83]. Bolotov, V. V. Lectures on Ancient Ecclesial History. Vols. 1-4. Published posthumously under the editorship of Prof. A. Brilliantov. St. Petersburg, 1907. Reprinted Moscow, Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery of Valaam, 1994.

[84]. Bolkhovitinov, E. A. (Metropolitan Eugene). The Concise Chronicle of Pskov. Pskov, Otchina Press, 1993.

[85]. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-51. 2nd edition. Moscow, The Soviet Encyclopaedia Press, 1949-1957.

[85:1]. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-30. 3rd edition. Moscow, 1969-1978. (Electronic version on 5 CD-ROMs.)

[86]. The Great Catechism. Moscow, 7135 (1627 ad). Reprinted by the Royal Grodno typography in 7291 (1683 AD).

[87]. The Great German-Russian Dictionary. 2nd edition, Stereotyped. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1980.

[87:1]. The Great Turkish-Russian Dictionary. 20,000 words and word groups. The RAS Institute for Oriental Studies. 2nd edition. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1998.

[88]. The Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia Press, 1998.

[89]. Borisov, N. S. Ivan Kalita. The Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, Molodaya Gvardia, 1995.

[90]. Borisovskaya, N. Engraved Ancient Maps and Plans of the XV-XVIII century. Cosmography, Maps, Star Charts, City and Battle Plans. From the Pushkin State Museum of Art Collection. Moscow, Galaktika Press, 1995.

[91]. Bosch, Hieronymus. Self-titled album of reproductions. Moscow, Uniserv, 1995.

[91:1]. Botticelli. An album from the Masters of Art series. Text by Elena Carpetti. 1997, Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, Florence, 2002. Russian edition by Byely Gorod, Moscow, 2001.

[92]. Beaufort, Louis de. Dissertation sur l’incertitude des cinq premiers siècles de l’histoire Romaine. Utrecht, 1738. Republished Paris, Blot, 1886.

[93]. Bocharov, L. I., N. N. Yefimov, I. M. Chachoukh, and I. Y. Chernyshev. The Conspiracy Against Russian History. (Facts, Mysteries, Versions). Moscow, Anvik, 1998.

[93:1]. Brant, Sebastian. Ship of Fools. Part of the The World Literature Bibliothèque series (Series 1, Vol. 33). Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1971.

[94]. Brownley, C. A. Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Technology. Moscow, Nauka, 1977.

[95]. Brashinskiy, I. B. Looking for the Scythian Treasures. Leningrad, The USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1979.

[96]. Brodsky, B. Kremlin – The Heart of the Fatherland. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1996.

[97]. Bronstein, I. N., and K. A. Semendyaev. A Reference Book on Mathematics. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[98]. Bronsten, V. A. Claudius Ptolemy. Moscow, Nauka, 1988.

[99]. Brugsch, Heinrich. History of the Pharaohs. Translated by G. K. Vlastov. Published in the series titled The Chronicles and the Monuments of the Ancient Egypt. St. Petersburg, I. I. Glazounov’s Typography, 1880. English edition: Egypt under the Pharaohs. A History Derived Entirely from the Monuments. London, J. Murray, 1891.

[99:1]. Bruges: its Sights and Delights. City Plan. (Russian version). E.E.C., Editions Thill S. A., Brussels, 1997.

[100]. Bryusova, V. G. Andrei Rublev. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1995.

[101]. Bouganov, V. I. Razin and his Followers. Documents, Accounts of the Contemporaries. Moscow, Nauka, 1995.

[102]. Bouganov, S. I. Native Historiography of Russian Chronicles. Moscow, Nauka, 1975.

[103]. Bouzeskoul, V. P. An Introduction into Greek History. Lectures. Vol. 1. Petrograd, 1915.

[104]. Boukreyeva, T. N. The Basel Museum of Arts. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1987.

[105]. Boulatov, A. M. The Historical Plans of Moscow. Release III. Moscow, Zhiraf, 2000.

[106]. Burian, Y., and B. Moukhova. The Enigmatic Etruscans. Moscow, Nauka, 1970.

[107]. Bouseva-Davydova, I. L. The Temples of the Muscovite Kremlin: Holy Relics and other Antiquities. Moscow, The Nauka Int’l Academic Publishing Co., 1997.

[108]. Boutkevich, T. I. An Overview of Russian Sects. Kharkov, 1910.

[109]. Boutkov, P. Defending the Russian Chronicle of Nestor from the Vituperation of the Sceptics. St. Petersburg, 1840.

[110]. Boutomo, S. I. Radionuclear Datings and the Construction of an Absolute Chronological Scale of Archaeological Monuments. In Archaeology and Natural Sciences. Moscow, Nauka, 1965. 35-45.

[111]. Boutromeyev, V. Global History in Individual Personalities. Late Middle Ages. Moscow, Olma, 1999.

[112]. Kalougin, V. I., comp. Folk Tales and Legends. Moscow, Sovremennik, 1991.

[113]. Bychkov, A. A., A. Y. Nizovsky, and P. Y. Chernosvitov. The Conundrums of Ancient Russia. Moscow, Veche, 2000.

[114]. Bychkov, V. V. The Mediaeval Aesthetics of Russia. XI-XVII century. Moscow, Mysl, 1992.

[114:1]. Bauval, Robert, and Adrian Gilbert. The Orion Mystery. Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids. Russian translation. Moscow, Veche, 1996.

[115]. Bulgaria. A Traveller’s Map. Scale: 1:530000. Sofia, Datamap Revue, 1997.

[116]. Wagner, G. K. Soviet Union and its Famous Works of Art. Old Cities of Russia. A traveller’s guide. Moscow, Iskusstvo, Edizion Leipzig, 1980.

[116:1]. Weinstein S., and M.Kryukov. The Saddle and the Stirrup. The Znaniye-Sila (Knowledge is Power) magazine (Moscow), August 1985, 24-26.

[117]. Valishevsky, K. Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, IKPA-press, 1989. Reprinted from Moscow, Obshchestvennaya Polza Typography, 1912.

[118]. Valishevsky, K. Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, Svarog, 1993.

[119]. Valishevsky, K. The First Romanovs. Moscow, Kvadrat, 1993.

[120]. Vasiliev, A. A. The History of Byzantium. The Fall of Byzantium. The Palaeiologi Epoch (1261-1453). Leningrad, Academia, 1925.

[121]. An Introduction into Special Historical Disciplines. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1990.

[122]. Weber, George. Universal History. Moscow, 1892. English edition: Weber, G. Outline of Universal History from the Creation of the World to the Present Time. London, 1851.

[122:1]. Hungarian-Russian Dictionary. 40,000 words. Moscow-Budapest, Russkiy Yazyk, The Hungarian Academy of Sciences Publishing House, 1974.

[123]. Weisman, A. D. Greek-Russian Dictionary. 5th edition. St. Petersburg, published by the author, 1899. Reprinted Moscow, Graeco-Latin Department of Y. A. Shichalin, 1991.

[124]. Weisman, A. D. Latin-Russian Dictionary. St. Petersburg: published by the author, 1899. Reprinted Moscow, Graeco-Latin Department of Y. A. Shichalin, 1991.

[125]. Venelin, Y. News of the Varangians as Related by Arab Scribes; their Alleged Crimes as Seen by the Latter. The Imperial Moscow University Society for History and Russian Antiquities Readings, Book IV, Section V: 1-18. 1870.

[125:1]. Vereshchagin V. V. Vereschagin, the Artist. Napoleon I in Russia, 1812. Tver, the Sozvezdie Agency of Tver, 1993.

[125:2]. Vermoush, G. Diamonds in World History and Stories about Diamonds. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1988.

[126]. Veselovsky, A. N. Russians and Veltins in the Saga of Tidrec of Berne (Verona). St. Petersburg, Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1906. A separate engraving from the Russian Language and Belles Lettres Department Courier, Vol. XI (1906), Book 3: 1-190.

[127]. Veselovsky, I. N. Aristarchus of Samos – The Copernicus of the Antiquity. Historical and astronomical research. Issue 7: 44. Moscow, Nauka, 1961.

[128]. Veselovsky, S. B. A Research into the History of Oprichnina. Moscow, 1963.

[129]. The Russia Academy of Sciences Courier, Vol. 68, No. 10 (October 1998). Moscow, Nauka.

[129:1]. Palaudirias, S. A., Editorial Escudo de Oro. The Entire Antwerp. In The Entire Europe Collection. Antwerp, published in Russian. Barcelona, 1998.

[129:2]. Bersnev, P. V., comp. The Old Testament Apocrypha. The Book of the Jubilees. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Translated by A. V. Smirnov. Published in the Alexandrian Library series. St. Petersburg, Amphora, 2000.

[129:3]. Vzdornov, G. I. Book Art in Old Russia. Handwritten Books in the North-Eastern Russia in the XII – Early XV century. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1980.

[130]. Widukind of Corvea. The Deeds of the Saxons. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. See also Widukind. Sächsische Geschichten. Translated by R. Schottin, foreword by W. Wattenbach. GV. Leipzig, 1882. Also see: Widukind. Sächsische Geschichten. New revision by Paul Hirsch. GV, Bd. 33, Leipzig, 1931.

[131]. The Byzantine Book of the Eparch. Moscow, Oriental Literature Publications, 1962. Also see The Book of the Eparch. Le livre du préfet, with an introduction by Prof. Ivan Dulcev. “Reprint of … the publication (by Jules Nicole) of the Book of the Eparch, to which is added … a facsimile of the complete manuscript and Freshfield’s English translation.” 1970.

[132]. Byzantine Historians. Dexippos, Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Malchus, Peter the Patrician, Menander, Candides, Nonnos, Theophanes the Byzantine. St. Petersburg, 1858.

[133]. Byzantine Legends. Leningrad, Nauka, 1972.

[134]. Vilinbakhov, G. V. The State Coat of Arms of Russia. 500 Years. St. Petersburg, Slavia. The State Hermitage. The Presidential State Heraldry Commission. The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1997.

[135]. Vilinbakhov, G., and T. Vilinbakhova. St. George and his Image as Used in Russia. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo, 1995.

[136]. de Villehardouin, Geoffroy. The Conquest of Constantinople. Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

[137]. Vinogradov, V. K. Theodosia. A Historical Aperçu. Yekaterinodar, Kilius & Co Typography, 1902. (A reprint of the first part of the book is given in the historical and literary almanac titled Okoyem [Horizon], No. 2 for 1992, Theodosia.)

[138]. Vittorio, Serra. The Entire Rome. (Flowers. Churches. Museums. Monuments. Fountains. The Vatican. The Sistine Chapel. Tivoli. Ostia Antica). Bonechi Edizioni “Il Turismo.” Florence, 1994.

[139]. Vladimirov, L. I. The Omnified Literary History. Moscow, Kniga, 1988.

[140]. Vlasov, Sergei. The Deeds of Constantine the Great. First Experimental Typography of the State Committee of Russian Federation, Eleemosynary Institution “The Order of Constantine the Great”, 1999.

[141]. Vnouchkov, B. C. The Prisoner of Schliesselburg. Yaroslavl, the Upper Volga Publications, 1988.

[142]. Voyekova, I. N., and V. P. Mitrofanov. Yaroslavl. From the series titled Museum Cities. Leningrad, Avrora, 1973.

[143]. The Military Topographic Map of Moscow and its Environs (1860). The map was published in the Rarities of Russian Cartography series. Moscow, Kartair, the scientific and editorial publishing house of I. R. Anokhin, 1998.

[144]. Around the Coliseum. The Izvestiya newspaper, 18 May 1977.

[145]. The Vologda Chronicle. The Anthology of Ancient Russian Literature, Vol. 37. Leningrad, Nauka, 1982.

[145:1]. The Land of Volokolamsk. Dedicated to 400 Years of Glorifying the Most Reverend Joseph of Volotsk. Under the general editorship of Pitirim, the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk and Yurievsk. Moscow, Prosvetitel, 1994.

[146]. Volfkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov as a Chemist (1854-1946). The Journal of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Department of Chemistry, No. 5 (1947).

[147]. Volfkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov. His Life and Works on Chemistry. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 11 (1947).

[148]. Voronikhina, L. N. Edinburgh. The Cities and Museums of the World series. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1974.

[149]. Vostokov, A. A Description of the Russian and the Slovenian Manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum as Compiled by Alexander Vostokov. St. Petersburg, Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1842.

[150]. The Chronicle of Ivan Timofeyev. Prepared for printing, translated and commented by O. A. Derzhavina. Moscow-Leningrad, 1951.

[151]. Global History. 10 volumes. Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences, The Socio-Economic Literature Department Publications, 1958.

[152]. The Unified Library of Russia, or the Book Catalogue for an Exhaustive and Detailed Description of our Fatherland. 2nd extended edition. Moscow, 1845.

[153]. Maggi, G. and Valdes, G. The Entire Turkey. Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1995.

[154]. Wooley, L. Ur of the Chaldees. Moscow, Oriental Literary, 1961 (1972). English edition: Wooley, L. Ur of the Chaldees. London, Benn, 1950. See also: Wooley, L. Excavations at Ur. A Record of Twelve Years. London, Benn, 1955.

[155]. Galfridus Monmutensis. History of the Brits. The Life of Merlin. Moscow, Nauka, 1984. English edition: Histories of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Translated by L. A. Paton. London-New York, 1912. See also: Giles, J. A., ed. Six Old English Chronicles. London, 1848.

[156]. Garkavi, A. Y. The Accounts of the Slavs and the Russians as Given by Muslim Authors (from mid-VII century until the End of the X century AD). St. Petersburg, 1870 (1872).

[157]. Genova, E., and L. Vlakhova. 24 Church Plates from the Rila Monastery. Sofia, Bulgarsky Khudozhnik, 1988.

[158]. GEO. A monthly magazine. No. 1 (January, 2000). Moscow, Gruner and Yar Ltd.

[159]. Geographical Atlas. Moscow, The General Council of Ministers, Department of Geodetics and Cartography. 1968.

[160]. Herberstein. Baron Sigismund Herberstein. Notes on the Affairs of the Muscovires. St. Petersburg, A. S. Souvorin’s Press, 1908. Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii. Wien, S. l. et d., 1549. Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii. Basiliae, 1551. Rerum moscoviticarum commentarii. Basiliae, 1556. Moscovia, der Hauptstat in Reissen. Wien, 1557. Major, R. H., ed. Notes upon Russia. 2nd edition. New York, London Hakluite Society, 1963. Vol. 10: 1-116; Vol. 12: 3-174.

[161]. Herberstein, Sigismund. Notes on Moscovia. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1988.

[161:1]. Herberstein. Ziga Herberstein. Sigismund Herberstein – the Warrior, Statesman, Diplomat and Peacemaker. An edition of the Dr. F. Preshern Society for Contact Development between Slovenia and Russia.Moscow Byelye Alvy Press, Bilio, Humar Press, 2000.

[162]. von Winkler, P. P., comp. Coats of Arms of Cities, Provinces, Regions and Towns of the Russian Empire Included into the Complete Collection of Laws and Regulations between 1649 and 1900. St. Petersburg: published by the book salesman Iv. Iv. Ivanov, 1899. New edition: Moscow, Planeta, 1990.

[163]. Herodotus. History. Leningrad, Nauka, 1972. English edition: The History of Herodotus. From the series Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 5. Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., The University of Chicago, 1952 (2nd edition 1990). See also: Herodotus. The Histories of Herodotus, etc. London and New York, Everyman’s Library, 1964.

[164]. Herzen, A. G., and Y. M. Mogarichev. The Fortress of Gems. Kyrk-Or, Chufut-Kale. Published as part of the series The Archaeological Monuments of the Crimea. Simferopol, Tavria, 1993.

[165]. Herzen, A. G., and Y. M. Mogarichev. Salachik. The Ouspensky Monastery. Bakhchisaray. The State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture of Bakhchisaray. 1991.

[165:1]. Hertzman, Yevgeni. The Lost Centuries of Byzantine Music. The XX International Congress of Byzantine Scholars. St. Petersburg, The Humanitarian Academy Publishing Centre, 2001.

[166]. Gerchouk, Y. Y. History of Drawing and Book Art. Moscow, Aspect, 2000.

[167]. Gililov, I. A Passion Play of William Shakespeare, or the Mystery of the Great Phoenix. Moscow, “Artist. Rezhissyor. Teatr” Publications, 1997.

[168]. Glazounov, I. Russia Crucified. The Our Contemporary magazine, Issues 1-5, 7-9, 11 (1996). This material was subsequently published as a book.

[169]. Gnedenko, A. M., and V. M. Gnedenko. For One’s Comrades, or Everything about the Cossacks. Moscow, The Int’l Fund of Slavic Writing and Culture. ARP Int. Co., 1993.

[170]. The A. V. Shchusev Museum of Architecture, archive 1246/1-13.

[171]. Golenishchev-Kutuzov, I. N. The Mediaeval Latin Literature of Italy. Moscow, Nauka, 1972.

[172]. Golitsyn, N. S. The Great Warlords of History. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1878.

[173]. Golovanov, Y. Etudes on Scientists. Moscow, Molodaya Gvardiya, 1976.

[174]. Golovin, B. N. Language and Statistics. Moscow, 1971.

[175]. Goloubovsky, P. V. The Pechenegs, the Torks, and the Polovtsy before the Tartar Invasion. Kiev, 1884.

[176]. Goloubtsov, A. P. Selected Readings on Ecclesial Archaeology and Liturgy. St. Petersburg, Statis, 1995.

[177]. Goloubtsova, E. S., and V. M. Smirin. “On the Attempts of Using the ‘New Methods’ of Statistical Analysis to Ancient Historical Material.” The Courier of Ancient History, 1982, No. 1: 171-195.

[178]. Goloubtsova, E. S., and G. A. Koshelenko. Ancient History and the “New Methods.” Historical Issues, No. 8 (1982).

[179]. Goloubtsova, E. S., and Y. A. Zavenyagin. Another Account of the New Methods and the Chronology of Antiquity. Historical Issues, No. 12 (1983): 68-83.

[180]. Homer. Iliad. Translated by N. I. Gnedich. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1969. See also: Homer, The Iliad of Homer. Chicago University Press, London, 1962.

[180:1]. Homer. The Odyssey of Homer. New York, Harper & Row, 1967.

[181]. Goneim, M. The Lost Pyramid. Moscow, Geographiz, 1959. English edition: Goneim, M. The Lost Pyramid. New York, Rinehart, 1956.

[182]. Gorbachevsky, B. Crosses, Fires, and Books. Moscow, Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1965.

[183]. Gordeyev, A. A. History of the Cossacks. Vol. 1-4. Moscow, Strastnoi Boulevard, 1992.

[184]. Gordeyev, N. V. The Czar Cannon. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1969.

[185]. The Towns and Cities of Russia. An Encyclopaedia. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia Publications, 1994.

[186]. Gorsey, Gerome. Notes on Russia. XVI – Early XVII century. Moscow, MSU Press, 1990.

[187]. The State Armoury. Album. Moscow, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1988. A new edition by Galart Press, Moscow, 1990.

[188]. The A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of paintings. Moscow, 1995, Mazzotta. Printed in Italy.

[189]. The Ruler is a Friend of his Subjects, or Political Court Hortatives and Moralistic Speculations of Kan-Shi, Khan of Manchuria and China. Collected by his son, Khan Yun-Jin. St. Petersburg, 1795.

[190]. Goulianitsky, N. F., ed. The Urbanism of the Muscovite State of the XVI-XVII centuries. Moscow, The Russian Academy of Architecture. Stroyizdat, 1994.

[191]. The Faceted Chamber in the Moscow Kremlin. Leningrad, Aurora, 1982.

[192]. Granovsky, T. N. Lectures on Mediaeval History. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[193]. Grebelsky, Peter K., and Alexander B. Mirvis. The House of the Romanovs. Biographical Information about the Members of the Reigning House, their Predecessors and Relations. St. Petersburg, LIO Redaktor, 1992.

[194]. Mina, Gregory. Uffizi and Pitti. The Art of the Florentine Galleries. Album. From the Great Museums of the World series. Moscow, Slovo, 1999. A translation of the Italian edition by Magnus Edizioni, Udine, Italy, 1994, 1996.

[195]. Gregorovius, F. Mediaeval History of Athens. St. Petersburg, 1900. German edition: Gregorovius, F. Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1889.

[196]. Gregorovius, F. Mediaeval History of Rome. The V-XVI century. Vols. 1-5. St. Petersburg, 1902-1912. English edition: Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1900-1909.

[197]. Grekov, B. D., and A. Y. Yakubovsky. The Golden Horde and its Decline. Moscow-Leningrad, USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950.

[198]. Greece: Temples, Sepulchres and Treasures. The Lost Civilizations Encyclopaedia. Translated from English by N. Belov. Moscow, Terra Publishing Centre, 1997. Original edition, Time-Life Books BV, 1994.

[199]. Gribanov, E. D., and D. A. Balalykin. Medicine of Moscow on the Medals of Imperial Russia. Moscow, Triada-X, 1999.

[200]. Nicephor, Gregoras. Roman History, beginning from the Conquest of Constantinople by the Latins. St. Petersburg, 1862.

[201]. Grigorovich, V. An Account of Travelling through European Russia. Moscow, 1877.

[202]. Grigoriev, V. V. Saray: The Capital of the Golden Horde, and the Issue of its Location. St. Petersburg, 1845.

[203]. Grigoriev, G. L. Who was Ivan the Terrible Really Afraid of? On the Origins of the Oprichnina. Moscow, Intergraph Service, 1998.

[204]. Grigoulevich, I. R. The History of the Inquisition. Moscow, Nauka, 1970.

[205]. Grigoulevich, I. R. The Inquisition. Moscow, Politizdat, 1985.

[206]. Grishin, Yakov. The Tartars of Poland and Lithuania (the Heirs of the Golden Horde). Kazan, The Tartar Publishing House, 1995.

[207]. Groslie, B. Borobudur. The Greatest Collection of Buddhist Sculpture in the World is being Destroyed by Erosion. The UNESCO Courier, No. 6 (1968): 23-27.

[208]. Gudzy, N. K. History of Early Russian Literature. Moscow, Uchpedgiz, 1938. English edition: New York, Macmillan & Co, 1949.

[209]. Gouliaev, V. I. Pre-Columbian Voyages to America. Myths and Reality. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia, 1991.

[210]. Gouliaev, V. I. America and the Old World in the Pre-Columbian Epoch. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[210:1]. Gouliaev, V. I. Following the Conquistadors. Moscow, The USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, 1976.

[211]. Gumilev, L. N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. Moscow, Mysl, 1992.

[212]. Gumilev, L. N. In Search of the Figmental Kingdom (the Legend of the Kingdom of Presbyter Johannes. Moscow, Tanais, 1994.

[213]. Gumilev, L. N. Hunnu. St. Petersburg: Time-Out-Compass, 1993.

[214]. Gumilev, L. N. The Black Legend. Moscow, Ekopros, 1994.

[215]. Gumilev L. N. The Huns in China. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[216]. Gumilev, L. N. From Rus’ to Russia. Moscow, Ekopros, 1992.

[217]. Gourevich, A. Y. The Mediaeval Cultural Categories. Moscow, Kultura, 1972.

[218]. Gourevich, V. B. An Introduction into Spherical Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[219]. Gouter, R. S., and Y. L. Polounov. Girolamo Cardano. From the Founding Fathers of Science and Technology series. Moscow, Znaniye, 1980.

[220]. Goutz, Alexander K. The True History of Russia. Omsk, Omsk State University Press, 1999.

[221]. D. The Stirrup of Quiet Don: the Enigmas of the Novel. Paris, YMCA Press, 1974.

[222]. Davidenko, I. V. The Word Was, The Word Is, The Word Shall Always Be… A Philological Fantasy. Moscow, Russkiy Dvor Press, 1999.

[223]. Dal, V. An Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Russian Language. St. Petersburg-Moscow, The M. O. Wolf Society Press, 1912.

[224]. Dal, V. An Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Russian Language. St. Petersburg-Moscow, The M. O. Wolf Society Press, 1914. Reprinted Moscow, Citadel, 1998.

[225]. Dal, Vladimir. An Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Russian Language. Moscow, State National and Foreign Dictionary Publishing House, 1956.

[226]. Damascene, John. Dialectic. Moscow, 1862. See also: John of Damascus. Dialectica. New York, St. Bonaventure Franciscan Institute, 1953.

[227]. Damascene, John. Three Apologies against the Detractors of the Holy Icons or Effigies. St. Petersburg, 1893. English edition: Baker, T. John Damascene on Holy Images Followed by Three Sermons of the Assumption. London, 1898.

[228]. Dantas, G. Parthenon in Peril. The UNESCO Courier, No. 6 (1968): 16-18, 34.

[229]. Dante, Alighieri. Minor Œuvres. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. Also see: Dante, Alighieri. Opere Minori. Florence, 1856.

[230]. Dante, Alighieri. The Divine Comedy. Translated from the Italian by A. A. Ilushin. Moscow, Philological Department of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1995.

[231]. Darethes of Phrygia. The History of the Destruction of Troy. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1997.

[232]. Darkevich, V. P. The Secular Art of Byzantium. Works of Byzantine Art in the Eastern Europe of the X-XIII century. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1975.

[233]. Darkevich, V. P. The Argonauts of the Middle Ages. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[233:1]. The Gifts of the Magi – a Source of Bliss until Our Day. Translated from modern Greek by M. Klimenko. The Holy Mount Athon, the Monastery of St. Paul the Apostle. Information about this book was obtained from the Holy Lamp newspaper published by the Preobrazhensky Temple in the Bolshie Vyazyomy village, No. 1 (1996).

[234]. The Gifts Made by the Imperial House of Russia to the Museum of History. Catalogue of an exhibition. Moscow, The State Museum of History, Publishing Department. 1993.

[235]. Dowley, Tim. The Biblical Atlas. Three’s Company & Angus Hudson Ltd., 1989. Russian translation: Moscow, The Russian Biblical Society, 1994.

[236]. Cameniata, Johannes. Two Byzantine Chronicles of the X century. The Psamathian Chronicle; The Conquest of Thessalonica. Moscow, Oriental Literature Publications, 1962. Also see: Cameniata, Joannes. De Exicidio Thessalonicae. In: Clugnet, L. Bibliothèque hagiographique orientale. Paris, 1901-1905.

[237]. Dvoretsky, I. K. Latin-Russian Dictionary. 50,000 words. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1976.

[237:1]. Deveuze, Lily. Carcassonne. The Golden Book series (in Russian). Florence, Bonechi, Central Typography, 2000.

[238]. Dementyeva, V. V. “The Roman History of Charles Rollen” as Read by a Russian Nobleman. The Ancient History Courier, No. 4 (1991): 117-122.

[239]. Denisov, L. I. The Orthodox Monasteries of the Russian Empire. Moscow, 1908. 389-393.

[240]. Jalal, Assad. Constantinople. From Byzantium to Istanbul. Moscow, M. & S. Sabashnikov, 1919. French edition: Jalâl, A. Constantinople de Byzance à Stamboul. Paris, 1909.

[241]. Jivelegov, A. K. Dante Alighieri. From the Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, OGIZ, The Magazine and Newspaper Trust, 1933.

[242]. Jivelegov, A. K. Leonardo da Vinci. From the Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, OGIZ, The Magazine and Newspaper Trust, 1935.

[243]. Giovanni, Villani. The New Chronicle, or the History of Florence. Moscow, Nauka, 1997. Italian edition: Cronica di Giovanni Villani a miglior lezione redotta coll’aiuto detesti a penna. Florence, Magheri, 1823; Rome, Multigrafica, 1980. Vols. 1-8.

[244]. Giovanni, Novelli. The Shroud of Turin: The Issue Remains Open. Translated from Italian. Moscow, Franciscan Press, 1998.

[245]. Giua, Michele. The History of Chemistry. Moscow, Mir, 1975. Italian original: Giua, Michele. Storia della chimica, dell’alchimia alle dottrine moderne. Chiantore, Turin, 1946; Union Tipografiko-Editrice Torinese, 1962.

[246]. Digests of Justinian. Selected fragments translated by I. S. Peretersky. Moscow, Nauka, 1984.

[247]. Diehl, Ch. History of the Byzantine Empire. Moscow, IL, 1948. English edition: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1925.

[248]. Diehl, Ch. Chief Problems of the Byzantine History. Moscow, 1947. French edition: Diehl, Ch. Les Grands Problèmes de l’Histoire Byzantine. Paris, Armand Diehl Library, A. Colin, 1947.

[249]. Diels, H. Ancient Technology. Moscow-Leningrad, ONTI-GTTI, 1934.

[250]. Diophantes. Arithmetics. Moscow, Nauka, 1974. See also: Diophantus, Alexandrinus. Diophanti Alexandrini Opera Omnia, cum graecis commentaries. Lipsiae: in aedibus B. G. Teubner, 1893-1895.

[251]. Diringer, D. The Alphabet. Moscow, IL, 1963. English edition: London, Hutchinson & Co., 1968.

[252]. Dietmar, A. B. Ancient Geography. Moscow, Nauka, 1980.

[253]. Yankov, V. P., comp. Following the Roads of the Millennia. A collection of historical articles and essays. Book four. Moscow, Molodaya Gvardia, 1991.

[254]. Drboglav, D. A. Mysteries of Ancient Latin Hallmarks of IX-XIV century Swords. Moscow, MSU Press, 1984.

[255]. Ancient Russian Icon Art. Moscow, Kedr, 1993. From the collection of the Tretyakovskaya Gallery.

[256]. Ancient Russian Literature. Depictions of Society. Moscow, Nauka, 1991.

[257]. Bonhard-Levin, G. M., ed. Ancient Civilizations. A collection of essays. Moscow, Mysl, 1989.

[258]. Struve, V. V., and D. P. Kallistov., eds. Ancient Greece. Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956.

[259]. Drews, Arthur. The Christ Myth. Vol. 2. Moscow, Krasnaya Nov’, 1924. English edition by T. Fisher Unwin. London and Leipzig, 1910.

[260]. Drews, Arthur. Did St. Peter the Apostle Really Exist? Moscow, Atheist, 1924. See also: A. Drews. Die Petrus-le-gende. Jena, E. Diederichs, 1924.

[261]. Drümel, Johann Heinrich. An Attempt of Proving the Ararat Origins of the Russians Historically as those of the First Nation after the Deluge. St. Petersburg, 1785. A Russian translation of a German book published in Nuremberg in 1744.

[262]. Douboshin, G. N. A Reference Book for Celestial Mechanics and Astrodynamics. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[263]. Doubrovsky, A. S., N. N. Nepeyvoda, and Y. A. Chikanov. On the Chronology of Ptolemy’s Almagest. A Secondary Mathematical and Methodological Analysis. The Samoobrazovanie (Self-Education) magazine (Moscow), No. 1 1999.

[263:1]. Duby, Georges. The Middle Ages (987-1460). From Hugo Capet to Joan of Arc. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 2000. French original: Duby, Georges. Le Moyen Âge. De Hugues Capet à Jeanne d’Arc (987-1460). Collection Pluriel. Hachette, 1987.

[264]. Dupuy, R. Ernest, and Trevor N. Dupuy. The Harper Encyclopaedia of Military History. From 3500 BC to the Present. Commentary by the Polygon Press. Vol. 1: 3500 bc-1400 ad. Vol. 2: 1400–1800. St. Petersburg-Moscow, Polygon-AST, 1997. English original published by Harper Collins.

[265]. Dürer, Albrecht. Tractates. Diaries. Letters. St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 2000.

[265:1]. [Dürer] Albrecht Dürer. Engravings. Moscow, Magma Ltd., 2001. First published in 1980 by Hubschmidt et Bouret.

[265:2]. The Jewish Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-16. A reprint of the Brockhaus-Efron edition for the Society for Scientific Judaic Publications, St. Petersburg. Moscow, Terra-Terra, 1991.

[266]. The Hebraic Text of the Old Testament (The Tanach). London, the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1977.

[267]. Eusebius Pamphilus. Ecclesial History. St. Petersburg, 1848. English edition: Eusebius Pamphilus. History of the Church. London, 1890.

[268]. Eusebius Pamphilus. Eusebius Pamphilus, Bischop of the Palestinian Caesarea, on the Toponymy of the Holy Writ. St. Jerome of Strydon on the Hebraic Locations and Names. Translated by I. Pomyalovsky. St. Petersburg, 1894. Latin edition: Eusebius Pamphilus. Eusebii Pamphili Episcopi Caesariensis Onomasticon Urbium et Locorum Sacrae Scripturae. Berolini, 1862.

[269]. Eutropius. A Concise History Starting with the City’s Creation. From the Roman Historians of the IV century series. Moscow, Russian Political Encyclopaedia, 1997.

[270]. Yegorov, D. N. An Introduction into the Mediaeval Studies. The Historiography and the Source Studies. Vols. 1-2. Moscow, High Courses of Female Education, Department of History and Philosophy, Publishing Society.

[271]. Yermolayev, G. Mystery of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Slavic and European Journal, 18, 3 (1974).

[272]. Yermolayev, G. The True Authorship of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Slavic and European Journal, 20, 3 (1976).

[273]. Yefremov, Y. N., and E. D. Pavlovskaya. Dating the “Almagest” by the Actual Stellar Movements. The USSR Academy of Sciences Archive, Vol. 294, No. 2: 310-313.

[274]. Yefremov, Y. N., and E. D. Pavlovskaya. Determining the Epoch of the Almagest Star Catalogue’s Creation by the Analysis of the Actual Stellar Movements. (On the Problem of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue Authorship). The Historical and Astronomical Research. Moscow, Nauka, 1989. 175-192.

[275]. Jambus, M. The Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and Related Correspondences. Moscow, Finances and Statistics, 1988. Also see: Kendall, M., and A. Stewart. The Advanced Theory of Statistics (4th edition). London, C. Griffin, 1977.

[275:1]. Living History of the Orient. Collected works. Moscow, Znanie, 1998.

[276]. Zivkovic, Branislav. Les monuments de la Peinture Serbe Médiévale. Zivkovic, Branislav. Zica. Les dessins des fresques. Belgrade, Institut pour la protection des monuments historiques de la Republique de Serbie, 1985.

[277]. The Art of Ancient Russia. XI – early XIII century. Inlays, Frescoes, Icons. Leningrad, Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1982.

[278]. Cellini, Benvenuto. The Life of Benvenuto Cellini, the Son of Maestro Giovanni Cellini, a Florentine, Written in Florence by Himself. Moscow, 1958. The English edition was published by Edito-Service in Geneva, 1968.

[278:1]. The Hagiography of Reverend Sergiy (The Life and the Great Deeds of the Most Reverend and Blessed Father Sergiy the Thaumaturge, the Hegumen of Radonezh and the Entire Russia). Compiled by Hieromonk Nikon (subsequently an Archimandrite). 5th edition. The Laura of Serge and The Holy Trinity. Own typography. 1904.

[279]. The Life of Savva Storozhevsky. Reprinted after an old XVII century edition. Published in the Zvenigorod Region History Materials, Issue 3. Moscow, The Archaeographical Centre, 1994.

[280]. Zhitomirsky, S. V. The Astronomical Works of Archimedes. Historical and Astronomical Research, Issue 13. Moscow, Nauka, 1977.

[281]. Zholkovsky, A. V. Pasternak’s Book of Books. The Zvezda (Star) magazine, No. 12 (1997).

[282]. Zabelin, I. E. Quotidian Life of Russian Czarinas in the XVI and XVII centuries. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1992.

[283]. Zabelin, I. E. The History of Moscow. Moscow, Svarog, 1996.

[284]. Zabelin, I. E. The History of Moscow. Moscow, Stolitsa, 1990.

[285]. Zabelin, I. E. The Historical Description of the Stauropigial Monastery of Moscow. 2nd edition. Moscow, 1893.

[286]. Zaborov, M. A. History of the Crusades in Documents and Materials. Moscow, Vyshchaya Shkola, 1977.

[287]. Zaborov, M. A. Crusaders in the East. Moscow, Nauka, Chief Editing Board of Oriental Literature, 1980.

[288]. Zavelskiy, F. S. Time and its Keeping. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[289]. Porfiriev, G., ed. The Mysteries and Conundrums of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Collected works. Samara, P.S., 1996.

[290]. The Gospel Teachings. Jordanville, the Rev. Job. Pogayevsky Typography, 1987.

[290:1]. Zaliznyak, A. A., and V. L. Yanin. The XI century Psalm Book of Novgorod as the Oldest Book in Russia. The RAS Courier, Vol. 71, No. 3 (2001): 202-209.

[291]. Zamarovsky, V. Mysteries of the Hittites. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. Also see: Zamarovsky, V. Za tajemstvism rise Chetitu. Prague, 1964.

[291:1]. Zamkova, M. V. Louvre. (The Masterpieces of World Art in your Home). Album. Moscow, Olma-Obrazovanie, 2002.

[292]. Notes of the Russian and Slavic Archaeology Department of the Russian Archaeological Society. Vol. XII. Petrograd, Typography of Y. Bashmakov & Co, 1918.

[293]. Star Charts of the Norhern and the Southern Hemisphere. Edition: Maru severni a jizni hvezdne oblohy. Czechoslovakia, Kartografie Praha, 1971.

[294]. Kondrashina, V. A., and L. A. Timoshina, eds. Zvenigorod Over Six Centuries. A collection of articles. To the 600th anniversary of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery. The Moscow Oblast Administration Culture Committee. The Zvenigorod Museum of History, Arts, and Architecture. The Federal Archive Service of Russia. Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. Moscow, URSS Press, 1998.

[294:1]. Zgura, V. V. Kolomenskoye. An Aperçu of its Cultural History and Monuments. Moscow, O.I.R.U., 1928.

[295]. Zelinskiy, A. N. Constructive Principles of the Ancient Russian Calendar. The Context 1978 collection. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[296]. Zelinskiy, F. Selected Biographies of Ideas. Vols. I-IV. St. Petersburg, 1905-1922.

[297]. Zenin, D. The Ancient Artillery: Truth and Fiction. The Science and Technology magazine, No. 5 (1982): 25-29.

[298]. Zenkovsky, S. A. Old Ritualists of Russia. The XVII century Religious Movements. Moscow, Tserkov, 1995.

[299]. Zima, D., and N. Zima. Nostradamus Deciphered. Moscow, Ripol Klassik, 1998.

[299:1]. The Banner of Reverend Serge (Sergiy) of Radonezh. Psaltyr, 1934. Reprinted by RIO Dennitsa, Moscow, 1991.

[300]. Zoubov, V. P. Aristotle. Moscow, The USSR Academy of Sciences Press, 1963.

[301]. Ivan IV The Terrible. Essays. St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 2000.

[301:1]. Ivanov, O. The Zamoskvorechye: Chronicle Pages. Moscow, V. Shevchouk Publications, Inc., 2000.

[302]. Idelson, N. History of the Calendar. Leningrad, Scientific Publications, 1925.

[303]. Idries, Shah. Sufism. Moscow, 1993.

[304]. Ieger, Oscar. Global History. Vols. 1-4. St. Petersburg, A. F. Marx, 1894-1904.

[304:1]. Ieger, Oscar. Global History. Vols. 1-4. St. Petersburg, A. F. Marx, 1904. Amended and expanded. Faximile reprint: Moscow, AST, 2000.

[304:2]. Ieger, Oscar. Global History. Vols. 1-4. St. Petersburg, A. F. Marx, 1904. 3rd ed., amended and expanded. Faximile reprint: Moscow, AST, 2001; St Petersburg, Polygon, 2001.

[305]. Jerusalem in Russian Culture. Collected essays. Moscow, Nauka, 1994.

[306]. Selected Letters of A. N. Roudnev to V. N. Leonova. Frankfurt-am-Main, Nadezhda, 1981.

[306:1]. A Representation of the Terrestrial Globe. Russian map from the Rarities of Russian Cartography series. (There is no compilation date anywhere on the map. The publishers date it to mid-XVIII century, q.v. in the annotation). Moscow, the Kartair Cartographical Association, 1996.

[307]. Derevenskiy, B. G., comp. Jesus Christ in Historical Documents. From the Ancient Christianity series, Sources section. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1998.

[308]. Ouspensky, L. A. Icon Art of Ancient Russia. Album. Foreword by S. S. Averintsev, compiled by N. I. Bednik. St. Petersburg, Khudozhnik Rossii, 1993.

[309]. Ilyin, A. A. The Classification of Russian Provincial Coins. Issue 1. Leningrad, The State Hermitage, 1940.

[310]. Ilyin, M., and T. Moiseyeva. Moscow and its Environs. Moscow, 1979.

[311]. Ilyin, M. The Ways and the Quests of an Arts Historian. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publications, 1970.

[312]. Illarion. On the Law and the Bliss. Moscow, Stolitsa and Skriptoriy, 1994.

[312:1]. The Names of Moscow Streets (multiple authors). Under the general editorship of A. M. Pegov. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1972.

[313]. de la Vega, Inca Garcilazo. History of the State of the Incas. Leningrad, Nauka, 1974.

[314]. Foreigners on Ancient Moscow. Moscow of the XV-XVII centuries. Collected texts. Moscow, Stolitsa, 1991.

[315]. of Hildesheim, Johann. A Legend of the Three Holy Kings. Translated from German. Moscow, Enigma-Aleteya, 1998. German edition: von Hildesheim, Johan. Die Legende von den Heiligen Drei Königen. Berlin, 1925.

[316]. The Art of the Countries and the Peoples of the World. A Brief Scientific Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1. Moscow, Soviet Encyclopaedia Publications, 1962.

[317]. Islam: an Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Nauka, General Editing Board for Oriental Literature, 1991.

[318]. Martzyshevskaya, K. A., B. J. Sordo-Peña, and S. Mariñero. Spanish-Russian and Russian-Spanish Dictionary. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1990.

[319]. Historical and Astronomical Research. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1955.

[320]. Historical and Astronomical Research. Issue 8. Moscow, Fizmatgiz, 1962.

[321]. Historical and Astronomical Research. Issue 1. Moscow-Leningrad, 1948.

[322]. Historical Notes of Nicephorus Vriennius. St. Petersburg, 1858.

[323]. History of Byzantium. Vol. 1. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[324]. History of Byzantium. Vols. 2-3. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[325]. History of the Orient. Vol. 2. Mediaeval Orient. Russian Academy of Sciences, the Department of Oriental Sciences. Moscow, Vostochnaya Literatura, RAS, 1995.

[326]. Kouzishchin, V. I., ed. History of the Ancient Orient. Moscow, 1979.

[327]. Kouzishchin, V. I., and A. G. Bokshchanin., eds. History of the Ancient Rome. Moscow, 1971.

[328]. History of Europe. Published in Europe as an initiative of Frederic Delouche. A Collective of 12 European Historians. Minsk, Vysheyshaya Shkola; Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1996. Translated from Histoire de l’Europe. Hachette, 1992.

[328:1]. History of Europe. The Renaissance. Moscow, Minsk, Harvest, AST, Inc., 2000.

[329]. Melnik, A. G., ed. History and Culture of the Land of Rostov. 1998. Collected essays. Rostov, The Rostov Kremlin State Museum and Reserve, 1999.

[330]. History of the Inquisition in Three Volumes. Vols. 1 and 2: Lee, Henry Charles. History of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages. A reprint of the F. A. Efron, I. A. Brockhaus edition. 1911-1912. Vol. 3: Lozinsky, S. G. History of the Spanish Inquisition. A reprint of the F. A. Efron, I. A. Brockhaus edition. 1914. Moscow, The Ladomir Scientific and Publishing Centre, 1994.

[330:1]. History of Moscow in the Documents of the XII-XVIII century from the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. The Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts, Moscow Municipal Archive Association. Moscow, Mosgorarkhiv, 1997.

[331]. Sakharov, A. N., ed. History of Moscow. From the Earliest Days until Our Time. Three volumes. Moscow, the RAS Institute of Russian History, the Moscow Municipal Association, Mosgorarkhiv Press. Vol. 1: XII-XVII century. Vol. 2: XIX century. 1997.

[332]. Russian History. From the Ancient Slavs to Peter the Great. Encyclopaedia for Children. Vol. 5. Moscow, Avanta, 1995.

[333]. Udaltsov, A. D., E. A. Kosminsky, O. L. Weinstein, eds. Mediaeval History. Moscow, OGIZ, 1941.

[334]. Skazkin, S. D., ed. Mediaeval History. Volumes 1-2. Moscow, 1977.

[335]. History of French Literature. Collected essays. St. Petersburg, 1887. English edition: Demogeot, J., History of French Literature. London, Rivingstons, 1884 (1883).

[336]. Helmolt, H., ed. The History of Humanity. Global History. Vols. 1-9. Translated from German. St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1896.

[337]. Istrin, V. M. I-IV Editions of the Explanatory Paleya. St. Petersburg, The Imperial Academic Typography, 1907.

[338]. Istrin, V. M. The Chronicle of John Malalas in Slavic Translation. A reprint of V. M. Istrin’s materials. Moscow, John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

[339]. Pouchkov, P. I., ed. Extinct Nations. Collected essays. Moscow, Nauka, 1988.

[340]. Itogi (The Resume). Weekly magazine. No. 37 (223) (12 September 2000). Moscow, Sem Dney Press.

[341]. Duchich, Jovan. Duke Sava Vladislavich. The First Serbian Diplomat at the court of Peter the Great and Catherine I. Belgrade, Dereta, 1999.

[342]. Kazhdan, A. P. The Origins and the Purport of Christianity. Moscow, 1962.

[343]. Kazhdan, A. P. The Social Compound of the Byzantine Ruling Class of the XI-XII century. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[344]. Kazakova, N. A. Western Europe in Russian Written Sources of the XV-XVI century. Leningrad, Nauka, 1980.

[345]. Kazamanova, A. N. An Introduction to Ancient Numismatics. Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1969.

[346]. The Cossack Circle. Quiet flows the Don. Special edition 1. Moscow, Russkoye Slovo, 1991.

[347]. Skrylov, A. I., and G. V. Gubarev. The Cossack Dictionary and Handbook. Cleveland, 1966. Reprinted Moscow, Sozidanie Ltd., 1992.

[348]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Geometry of Mobile Star Configurations and the Dating of the Almagest. Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, 1988. 59-78.

[349]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Statistical Analysis and Dating of the Observations that the Almagest Star Catalogue is Based upon. Report theses of the 5th Int’l Probability Theory Conference in Vilnius, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Vol. 3 (1989): 271-272.

[350]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest by Variable Star Configurations. The USSR AS Reports, Vol. 307, No. 4 (1989): 829-832. English translation published in Soviet Phys. Dokl., Vol. 34, No. 8 (1989): 666-668.

[351]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Retrospective Analysis of the Almagest Star Catalogue and the Problem of its Dating. Preprint. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1990. 60 p.

[352]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Quantitative Analysis of the Almagest Star Catalogue. Pre-print. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1990. 62 p.

[353]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest Star Catalogue. Preprint. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1990. 58 p.

[354]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue Dated by Mathematicians. Hypotheses, Predictions, and the Future of Science. The Int’l Annual Journal. No. 23 (1990): 78-92. Moscow, Znaniye.

[355]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Statistical Analysis of the Almagest Star Catalogue. The USSR AS Reports. Vol. 313, No. 6 (1990): 1315-1320.

[356]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. Dating the Almagest Star Catalogue. A Statistical and Geometric Analysis. Moscow, Faktorial, 1995.

[356:1]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G. V. Nosovskiy. An Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. The Almagest. Zodiacs. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial, 2000.

[357]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and S. T. Rachev. New Methods of Comparing Volume Functions of Historical Texts. Seminar works. Moscow, National System Research Institute, 1986. 33-45.

[358]. Kaleda, G. The Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To the Centenary of the Manifestation of the Holiest of Relics, 1898-1998. 4th edition. Moscow, Zakatyevsky Monastery Press, 1998.

[358:1]. Russia and the World on Russian Maps. Moscow, published by Vneshtorgbank and the State Museum of History in 2001. Compiled by B. Sergeyev and A. Zaitsev. Maps from the collection of the State Museum of History, 16, Kuznetskiy Most, 103301, Moscow.

[359]. The Stonework Chronicle of the old Moscow. Moscow, Sovremennnik, 1985.

[360]. Kamensky, A. B. The Life and the Fate of the Empress Catherine the Great. Moscow, Znanie, 1997.

[361]. Kaneva, Katerina, Alessandro Cechi, and Antonio Natali. Uffizi. A Guide and a Catalogue of the Art Gallery. Scala/ Becocci, 1997. Moscow, Izobrazitelnoye Iskusstvo, 1997.

[362]. Karamzin, N. M. History of the State of Russia. St. Petersburg, 1842. A reprint of the fifth edition that came out as 3 books with P. M. Stroyev’s Key attached. Books I, II, III, IV. Moscow, Kniga, 1988, 1989.

[363]. Karamzin, N. M. History of the State of Russia (Academic edition). Moscow, Nauka. Vol. 1: 1989. Vols. 2-3: 1991. Vol. 4: 1992. Vol. 5: 1993.

[364]. Karger, M. K. Ancient Kiev. Essays on the History of the Material Culture of this Ancient Russian City. Vol. 1. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AS Press, 1958.

[365]. Karger, M. Novgorod the Great. Moscow, The USSR Academy of Architecture. The Architectural History and Theory Institute. 1946.

[366]. Karelin Andrei Osipovich. Legacy of an Artist. Nizhni Novgorod, Arnika, 1994.

[367]. Karnovich, E. P. Patrimonial Names and Titles in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1886. Reprinted in Moscow, Bimpa Press, 1991.

[368]. Valcanover, Francesco. Carpaccio. Album. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. The Italian edition was published in the Great Masters of Italian Art series. Florence, Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale, Antella, 1989.

[369]. Karpenko. V. V. The Names on the Sky at Night. Moscow, Nauka, 1981.

[370]. Carpiceci, Alberto Carlo. The Art and History of Egypt. 5000 Years of Civilization. Russian edition. Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1997.

[371]. Carpiceci, Alberto Carlo. The Art and History of Egypt. 5000 Years of Civilization. Florence, Bonechi, 1999.

[372]. Kartashev, A. V. Essays on the History of Russian Church. Vols. 1, 2. Moscow, Nauka, 1991.

[373]. Kartashev, A. V. Essays on the History of Russian Church. Moscow, Terra, 1992.

[374]. Carter, H. The Tomb of Tutankhamen. Moscow, Oriental Literature, 1959.

[375]. Quintus Curtius Rufus. The Story of Alexander the Great. Moscow, MSU Press, 1993.

[376]. Denisenko, D. V., and N. S. Kellin. When Were the Famous Dendera Zodiacs Really Created? An appendix to Fomenko, A. T. Criticism of Traditional Chronology of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (What Century is it Now?). Moscow, MSU Publications, the MSU Department of Mechanical Mathematics, 1993. 156-166.

[377]. Fomenko, A. T., N. S. Kellin, and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Issue of the Veracity of the “Ancient” History of Russia by M. V. Lomonosov. Lomonosov or Miller? The Moscow University Courier, Series 9: Philology, No. 1 (1991): 116-125.

[378]. Kenderova, Stoyanka, and Beshevliev, Boyan. The Balkan Peninsula on AlIdrisi’s Map. Palaeographic, Historical and Geographical Research. Part 1. Sofia, 1990.

[379]. Ceram, C. Gods, Graves and Scholars. Moscow, Inostrannaya Literatura, 1960. English original: London, Victor Gollancz in association with Sidgwick & Jackson, 1971.

[380]. Ceram, C. Gods, Graves and Scholars. St. Petersburg, Nizhegorodskaya Yarmarka, KEM, 1994.

[381]. Kibalova, L., O. Gerbenova, and M. Lamarova. An Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Fashion. Prague, Artia, 1966.

[382]. Kinnam, Johann. A Brief Review of the Reigns of John and Manuel Comneni. St. Petersburg, 1859.

[383]. Kinzhalov, R. V. The Ancient Mayan Culture. Leningrad, Nauka, 1971.

[384]. Kiriaku, Georgios P. Cyprus in Colours. Limassol, Cyprus, K. P. Kiriaku (Books & Office Requisites) Ltd., 1987.

[385]. Kirpichnikov, A. N. The Pages of the “Iron Book.” Nauka I Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 6 (1966): 49-55.

[385:1]. Kiselyova L. I. What do the Mediaeval Chronicles Tell Us? Leningrad, Nauka, 1978.

[386]. Kyetsaa, H. The Battle for the “Quiet flows the Don.” Seanado-Statica, 22, 1976.

[387]. Kyetsaa, H. The Battle for the “Quiet flows the Don.” USA, Pergamon Press, 1977.

[388]. Klassen, E. I. New Materials for the Studies of the Historical Dawn of Slavs in General, and pre-Ryurik Russo-Slavs in Particular, with an Aperçu of the BC History of Russia. Issues 1-3. With the Descriptions of the Monuments Explaining the History of the Slavs and the Russians Compiled by Fadey Volansky and Translated by E. Klassen. Moscow University Press, 1854. Reprinted by Andreyev i Soglasie, St. Petersburg, 1995.

[389]. Klassovsky, V. A Systematic Description of Pompeii and the Artefacts Discovered There. St. Petersburg, 1848.

[390]. Klein, L. S. Archaeology Controverts Physics. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 2 (1966): 51-62.

[391]. Klein, L. S. Archaeology Controverts Physics (continued). The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 3 (1966): 94-107.

[391:1]. Klengel-Brandt, E. A Journey into the Old Babylon. Moscow, Nauka, General Editing Board for Oriental Literature, the USSR AS, Institute of Oriental Studies, 1979. Translated from German: Klengel-Brandt, E. Reise in das alte Babylon. Leipzig, 1971.

[392]. Kligene N., and L. Telxnis. Methods of Determining Change Points in Random Processes. Avtomatika i Telemekhanika (Automatics and Telemechanics), No. 10 (1983): 5-56.

[393]. Klimishin, I. A. Chronology and the Calendar. Moscow, Nauka, 2nd edition, 1985.

[394]. Klimishin, I. A. Chronology and the Calendar. Moscow, Nauka, 3rd edition, 1990.

[395]. Klimishin, I. A. The Discovery of the Universe. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[396]. Klyuchevsky, V. O. Unreleased Works. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.

[397]. The Book of the Mormon. Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun. Salt Lake City, The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, 1991. (Quoting the Russian translation of 1988).

[398]. The Book of Cosmas Indicopleustes. Published by V. S. Golyshenko and V. F. Doubrovina. RAS, the V. V. Vinogradov Institute of the Russian Language. Moscow, Indrik, 1997.

[399]. Loparev, H. M., ed. The Book of the Pilgrim. Holy Places in Czar-Grad Described by Anthony, the Archbishop of Novgorod in 1200. “The Orthodox Palestinian Collection,” Vol. 17, 3rd edition. St. Petersburg, 1899.

[400]. Literary Centres of the Ancient Russia in the XI-XVI century. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1991.

[401]. Knorina, L. V. Linguistic Aspects of the Hebraic Commentary Tradition. Voprosy Yazykoznania (Linguistic Issues), No. 1 (1997): 97-108.

[402]. Kowalski, Jan Wierusz. Papacy and the Popes. Moscow, Political Literature Publications, 1991. A translation of the Polish book Poczet Papiezy. Warsaw, 1985.

[403]. Kovalchenko, I. D. The Use of Quantitative Methods and Computers in Historical Research. The Voprosy Istorii (Historical Issues) journal, No. 9 (1984): 61-73.

[404]. Kogan, V. M. The History of the House of Ryurikovichi. St. Petersburg, Belvedere, 1993.

[405]. Kozlov, V. A Case of Church Robbery. The Moskovskiy Zhurnal (Moscow Magazine), No. 7 (1991).

[406]. Kozlov, V. Under the Flag of Nihilism. The Moskovskiy Zhurnal (Moscow Magazine), No. 6 (1991).

[407]. Kozlov, V. P. Falsification Mysteries. An Analysis of Historical Source Forgeries of the XVIII-XIX centuries. Moscow, Aspekt, 1996.

[407:1]. Kozlov, V. T. The 30-Year War. European Splendour. The Renaissance. Humanism. The Enlightenment. Moscow, The V. T. Kozlov Regional Public Fund for the Support and Development of Arts and Culture, 2001. 44.

[408]. Kozlov, P. Yaroslavl. Yaroslavl, The Upper Volga Publishing House, 1972.

[409]. Kozlov, P. I., and V. F. Marov. Yaroslavl. A Guide and a Reference Book. Yaroslavl, The Upper Volga, 1988.

[410]. Kokkinoftas, Kostis and Theocharidis, Ioannis. “Enkolpion”. A Brief Description of St. Kykkos Monastery. Nicosia, The St. Kykkos Monastery Research Centre, 1995.

[411]. Kolodny, L. “Turbulence over the ‘Quiet flows the Don.’ Fragments of the Past: the Sources used for a Certain XX century Animad version. Moskovskaya Pravda (5 and 7 March, 1989).

[412]. Rauschenbach, B .V., ed. Bells. History and Contemporaneity. Compiled by Y. V. Pukhnachev. The Scientific Counsel for World Culture History, the USSR AS. Moscow, Nauka, 1985.

[413]. Kolosov, Vassily. Perambulations in the Environs of the Simonov Monastery. Moscow, 1806.

[414]. Kolchin, B. A., and Y. A. Sher. Absolute Archaeological Datings and their Problems. Moscow, Nauka, 1972.

[415]. Kohlrausch, F. History of Germany. Vols. I, II. Moscow, 1860. English edition: Kohlrausch, F. A History of Germany, from the Earliest Period to the Present Time. New York, D. Appelton & Co, 1896.

[415:1]. Kolyazin, V. F. From The Passion Play Mystery to the Carnival. The Histrionics of the German Religious and Popular Stage of the Early and the Late Middle Ages. Moscow, Nauka, 2002.

[416]. Archimandrite Palladius Kafarov Commentary on Marco Polo’s Voyage through Northern China. St. Petersburg, 1902.

[417]. Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. Moscow, Nauka, 1965. English edition: Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969.

[418]. Comnena, Anna. The Alexiad. St. Petersburg. Aleteya, 1996.

[419]. Comnena, Anna. A Brief Account of the Deeds of King Alexis Comnenus. St. Petersburg, 1859.

[420]. Kondakov, N. P. The Iconography of Our Lady. 3 volumes. Moscow, Palomnik. Vols. 1 and 2, 1998. Vol. 3, 1999.

[420:1]. Kondratov, Alexander. The Mysteries of the Three Oceans. Leningrad, Gidrometeoizdat, 1971.

[421]. Kondratyev, I. K. The Ancient Moscow. A Historical Review and a Full List of the City’s Monuments. Moscow, Voyenizdat, 1996.

[422]. Kondrashina, V. A. The Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery. 600 Years since the Foundation of the Coenoby of Rev. Savva. An album of photographs. Moscow, Leto, 1998.

[423]. Koniskiy, G. (The Archbishop of Byelorussia). The History of Russians, or the Lesser Russia. The Moscow University Typography, 1846.

[424]. Konstantin Mikhailovich from Ostrovitsa. The Notes of a Janissary. Introduction, translation, and commentary by A. I. Rogov. Published in the Monuments of Mediaeval History of the Nations of Central and Eastern Europe series. The USSR AS, Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[425]. Konstantinov, N. The Secret Alphabet of Stolnik Baryatinsky. The Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 10 (1972): 118-119.

[426]. Context 1978. Collected works. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[427]. The Koran. Moscow, Oriental Literature, 1963.

[428]. The Koran. Translated by I. Y. Krachkovsky. Moscow, Raritet, 1990.

[429]. Al Rosha, Dr. Mohammed Said., ed. The Koran. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged by Valeria Prokhorova. Damascus-Moscow, The Al-Furkan Centre and Mikhar Corp., 2553, 10.2.95, 1996.

[430]. The Ecclesial Law Book (Kormchaya) of 1620. 256/238, The Manuscript Fund of the Russian National Library (Moscow).

[430:1]. Kornilov N. I., Solodova Y. P. Jewels and gems. Moscow, Nedra, 1983.

[431]. Korkh, A. S. Mikhail Illarionovich Koutouzov. The Moscow State Museum of History. n.d.

[432]. Korsh, M. A Brief Dictionary of Mythology and Antiquities. St. Petersburg, A. S. Souvorin, 1894. Reprinted: Kaluga, Amata, Golden Alley, 1993.

[433]. Kosambi, D. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India. Moscow, Progress, 1968. English edition: Kosambi D. The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965.

[434]. Kosidowski, Z. When the Sun was God. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. Polish edition: Kosidowsky Z. Gdy Slonce Bylo Bogiem. Warsaw, 1962.

[435]. Kostomarov, N. I. The Reign of the House of St. Vladimir. Moscow, Voyenizdat, 1993.

[436]. Kostomarov, N. I. The Age of Turmoil in Early XVII century Moscovia (1604-1613). Moscow, Charli, 1994.

[437]. Kostomarov, N. I. Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Moscow, Charlie, 1994.

[437:1]. Kochergina, V. A. Sanskrit-Russian Dictionary. About 30.000 words. Moscow, Filologia, 1996.

[438]. Golubev, A. A., comp. The Kostroma Region. Moscow, Planeta, 1988.

[439]. Cramer, C. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Moscow, Mir, 1975. English original: Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1958.

[440]. The Concise Geographical Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1, Moscow, State Academic Soviet Encyclopaedia Publications, 1960.

[440:1]. Krekshin, P. N. A Criticism of the Freshly-Printed Book of 1761 about the Origins of Rome and the Actions of its People and Monarchs. The reverse of the last sheet says: “Criticism by the Nobleman of the Great New Town Peter of Nicephor, son of Kreksha, in 1762, on the 30th day of September, St. Petersburg.” The manuscript is kept in the State Archive of the Yaroslavl Oblast as Manuscript #43 (431).

[441]. The Peasant War in Russia Led by Stepan Razin. Collected documents. Vols. 1-4. Moscow, Academy of Sciences, 1954-1970.

[442]. Luchinat, Christina Acidini. Benozzo Gozzoli. Published in the Great Masters of Italian Art series. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Italian edition: Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale, 1995.

[443]. Kriesh, Elli G. The Treasure of Troy and its History. Moscow, Raduga, 1996. German original: Kriesh, Elli G. Der Schatz von Troja und seine Geschichte. Carlsen, 1994.

[444]. Kryvelev, I. A. The Excavations in the “Biblical” Countries. Moscow, Sovietskaya Rossia, 1965.

[445]. Kryvelev, I. A. A Book about the Bible. Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1958.

[446]. Krylov, A. N. Newton and his Role in Global Science. 1643-1943. The USSR Academy of Sciences. Moscow-Leningrad, USSR AS Publications, 1943.

[447]. Xenophon. History of the Hellenes. Leningrad, Ogiz, 1935. English edition: Xenophon. Hellenica. In: W. Briggs, Tutorial Series, Books III, IV. London, 1894.

[448]. Koublanov, M. M. The New Testament. Research and Discoveries. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[449]. Koudriavtsev, M. P. Moscow the Third Rome. A Historical and Urbanistic Research. Moscow, Sol System, 1994.

[450]. Koudriavtsev, O. F., comp. Russia in the First Half of the XVI century. A European View. The Russian AS, Global History Institute. Moscow, Russkiy Mir, 1997.

[451]. Kouznetsov, V. G. Newton. Moscow, Mysl, 1982.

[452]. Koulakovsky, Y. A. Byzantine History. Vols. 1, 2. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1996.

[453]. Koulikovsky, P. G. Stellar Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[454]. Koun, N. A. The Predecessors of Christianity. Moscow, 1922.

[455]. Kourbatov, L. G. Byzantine History. Moscow, Vyshaya Shkola, 1984.

[456]. The UNESCO Courier magazine, No. 12 (1968).

[457]. Koutouzov, B. The Church Reform of the XVII century. The Tserkov (Church) magazine (Moscow), Issue 1 (1992).

[457:1]. Koutsenko, G., and Y. Novikov. Make Yourself A Present of Health. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1988.

[458]. Cimpan, F. The History of the Pi Number. Moscow, Nauka, 1971 (1984). Romanian original: Cipman, F. Istoria Numarului pi. Bucharest, Tineret Press, 1965.

[458:1]. Cumont, Franz. The Mysteries of Mithras. Magicum. St. Petersburg, Eurasia, 2000. Original edition: Franz Cumont. Les Mystères de Mithra. Magicum. Brussels, H. Lamertin, 1913.

[459]. Lavisse, E., and A. Rambaud. History of the Crusades. Vols. I and II. Moscow, 1914. French original: Histoire générale du IVe siècle à nos jours. L’Europe féodale, les croisades, 1095-1270. Paris, A. Colin & Cie, 1893-1901.

[460]. The Lavrenty Chronicle. (A complete compilation of Russian chronicles). V. 1. Moscow, Yazyki Russkoi Kulturi, 1997.

[461]. Lavrov, N. F. A Guide to the Churches of Uglich. Uglich, the Municipal Museum of Arts and History, 1994. A re-print from an 1869 original, Yaroslavl, the Province Typography.

[462]. Lazarev, V. N. The Icon Art of Novgorod. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1969.

[462:1]. Lombroso. C. Genius and Madness. Moscow, Respublika, 1995.

[463]. Lann, E. A Literary Mystification. Moscow, 1930.

[464]. Lauer, Jean-Philippe. The Mystery of the Egyptian Pyramids. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. French edition: Le Mystère des Pyramides. Paris, Presses de la Cité, 1974.

[465]. Deacon, Leon. History. Moscow, Nauka, 1988. See also: Leonis Diaconi Caloensis Historiae libri decem. E recensione C. B. Hasii. Bonnae, 1828.

[466]. Levandovsky, A. P. Charlemagne. From the Empire towards Europe. Moscow, Soratnik, 1995.

[467]. Levitan, E., and N. Mamouna. The Star of Bethlehem. The Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 11 (1989).

[468]. Levchenko, M. V. Byzantine History. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, Sotsekgiz, 1940.

[469]. The Legend of Dr. Faustus. Moscow, Nauka, 1978. Also see: The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus. London, G. Routledge; New York, E. P. Duttom, 1925.

[470]. Lehmann. An Illustrated History of Superstition and Sorcery from the Antiquity to Our Days. Moscow, Knizhnoe Delo, 1900. Also see: Lehmann, A. Overto og trolddom fra de aeldste til vore dage. Copenhagen, J. Frimodt, 1893-1896.

[471]. Lentsman, Y. A. The Origins of Christianity. Moscow, USSR AS Press, 1958.

[471:1]. The Life and Art of Leonardo. Moscow, Byely Gorod, 2001. Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, Florence, 2000.

[472]. Leonid. A Systematic Description of A. S. Ouvarov’s Russo-Slavic Manuscripts. Moscow, 1894.

[473]. Leontyeva, G. A., Shorin, P. A. and Kobrin, V. B. The Keys to the Mysteries of Clio. Palaeography, Metrology, Chronology, Heraldic Studies, Numismatics, Onomatology and Genealogy. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1994.

[473:1]. Leskov, A. M. Burial Mounds: Findings and Problems. Leningrad, Nauka, 1981.

[474]. Lesna, Ivan. On the Ails of the Great. Prague, Grafit, 1990.

[475]. Lesnoy, Sergei. History of the Slavs Revised. Melbourne, 1956.

[476]. Lesnoy, Sergei. A Non-Distorted History of the Russians. Vols. 1-10. Paris, 1957.

[477]. Lesnoy, Sergei. Russia, where are you from? Winnipeg, 1964.

[477:0]. Lesnoy, Sergei. The Book of Veles. Moscow, Zakharov, 2002.

[477:1]. A Chronicler of Hellas and Rome. Vol. 1. The RAS Institute of Russian Literature (The House of Pushkin). St. Petersburg, Dmitry Boulanin, 1999.

[478]. Libby, W. F. Carbon-14: a Nuclear Chronometer of Archaeology. The UNESCO Courier, No. 7 (No. 139)(1968).

[479]. Libby, W. F. The Radiocarbon Dating Method. The International Peaceful Nuclear Energy Conference materials (Geneva), Vol. 16 (1987): 41-64.

[480]. Libby, W. F. Radiocarbon: an Atomic Clock. The annual Nauka i Chelovechestvo (Science and Humanity) journal (1962): 190-200. Moscow, Znaniye.

[481]. Libman, M., and G. Ostrovskiy. Counterfeit Masterpieces. Moscow, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1966.

[482]. Livy, Titus. Roman History since the Foundation of the City. 6 volumes. Translation and general editorship by P. Adrianov. Moscow, E. Herbeck Typography, 1897-1899.

[483]. Livy, Titus. Roman History since the Foundation of the City. Vols. 1, 2 and 3. Moscow, Nauka, Vol. 1 (1989), Vol. 2 (1991), Vol. 3 (1993). English edition: Livy, Titus. Works. Cambridge, Mass; London, Heinemann, 1914.

[484]. Livraga, Jorge A. Thebe. Moscow, New Acropolis, 1995.

[485]. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow, Soviet Encyclopedia Publications, 1990.

[486]. Lipinskaya, Y., and M. Martsinyak. Ancient Egyptian Mythology. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1983.

[487]. Lituanus, Michalonis. On the Customs of the Tartars, the Lithuanians and the Muscovites. Moscow, MSU Publications, 1994. See also: Michalonis Lituani. De moribus tartarorum, lituanorum et moschorum fragmina X, multiplici historia referta et Johannis Lascii poloni De diis samagitarum, caeterorumque sarmatarum et falsorum christianorum. Item de religione armeniorum et de initio regiminus Stephani Batori. Nunc primum per J. Jac. Grasserum, C. P. ex manuscriptio authentico edita. Basileae, apud Conradum Waldkirchium, MDCXV, 1-41.

[488]. Literary legacy. V. I. Lenin and A. V. Lunacharsky. Correspondence, Reports, Documents. Moscow, Nauka, 1971.

[489]. Lifshitz, G. M. Essays on Early Christianity and Biblical Historiography. Minsk: Vysheyshaya Shkola, 1970.

[490]. Likhachev, N. P. The Artistic Manner of Andrei Rublev. St. Petersburg, 1907.

[490:1]. Likhacheva, E. A. The Seven Hills of Moscow. Moscow, Nauka, 1990.

[491]. Lozinsky, S. G. History of the Spanish Inquisition. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus and Efron, 1914.

[492]. Lozinsky, S. G. History of the Papacy. Vols. I and II. Moscow, The Central TsS SWB Publications of USSR, 1934.

[493]. Lomonosov, M. V. Selected Works. Vol. 2. History, philology, poetry. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[493:1]. Gowing, Sir Lawrence. Paintings in the Louvre. Introduction by Michel Laclotte. Russian Translation by MK-Import, Ltd., Moscow, Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga, 1987. English edition: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, Inc., 1987.

[493:2]. Loades, D. Henry VIII and his Queens. The Mark in History series. Moscow, Feniks.

[494]. Pardi, J., comp. The Pilot Chart of the Gibraltar and the Mediterranean. Translated by I. Shestakov. Moscow, 1846.

[495]. Lourie, F. M. Russian and Global History in Tables. Synchrony tables (XXX century BC – XIX Century). World Governors. Genealogical Tables. Glossary. St. Petersburg, Karavella, 1995.

[496]. Louchin, A. A. The Slavs and History. An appendix to the Molodaya Gvardia (Young Guard) magazine, No. 9 (1997): 260-351.

[497]. Lyzlov, Andrei. History of the Scythians. Moscow, Nauka, 1990.

[497:1]. Liozzi, Mario. History of Physics. Moscow, Mir, 1970.

[498]. Lewis, G. C. A Research of Ancient Roman History and its Veracity. Hannover, 1852. German edition: Untersuchungen über die Glaubwürdigkeit der altrömischen Geschichte, Hannover, 1858.

[499]. Magi, Giovanna. Luxor. The Valleys of the Kings, Queens, Noblemen and Craftsmen. Memnon’s colossi. Deir-el-Bakhari – Medinet-Abu – Ramesseum. Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi via Cairoli, 1999.

[500]. Makariy (Boulgakov), the Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. History of the Russian Church. Books 1-7. Moscow, The Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery of Valaam Publications, 1994-1996.

[500:1]. Makariy, Archimandrite. Ancient Ecclesial Monuments. History of the Hierarchy of Nizhniy Novgorod. The True Tales of Nizhniy Novgorod series. Nizhniy Novgorod, Nizhegorodskaya Yarmarka, 1999.

[501]. Makarov, A. G., and S. E. Makarova. The Scotch Thistle Blossom. Towards the Sources of the “Quiet flows the Don.” Moscow, Photocopied by the General Research Institute of Gas Industry, 1991.

[502]. Makarov, A. G., and S. E. Makarova. Around the ”Quiet flows the Don.” From Myth Creation to a Search for Truth. Moscow, Probel, 2000.

[502:1]. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Ruminations in re the First Decade of Titus Livy. – St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 2002.

[502:2]. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The History of Florence. – Leningrad, Nauka, 1973.

[503]. Malalas, John. The Chronicle. Published by O. V. Tvorogov according to The Chronographer of Sofia in the Works of the Ancient Russian Literature Department, Vol. 37, pp. 192-221. Moscow, Nauka. English edition: The Chronicle of John Malalas. Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1940.

[504]. Kantor, A. M., ed. A Concise History of Fine Arts. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1981; Dresden, VEB Verlag der Kunst, 1981.

[504:1]. The Compact Soviet Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1-10. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, Inc., 1928.

[505]. Malinovskaya, L. N. The Graveyard of the Khans (Mezarlyk). Bakhchisaray, the State Historical and Cultural Reserve, 1991.

[506]. Malinovskiy, A. F. A Review of Moscow. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1992.

[507]. A Concise Atlas of the World. Moscow, General Department of Geodetics and Cartography of the USSR Council of Ministers. 1979.

[508]. Malver, A. Science and Religion. Russian translation by L. and E. Kroukovsky. N.p., 1925.

[509]. Marijnissen, R. H., and P. Ruyffelaere. Hieronymus Bosch. Commentated album. Antwerp, Mercatorfonds, 1987, 1995. Russian translation by Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga. Moscow, 1998.

[510]. Marco Polo. A Book on the Diversity of the World. The Personal Library of Borges. St. Petersburg, Amphora, 1999.

[511]. Markov, A. A. One of the Uses of the Statistical Method. The Academy of Sciences News, Series 6, Vol. X, Issue 4 (1916).

[512]. Martynov, G. On the Origins of Roman Chronicles. Moscow University Press, 1903.

[513]. Massa, Isaac. A Brief Report of the Beginning and the Origins of Modern Muscovite Wars and Unrest that Occurred Before 1610 in the Brief Time when Several Rulers Reigned. Moscow, The Sergei Doubnov Fund, Rita-Print, 1997.

[514]. Massa, Isaac. A Brief Report on Moscovia. Moscow, 1937.

[514:1]. Matveyenko, V. A., and L. I. Shchegoleva. The Chronicle of George the Coenobite. Russian text, comments, indications. Moscow, Bogorodskiy Pechatnik, 2000.

[515]. Matvievskaya, G. P. Albrecht Dürer the Scientist. 1471-1528. A series of scientist biographies. Moscow, The USSR AS, Nauka, 1987.

[516]. Matvievskaya, G. P. As-Sufi. In Historical and Astronomical Research (Moscow, Nauka), Issue 16 (1983): 93-138.

[517]. Matuzova, V. I. Mediaeval English Sources. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[518]. Vlastar, Matthew. Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers. Balakhna, P. A. Ovchinnikov, The F. P. Volkov typography, 1908.

[519]. Smirnov B. L., editor and translator. The Mahabharata. Vols. 1-8. Tashkent, the Turkmenian SSR Academy of Sciences, 1955-1972. Vol. 1: two poems from the III book – Nala and Savitri (The Greatness of Marital Virtue) (2nd edition 1959); Vol. 2 – The Bhagavad Gita (1956); Vol. 3: The Highlander (1957); Vol. 4: The Conversation of Markandhea (1958); Vol. 5: Mokshadharma (1961); Vol. 6: A Journey Through the Treasuries (1962); Vol. 7: The Book of Bheeshma and the Book of the Battle of Maces (1963); Vol. 8: Attacking the Sleeping Ones (1972). English edition: Chicago-London, Chicago University Press, 1973. Also see the edition by the Jaico Publishing House, Bombay, 1976.

[519:1]. The Mahabharata. Narayana. Issue V, book 2. 2nd edition. Translated and edited by Academician B. L. Smirnov of the Turkmenian SSR Academy of Sciences. The TSSR AS, Ashkhabad, Ylym, 1984.

[519:2]. The Mahabharata. The Four Tales. Translated from Sanskrit by S. Lipkin. Interlineary by O. Volkova. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1969.

[520]. The Mahabharata. The Ramayana. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1974. Also see: The Ramayana. Madras, Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, 1972.

[520:1]. The Mahabharata. Book 2. Sabhaparva, or the Book of the Congregation. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1962.

[520:2]. The Mahabharata. Book 4. Virataparva, or the Book of Virata. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. Leningrad, Nauka, 1967.

[520:3]. The Mahabharata. Book 5. Udhiyogaparva, or the Book of Diligence. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. Leningrad, Nauka, 1976.

[520:4]. The Bhagavad Gita as it is. Complete edition with authentic Sanskrit texts, Russian transliteration, word-for-word and literary translation, and extensive commentaries. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Moscow-Leningrad-Calcutta-Bombay-New Delhi, 1984. The first English edition of the Bhagavad Gita: Wilkins. The Bhagavad Gita, or dialogs of Kreeshna and Arjoon. London, 1785. See also: Etgerton, F. Bhagavad Gita, Vols. 1-2. Harvard University Press, 1946 (with transcr. of the text).

[520:5]. The Mahabharata. Book 7. Dronaparva, or the Book of Drona. Translated from Sanskrit by V. I. Kalyanov. The Literary Monuments series. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1993.

[520:6]. The Mahabharata. Book 3. The Book of the Woods (Aryanyakaparva). Translated from Sanskrit by A. V. Vasilkov and S. L. Neveleva. The Monuments of Oriental Literature series. LXXX, 1987.

[520:7]. The Burning of the Snakes. A Tale from the Indian Epic, the Mahabharata. Translated by V. I. Kalyanov. Moscow, Goslitizdat, 1958.

[521]. Mezentsev, M. T. The Fate of Novels (Concerning the Discussion on the “Quiet flows the Don” Authorship Problem). Samara, P. S. Press, 1994.

[522]. Medvedev, R. Who Wrote the “Quiet flows the Don”? Paris, Christian Bourg, 1975.

[522:1]. Meyer, M. S., A. F. Deribas, and N. B. Shuvalova. Turkey. The Book of Wanderings. A historical guidebook. Project author S. M. Bourygin. Moscow, Veche, Khartia, 2000.

[523]. Melnikova, E. A. Ancient Scandinavian Geographical Works. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[524]. Memoirs of Margaret de Valois. Translated by I. V. Shevlyagina. Introduction and comments by S. L. Pleshkova. French original: Mémoires de Marguerite de Valois. Paris, The Library of P. Jannet, MDCCCLVIII. Moscow University Press, 1995.

[525]. Methods of Studying the Oldest Sources on the History of the USSR Nations. Collected articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[526]. Methodical Research of Absolute Geochronology. Report Theses of the 3rd Methodical Symposium of 1976. Moscow, USSR AS Press, 1976.

[527]. Meshchersky, N. A. History of the Literary Russian Language. Leningrad, 1981.

[528]. Miceletti, Emma. Domenico Ghirlandio. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Italian original: Italy, Scala, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale, 1995.

[529]. Miller, G. F. Selected Oeuvres on Russian History. The Monuments of Historical Thought series. Moscow, Nauka, RAS, 1996.

[530]. The World of the Bible. Magazine. 1993/1(1). Published by the Russian Society of Bible Studies.

[531]. The World of Geography. Geography and the Geographers. The Environment. Moscow, Mysl, 1984.

[532]. Meletinsky, E. M., ed. Dictionary of Mythology. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1991.

[533]. Myths of the World. An Encyclopaedia. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1980 (Vol. 1) and 1981 (Vol. 2).

[534]. Mikhailov, A. A. The Eclipse Theory. Moscow, Gostekhteoretizdat, 1954.

[535]. Mikhailov, A. A. This Peculiar Radiocarbon Method. In Science and Technology, No. 8 (1983): 31-32.

[536]. Mokeyev, G. A. Mozhaysk – A Holy Town for the Russians. Moscow, Kedr, 1992.

[537]. Mokretsova, I. P., and V. L. Romanova. French Miniature Illustrations of the XIII century in Soviet Publications. 1270-1300. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1984.

[537:1]. Moleva, N. M. True Muscovite Stories. A Hundred Addresses of Russian History and Culture. To the 850-year anniversary of Moscow. Moscow, Znaniye, 1997.

[538]. Mommsen, T. The History of Rome. Moscow, 1936.

[539]. Mommsen, T. The History of Rome. Vol. 3. Moscow, Ogiz, 1941. English edition: London, Macmillan & Co, 1913.

[540]. Mongayt, A. L. The Writing upon the Stone. Moscow, Znanie, 1969.

[541]. Mongolian Sources Related to Dayan-Khan. A compilation. Moscow, Nauka, 1986

[541:1]. Mordovtsev, D. L. Collected works. Vols. 1-14. Moscow, Terra, 1995.

[542]. Morozov, N. A. The Revelation in Thunder and Storm. History of the Apocalypse. Moscow, 1907. 2nd edition Moscow, 1910. English translation: Northfield, Minnesota, 1941.

[543]. Morozov, N. A. The History of the Biblical Prophecies and their Literary Characteristics. The Prophets. Moscow, the I. D. Sytin Society Typography, 1914.

[544]. Morozov, N. A. Christ. History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies. Vols. 1-7. Moscow-Leningrad, Gosizdat, 1924-1932. Vol. 1: 1924 (2nd edition 1927), Vol. 2: 1926, Vol. 3: 1927, Vol. 4: 1928, Vol. 5: 1929, Vol. 6: 1930, Vol. 7: 1932. The first volume was published twice: in 1924 and 1927. Kraft Publications in Moscow made a reprint of all seven volumes in 1998.

[545]. Morozov, N. A. An Astronomical Revolution in Historical Science. The Novy Mir (New World) magazine, No. 4 (1925): 133-143. In reference to the article by Prof. N. M. Nikolsky.

[546]. Morozov, N. A. Linguistic Ranges. The AS Newsletter, Department of Russian Language and Literature. Books 1-4, Vol. XX, 1915.

[547]. Morozov, N. A. On Russian History. The manuscript of the 8th volume of the work Christ. Moscow, the RAS Archive. Published in Moscow by Kraft and Lean in the end of the year 2000, as A New Point of View on Russian History.

[547:1]. Morozov, N.A. The Asian Christs. (History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies). Vol. 9 of the work titled Christ. Moscow, Kraft+ Ltd., 2003.

[547:2]. Morozov, N.A. The Mirages of Historical Wastelands between Tigris and Euphrates. (History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies). Vol. 10 of the work titled Christ. Moscow, Kraft+ Ltd., 2002.

[548]. Fomenko A. T., and L. E. Morozova. Quantitative Methods in Macro-Textology (with Artefacts of the XVI-XVII “Age of Troubles” Used as Examples). Complex methods in the study of historical processes. Moscow, the USSR Institute of History, Academy of Sciences, 1987. 163-181.

[549]. Moscow. An album. Moscow, Avrora Press; St. Petersburg, 1996.

[550]. Illustrated History of Moscow. Vol. 1. From the dawn of time until 1917. Moscow, Mysl, 1985.

[551]. Moscow and the Moscow Oblast. City Plan. Topographical Map. 1:200000. 3rd edition. Moscow, The Military Typography Headquarters Department, 1998.

[552]. The Moscow Kremlin. Arkhangelsky Cathedral. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1995.

[553]. The Moscow Kremlin. Ouspensky Cathedral. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1995.

[554]. The Moscow Chronicler. Compilation. Issue 1. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1988.

[555]. The Moscow Oblast Museum of History in Istra. A Guide-book. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1989.

[556]. The Andrei Rublev Museum. A brochure. Published by the Central Andrei Rublev Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art in Moscow, 10, Andronyevskaya Square. n.d.

[557]. Mouravyev, M. V. Novgorod the Great. A Historical Account and Guidebook. Leningrad: The State Historical Material Culture Academy Art Edition Popularization Committee, n.d.

[558]. Mouravyev, S. History of the First Four Centuries of Christianity. St. Petersburg, 1866.

[559]. Murad, Aji. The Polovtsy Field Wormwood. Moscow, Pik-Kontekst, 1994

[560]. Murad, Aji. Europe, the Turkomans and the Great Steppe. Moscow, Mysl, 1998

[561]. Mouratov, K. I. Peasant War Led by E. I. Pougachev. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1980.

[562]. Mylnikov, A. S. A Picture of a Slavic World as Viewed from the Eastern Europe. Ethnogenetic Legends, Conjectures, and Proto-Hypotheses of the XVI – Early XVIII century. St. Petersburg, The Petersburg Oriental Studies Centre, 1996.

[563]. Mylnikov, A. S. The Legend of the Russian Prince (Russo-Slavic Relations of the XVIII century in the World of Folk Culture). Leningrad, Nauka, 1987.

[564]. Malory, Thomas. Le Morte d’Arthure. Moscow, Nauka, 1974. English original taken from The Works of Sir Thomas Malory edited by E. Vinaver, Oxford, 1947.

[565]. Najip, E. N. A Comparative Historical Dictionary of the XIV century Turkic Languages. Book I. Moscow, 1979.

[566]. The Land of Smolensk. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1971.

[567]. Takeshi, Nagata. The Magnetic Field of the Earth in the Past. In Nauka i Chelovechestvo (Science and Humanity). 1965 annual edition. Moscow, Znaniye. 169-175.

[568]. Nazarevskiy, V. V. Selected Fragments of Muscovite History. 1147-1913. Moscow, Svarog, 1996.

[569]. Vyacheslav (Savinykh). Concise History of the Andronicus Monastery. Moscow, The Sudarium Temple of the Andronicus Monastery, 1999.

[570]. The Scientific Research Museum of Architecture. Moscow, 1962.

[571]. Neugebauer, O. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. Moscow, Nauka, 1968. English edition in the series Acta Historica Scientiarum Naturalism et Medicinalium. Vol. 9. Copenhagen, 1957. New York, Harper & Bros., 1962.

[572]. Neuhardt, A. A., and I. A. Shishova. The Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The USSR AS, the Leningrad Department of the History Institute. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1966.

[573]. Leping, A. A., and N. P. Strakhova, eds. German-Russian Dictionary. 80,000 words. Moscow, The State National and International Dictionary Publications, 1958.

[574]. Nemirovskiy, A. I. The Etruscans. From Myth to History. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.

[575]. Nemirovskiy, E. L. The Literary World from the Dawn of History until the Early XX century. Moscow, Kniga, 1986.

[576]. Nemoyevskiy, Andrei. Jesus the God. Petersburg, State Publishing House, 1920.

[577]. Nennius. History of the Brits. From: Geoffrey of Monmouth. History of the Brits. The Life of Merlin. Moscow, Nauka, 1984. English edition: Nennius. Historia Brittonum. Galfridus Monemutensis (Geoffrey of Monmouth). Historia Britonum. Vita Merlini. Six old English Chronicles. Edited by J.A.Giles. London, 1848.

[577:1]. Nersesyan, L. V. Dionysius the Icon Master and the Murals of the Feropontov Monastery. Moscow, Severniy Palomnik, 2002.

[578]. Nechvolodov, A. Tales of the Russian Land. Books 1 and 2. Moscow, Svarog, 1997. A new edition of the books published by the State Typography of St. Petersburg in 1913.

[579]. Niese, B. A Description of the Roman History and Source Studies. German edition: Grundriss der römischen Geschichte nebst Quellenkunde. St. Petersburg, 1908. German edition: Munich, 1923.

[579:1]. Nikerov, V. A. History as an Exact Science. (Based on the materials of A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology). Moscow, Ecmo-Press, Yauza, 2002.

[580]. Nikolayev, D. The Weapon that Failed to Save Byzantium. In Tekhnika i Nauka (Science and Technology), No. 9 (1983): 29-36.

[581]. Nikolayeva, T. V. The Ancient Zvenigorod. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1978.

[582]. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. In Bibliography of the Scientists of the USSR. Moscow, Nauka, 1981.

[583]. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov, the Encyclopaedist Scientist. A collection of articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1982.

[584]. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. Biographical Stages and Activities. The USSR AS Courier, Nos. 7 and 8 (1944).

[585]. Nikolskiy, N. M. An Astronomical Revolution in Historical Science. The Novy Mir (New World) magazine, Vol. 1 (1925): 157-175. (In re. N. Morozov’s œuvre Christ. Leningrad, 1924.)

[586]. Nikonov, V. A. Name and Society. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[586:1]. A Collection of Chronicles titled the Patriarchal, or the Nikon Chronicle. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles (CCRC), Vols. IX-XIV. Moscow, Yazyki Russkoi Kultury, 2000.

[587]. Novellino. Literary monuments. Moscow, Nauka, 1984.

[588]. Novozhilov, N. I. The Meteorological Works of N. A. Morozov. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 10 (1954).

[589]. The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Brussels, Life with God, 1965.

[590]. Nosovskiy, G. V. Certain Statistical Methods of Researching Historical Sources, and Examples of their Application. Source study methods of Russian social thinking; historical studies of the feudal epoch. A collection of academic publications. Moscow, The USSR History Institute, AS, 1989. 181-196.

[591]. Nosovskiy, G. V. The Beginning of Our Era and the Julian Calendar. Information processes and systems. Scientific and technological information, Series 2. Moscow, the National Science and Technology Information Institute, No. 5 (1992): 7-18.

[592]. Nosovskiy, G. V. The True Dating of the Famous First Oecumenical Counsel and the Real Beginning of the AD Era. An appendix of A. T. Fomenko’s Global Chronology. Moscow, The MSU Mathematical Mechanics Department, 1993. 288-394.

[593]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Determination of Original Structures in Intermixed Sequences. Works of a vector and tensor analysis seminar. Moscow, MSU Press, Issue 22 (1985): 119-131.

[594]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Some Methods and Results of Intermixed Sequence Analysis. Works of a vector and tensor analysis seminar. Moscow, MSU Press, Issue 23 (1988): 104-121.

[595]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Determining the Propinquity Quotient and Duplicate Identification in Chronological Lists. Report theses of the 5th International Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Conference. Vilnius, The Lithuanian AS Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 (1989): 111-112.

[596]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Statistical Duplicates in Ordered Lists with Subdivisions. Cybernetic Issues. Semiotic research. Moscow, Scientific Counsel for the Study of the General Problem of Cybernetics. The USSR AS, 1989. 138-148.

[597]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Duplicate Identification in Chronological Lists (The Histogram Method of Related Name Distribution Frequencies). Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. Moscow, The National System Research Institute, 1989. 112-125.

[598]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Statistical Research of Parallel Occurrences and Biographies in British Chronological and Historical Materials. Semiotics and Informatics. Moscow, The National System Research Institute, Issue 34 (1994): 205-233.

[599]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Russia, Britain and Rome. (Facts. Statistics. Hypotheses.) Vol. 1: Russia. Vol. 2: England, Rome. Moscow, the MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education, 1995. 2nd edition: 1996.

[600]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Mathematical and Statistical Models of Information Distribution in Historical Chronicles. The Mathematical Issues of Cybernetics. Physical and Mathematical Literature (Moscow, Nauka), Issue 6 (1996): 71-116.

[601]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Empire (Russia, Turkey, China, Europe and Egypt. New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity). Moscow, Faktorial, 1996. Re-editions: 1997, 1998 and 1999.

[602]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Russia and Rome. The Correctness of Our Understanding of Eurasian History. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Olimp, 1997. 2nd edition: 1999.

[603]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia. Moscow, Faktorial, 1997. Re-editions: 1998 and 1999.

[604]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Mathematical Chronology of Biblical Events. Moscow, Nauka, 1997.

[605]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Faktorial, 1998.

[606]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Horde-Russia as Reflected in Biblical Books. Moscow, Anvik, 1998.

[607]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. An Introduction to the New Chronology (Which Century is it Now?). Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999.

[608]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome. Moscow, Anvik, 1999. A substantially revised and enlarged single-volume edition.

[608:1]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Russia, Britain and Rome. Moscow, Delovoi Express Financial, 2001.

[609]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters I. (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. The New Mathematical Chronology of Antiquity. A History of Biblical Editions and Manuscripts. XI-XII century Events in the New Testament. The Pentateuch). Moscow, Faktorial, 1999.

[610]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History (The New Chronology). Moscow, Delovoi Express Financial, 1999.

[611]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Old Criticisms and the New Chronology. The Neva magazine (St. Petersburg), No. 2 (1999): 143158.

[612]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The Biblical Russia. Selected Chapters II. (The Empire of Horde-Russia and the Bible. History of the XIV-XVI century in the Final Chapters of the Books of Kings. XV-XVI century History of the Pages of the Books of Esther and Judith. Reformation Epoch of the XVI-XVII century). Moscow, Faktorial, 2000.

[613]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. A Reconstruction of Global History. The Research of 1999-2000 (The New Chronology). Moscow, Delovoi Express Financial, 2000.

[613:1]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. The New Chronology of Egypt. The Astronomical Dating of the Ancient Egyptian Monuments. The Research of 2000-2002. Moscow, Veche, 2002.

[613:2]. Fomenko, A. T., and Nosovskiy, G. V. The New Chronology of Egypt. The Astronomical Dating of the Ancient Egyptian Monuments. 2nd edition, re-worked and expanded. Moscow, Veche, 2003.

[614]. Newton, Robert. The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. English original: Baltimore-London, John Hopkins University Press, 1977.

[615]. Olearius, Adam. A Detailed Account of the Moscovian and Persian Journey of the Holstein Ambassadors in 1633, 1636 and 1639. Translated from German by P. Barsov. Moscow, 1870.

[616]. Oleynikov, A. The Geological Clock. Leningrad, Nedra, 1975.

[617]. Orbini, Mavro. A Historiographical Book on the Origins of the Names, the Glory and the Expansion of the Slavs. Compiled from many Historical Books through the Office of Marourbin, the Archimandrite of Raguzha. Translated into Russian from Italian. Typography of St. Petersburg, 1722.

[618]. Orbini, Mavro. Kingdom of the Slavs. Sofia, Nauka i Izkustvo, 1983.

[618:1]. Oreshnikov, A. V. Pre-1547 Russian Coins. A reprint of the 1896 edition by the State Museum of History. Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. Moscow, The Archaeographical Centre, 1996.

[619]. Orlenko, M. I. Sir Isaac Newton. A Biographical Aperçu. Donetsk, 1927.

[620]. Orlov, A. S. Certain Style Characteristics of Russian History Fiction of the XVI-XVII century. In Russian Philological News, Vol. 13, Book 4 (1908): 344-379.

[621]. The Ostrog Bible (The Bible, or the Books of the Old and the New Covenant, in the Language of the Slavs). Ostrog, 1581. Reprinted as The Ostrog Bible. The Soviet Culture Fund Commission for the Publication of Literary Artefacts. Moscow-Leningrad, Slovo-Art, 1988. “The phototypic copy of the 1581 text was supervised by I. V. Dergacheva with references to the copies from the Scientific Library of A. M. Gorky Moscow State University.”

[622]. National History from the Earliest Days and until 1917. Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia Publications, 1994.

[623]. Bavin, S. P., and G. V. Popov. The Revelation of St. John as Reflected in the Global Literary Tradition. The catalogue of an exhibition organized in Moscow by the Greek Embassy in 1994. A joint publication of the Greek Embassy and the State Library of Russia. Moscow, Indrik, 1995.

[623:1]. A postcard with an Egyptian zodiac. The Creation Scene. Egypt, El-Faraana Advertising & Printing, 2000.

[624]. Historical and Folk Tale Aperçus. From Cheops to Christ. A compilation. Translated from German. Moscow, 1890. Reprinted by the Moscow Int’l Translator School in 1993.

[625]. Pausanius. A Description of Hellas, or a Voyage through Greece in II century AD. Moscow, 1880. English edition: Pausanius. Guide to Greece. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1979.

[626]. Makarevich, G. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. The Earthenware Town. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1989-1990.

[627]. Posokhin, M. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. KitaiGorod. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1982.

[628]. Makarevich, G. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. White Town. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1989.

[629]. Makarevich, G. V., ed. The Architectural Monuments of Moscow. Zamoskvorechye. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1994.

[630]. Artefacts of Diplomatic Relations with the Roman Empire. Vol. 1. St Petersburg, 1851.

[631]. Rybakov, B. A., ed. Artefacts of the Kulikovo Cycle. St. Petersburg, RAS, The Institute of Russian History. Blitz, the Russo-Baltic Information Centre, 1998.

[632]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XI – Early XII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1978.

[633]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1980.

[634]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XIII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1981.

[635]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. The XIV – mid-XV century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1981.

[636]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Second Half of the XV century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1982.

[637]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Late XV – Early XVI century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1984.

[638]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Mid-XVI century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1985.

[639]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Second Half of the XVI century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1986.

[640]. Literary Artefacts of Ancient Russia. Late XVI – Early XVII century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1987.

[641]. Significant Works in Russian Law. Issue 2. Moscow, 1954.

[642]. Significant Works in Russian Law. Issue 3. Moscow, 1955.

[643]. Pannekuk, A. The History of Astronomy. Moscow, Nauka, 1966.

[644]. Parandowski, J. Petrarch. The Inostrannaya Literatura (Foreign Literature) magazine, No. 6 (1974). Also see: Parandowski, J. Petrarca. Warsaw, 1957.

[645]. Paradisis, Alexander. The Life and Labours of Balthazar Cossas (Pope John XXIII). Minsk, Belarus, 1980.

[646]. Pasek. A Historical Description of Simon’s Monastery in Moscow. Moscow, 1843.

[647]. Romanenko, A. The Patriarch Chambers of the Moscow Kremlin. Moscow, The Moscow Kremlin State Museum and Reserve for History and Culture, 1994.

[648]. Pahimer, George. The Story of Michael and Andronicus Palaeologi. The Reign of Michael Palaiologos. St. Petersburg, 1862.

[648:1]. Pashkov, B. G. Holy Russia – Russia – The Russian Empire. The Genealogical Tree of the Principal Russian Clans (862-1917). Moscow, TsentrKom, 1996.

[649]. The First Muscovite Princes. In Historical Portraits series. Moscow, Ganna, 1992.

[650]. Perepyolkin, Y. A. The Coup of Amenkhotep IV. Part 1. Books 1 and 2. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[651]. The Correspondence of Ivan the Terrible and Andrei Kurbskiy. In Literary Landmarks series. Leningrad, Nauka, 1979. 2nd edition: Moscow, Nauka, 1993.

[652]. The Song of Roland. International Literature Collection. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1976. English edition by J. M. Dent & Sons, 1972.

[653]. Petrov, A. M. The Great Silk Route. The Simplest, but Largely Unknown Facts. Moscow, Vostochnaya Literatura, RAS, 1995.

[654]. Petruchenko, O. Latin-Russian Dictionary. Moscow, published by the V. V. Dumnov and the Heirs of Silayev Brothers, 1914. Reprinted by the Graeco-Latin Department of Y. A. Shichalin, 1994.

[654:1]. The Maritime Voyage of St. Brendan (Navigation Sancti Brendani Abbatis saec X AD). St. Petersburg, Azbuka-Klassika, 2002. English translation: Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis from Early Latin Manuscripts. Ed., introd. and notes: C. Selmer, Notre Dame, 1959.

[655]. Plan of the Imperial Capital City of Moscow, Created under the Supervision of Ivan Michurin, the Architect, in 1739. The First Geodetic Plan of Moscow. The General Council of Ministers, Department of Geodetics and Cartography (the Cartographer Cooperative). Published together with a calendar for 1989.

[656]. Plano Carpini, G. del. History of the Mongols. William of Rubruck. The Journey to the Oriental Countries. The Book of Marco Polo. Moscow, Mysl, 1997. See also: The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253-55. Prepared by W. W. Rockhill. 1900.

[657]. Plato. Collected Works. Vol. 3. Moscow, Mysl, 1972. English edition: The Works of Plato. Bohn’s Classical Library, 1848.

[658]. Pletnyova, S. A. The Khazars. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[659]. Pleshkova, S. L. Catherine of Medici. The Black Queen. Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1994.

[660]. Plutarch. Comparative Biographies. Vol. 1: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1961; Vol. 2: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1963; Vol. 3: Moscow, Nauka, 1964. English edition: Plutarch. The Lives of the Noble Graecians and Romans. In Great Books of the Western World series. Vol. 13. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, University of Chicago, 1952 (2nd edition 1990). See also: Plutarch. Plutarch’s Lives. London, Dilly, 1792.

[661]. Plyukhanova, M. B. Subjects and Symbols of the Muscovite Kingdom. St. Petersburg, Akropol, 1995.

[662]. Kremlin. A Brief Guide. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1960.

[663]. The Yearly Chronicle. Part 1. Text and translation. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AN Press, 1950.

[664]. The Yearly Chronicle. Published in the Dawn of the Russian Literature series (XI – early XII century). Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1978. 23-277.

[665]. The Tale of Varlaam and Ioasaph. Leningrad, Nauka, 1985.

[666]. Likhachev, D. S., ed. The Tale of the Kulikovo Battle. The Text and the Miniatures of the Authorized Compilation of the XVI century. Published by the XVI century manuscript kept in the USSR Academy of Sciences Library (The Authorized Compilation of Chronicles, Osterman’s Vol. II, sheet 3 – 126 reverse). Leningrad, Aurora, 1984.

[666:1]. Podosinov, A. V., and A. M. Belov. Lingua Latina. Latin-Russian Dictionary. About 15,000 words. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka, 2000.

[667]. Pokrovskiy, N. N. A Voyage in Search of Rare Books. Moscow, Kniga. 2nd edition, 1988.

[668]. Polak, I. F. A Course of General Astronomy. Moscow, Gonti, 1938.

[669]. Polybius. History in 40 Volumes. Moscow, 1899.

[670]. The Complete Symphony of the Canonical Books of the Holy Writ. St. Petersburg, The Bible For Everybody, 1996.

[671]. The Complete Collection of Russian Chonicles. Vol. 33. Leningrad, Nauka, 1977.

[672]. The Complete Collection of Russian Chonicles. Vol. 35. Moscow, Nauka, 1980.

[673]. Polo, M. The Journey. Translated from French. Leningrad, 1940.

[674]. Poluboyarinova, M. D. Russians in the Golden Horde. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[674:1]. [Pompeii]. Pompeii. Album. Authors: Filippo Coarelli, Emilio de Albentiis, Maria Paola Guidobaldi, Fabricio Pesando, and Antonio Varone. Moscow, Slovo, 2002. Printed in Italy.

[674:2]. [Pompeii]. Nappo, Salvatore. Pompeii. Album. From the World Wonder Atlas series. Moscow, Bertelsmann Media Moskau, 2001. English original: Salvatore Ciro Nappo. Pompeii. White Star, 1998, Vercelli, Italy.

[675]. Popovskiy, M. A. Time Conquered. A Tale of Nikolai Morozov. Moscow, Political Literature, 1975.

[676]. The Portuguese-Russian and Russian-Portuguese Dictionary. Kiev, Perun, 1999.

[677]. The Successors of Marco Polo. Voyages of the Westerners into the Countries of the Three Indias. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[678]. Pospelov, M. The Benediction of Reverend Sergei. The Moskva magazine, 1990

[679]. Postnikov, A. V. Maps of the Russian Lands: A Brief Review of the History of Geographical Studies and Cartography of Our Fatherland. Moscow, Nash Dom – L’Age d’Homme, 1996.

[680]. Postnikov, M. M. A Critical Research of the Chronology of the Ancient World. Vols. 1-3. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 2000. [A. T. Fomenko’s remark: This book is a publication of a manuscript of more than 1000 pages written by Doctors of Physics and Mathematics A. S. Mishchenko and A. T. Fomenko. It was edited by M. M. Postnikov, and came out signed with his name. He acknowledges this fact in the preface to Vol. 1, on page 6, albeit cagily.]

[681]. Fomenko A. T., and M. M. Postnikov. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of the Narrative and Digital Material of Ancient History. Moscow, Scientific Counsel for the Study of the General Problem of Cybernetics, USSR AS, 1980. 1-36.

[682]. Fomenko A. T., and M. M. Postnikov. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of the Narrative and Digital Material of Ancient History. Scientific note of the Tartu University, works related to sign symbols. XV, Cultural Typology, Cultural Influence Feedback. Tartu University Press, Release 576 (1982): 24-43.

[683]. Postnikov, M. M. The Greatest Mystification in the World? In Tekhnika i Nauka (Science & Technology), 1982, No. 7, pp. 28-33.

[684]. Potin, V. M. Coins. Treasures. Collections. Numismatic essays. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo-SPb, 1993.

[685]. Potin, V. M. Ancient Russia and the European States of the X-XIII century. Leningrad, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1968.

[685:1]. Pope-Hennessy, John. Fra Angelico. Album. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Scala, 1995, Istituto Fotografico Editoriale.

[686]. Pokhlyobkin, V. V. The Foreign Affairs of the Holy Russia, Russia and the USSR over the 1000 Years in Names, Dates and Facts. A Reference Book. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenya, 1992.

[687]. Merited Academician N. A. Morozov. Memoirs. Vols. 1 and 2. The USSR Academy of Sciences. Moscow, USSR AS Press, 1962.

[688]. Orthodox Art and the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery. Materials of scientific conferences dedicated to the 600th anniversary of the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, 17 December 1997 and 22 September 1998. The Zvenigorod Museum of Architecture, History, and Arts. Zvenigorod, Savva Plus M, 1998.

[689]. Malinovskaya, N., ed. Prado. Paintings. Album. Translated from Spanish. Lunwerg Editores. Barcelona-Madrid, 1994. Russian translation: Moscow, MK-Import, 1999.

[690]. Reverend Joseph Volotsky. The Illuminator. Published by the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery of Valaam. Blessed by the Holiest Patriarch of Moscow and the Entire Russia, Alexiy II. Moscow, 1993.

[691]. Priester, E. A Brief History of Austria. Moscow, IL, 1952. German edition: Kurze Geschichte Österreichs. Vienna, Globus, 1946.

[692]. Prishchepenko, V. N. The Pages of Russian History. Vol. 1: 1988. Vol. 2: 2000. Moscow, Profizdat.

[693]. Problems of Museum Collection Formation and Studies of the State Museum of Religious History. Leningrad, The RSFSR Ministry of Culture, publised by the State Museum of History of Religions, 1990.

[694]. Procopius of Caesarea. On the Buildings. The Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Courier of Ancient History) magazine, No. 4 (1939): 201-298. See also: Procopius of Caesarea. On the Buildings of Justinian. London, Palestine Piligrim Society, 1888.

[695]. Procopius. The Gothic War. Moscow, The USSR AS Press, 1950.

[696]. Procopius. The Gothic War. On the Buildings. Moscow, Arktos, Vika-Press, 1996. See also: Procopius of Caesarea. Procopius. Vol. 7. London, William Heinemann; New York, Macmillan & Co. 1914-1940.

[697]. Procopius of Caesarea. The Persian War. The War with the Vandals. Arcane History. St. Petersburg, Aleteya, 1998.

[698]. Proskouriakov, V. M. Johannes Gutenberg. The Celebrity Biographies series. Moscow, the Literary Magazine Union, 1933.

[699]. Prokhorov, G. M. The Tale of Batu-Khan’s Invasion in Lavrenty’s Chronicle. Published as part of The Russian Literary History Research. XI-XVII centuries. Leningrad, Nauka, 1974.

[700]. Book of Psalms. Moscow, 1657. (Private collection.)

[701]. The book of Psalms with Appendices. Published in the Great City of Moscow in the Year 7160 [1652 AD], in the Month of October, on the 1st Day. New edition: Moscow, The Vvedenskaya Church of St. Trinity Coreligionist Typography, 1867.

[702]. Psellus, Michael. Chronography. Moscow, Nauka, 1978. English edition: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953.

[703]. Pskovskiy, Y. P. Novae and Supernovae. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[704]. Ptolemy, Claudius. Almagest, or the Mathematical Tractate in Thirteen Volumes. Translated by I. N. Veselovskiy. Moscow, Nauka, Fizmatlit, 1998.

[705]. Poisson, A., N. A. Morozov, F. Schwarz, M. Eliade, and K. G. Jung. The Theory and Symbols of Alchemy. The Great Work. Kiev, Novy Akropol, Bront Ltd., 1995.

[706]. Mashkov, I. P., ed. A Guide to Moscow. Moscow, The Muscovite Architectural Society for the Members of the V Convention of Architects in Moscow, 1913.

[707]. The Voyage of Columbus. Diaries, Letters, Documents. Moscow, The State Geographical Literature Press, 1952.

[708]. Putilov, Boris. Ancient Russia in Personae. Gods, Heroes, People. St. Petersburg, Azbuka, 1999.

[709]. Pushkin, A. Collected Works. Leningrad, The State Fiction Publishers, 1935.

[710]. Pushkin A. in the Recollections of Contemporaries. Two volumes. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1974.

[711]. Pushkin’s Memorial Places in Russia. A Guidebook. Moscow, Profizdat, 1894.

[711:1]. Pylyaev, M. I. The Old Petersburg. Accounts of the Capital’s Past. A reprint of A. S. Souvorov’s 1889 St. Petersburg edition. Moscow, IKPA, 1990.

[712]. Lukovich-Pyanovich, Olga. The Serbs . . . The Oldest of Nations. Vols. 1-3. Belgrade, Miroslav, 1993-1994.

[713]. Pietrangeli, Carlo. Vatican. From the Great Museums of the World series. Moscow, Slovo, 1998. A translation of the Italian edition by Magnus Editioni, Udine, 1996.

[714]. Five Centuries of European Drawings. The drawings of old masters from the former collection of Franz König. The 1.10.1995-21.01.1996 exhibition catalogue. The Russian Federation Ministry of Culture, The State A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Art. Moscow-Milan, Leonardo Arte (versions in Russian and in English).

[715]. The Radzivillovskaya Chronicle. The text. The research. A description of the miniatures. St. Petersburg, Glagol; Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1994.

[716]. The Radzivillovskaya Chronicle. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, Vol. 38. Leningrad, Nauka, 1989.

[717]. Radiocarbon. Collected articles. Vilnius, 1971.

[718]. The Imprecision of Radiocarbon Datings. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 3 (1990): 117. (New Scientist, Vol. 123, No. 1684 (1989): 26).

[719]. Radzig, N. The Origins of Roman Chronicles. Moscow University Press, 1903.

[720]. The Book of Rank. 1457-1598. Moscow, Nauka, 1966.

[721]. Razoumov, G. A., and M. F. Khasin. The Drowning cities. Moscow, Nauka, 1978.

[722]. Wright, J. K. The Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades. A Study in the History of Medieval Science and Tradition in Western Europe. Moscow, Nauka, 1988. English original published in New York in 1925.

[722:1]. Reizer, V. I. The Process of Joan of Arc. Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1964.

[723]. Fomenko, A. T., and S. T. Rachev. Volume Functions of Historical Texts and the Amplitude Correlation Principle. Source study methods of Russian social thinking historical studies of the feudal epoch. A collection of academic publications. Moscow, The USSR History Institute, AS, 1989. 161-180.

[724]. Rashid ad-Din. History of the Mongols. St. Petersburg, 1858.

[725]. Renan, J. The Antichrist. St. Petersburg, 1907. English edition: Renan’s Antichrist. The Scott Library, 1899.

[726]. Rome: Echoes of the Imperial Glory. Translated from English by T. Azarkovich. The Extinct Civilizations series. Moscow, Terra, 1997. Original by Time-Life Books, 1994.

[727]. Rich, V. Was there a Dark Age? The Khimia i Zhizn (Chemistry and Life) magazine, No. 9 (1983): 84.

[728]. Riesterer, Peter P., and Roswitha Lambelet. The Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Cairo, Lehnert & Landrock, Orient Art Publishers, 1980. Russian edition, 1996.

[729]. Robert of Clari. The Conquest of Constantinople. Moscow, Nauka, 1986. English edition: McNeal, E. H. The Conquest of Constantinople of Robert of Clari. Translated with introduction and notes by E. Holmes McNeal. New York, 1936. Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies. Vol. XXIII. Reprint: New York, 1964, 1969.

[730]. Rogozina, Z. A. The Earliest Days of Egyptian History. Issue 2. Petrograd, A. F. Marx Typography, n.d.

[731]. Rozhdestvenskaya, L. A. The Novgorod Kremlin. A Guide-book. Lenizdat, 1980.

[732]. Rozhitsyn, V. S., and M. P. Zhakov. The Origins of the Holy Books. Leningrad, 1925.

[733]. Rozhkov, M. N. A. Morozov – The Founding Father of the Dimension Number Analysis. The Successes of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 49, Issue 1 (1953).

[734]. Rozanov, N. History of the Temple of Our Lady’s Birth in Staroye Simonovo, Moscow, Dedicated to its 500th Anniversary (1370-1870). Moscow, Synodal Typography on Nikolskaya Street, 1870.

[735]. Romanyuk, S. From the History of Small Muscovite Streets. Moscow, 1988.

[735:1]. Romanyuk, S. From the History of Small Muscovite Streets. Moscow, Svarog, 2000.

[735:2]. Romanyuk, S. The Lands of the Muscovite Villages. Part I. Moscow, Svarog, 2001.

[735:3]. Romanyuk, S. The Lands of the Muscovite Villages. Part II. Moscow, Svarog, 1999.

[736]. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Personae. Three books. Book 1: 1724-1917. Book 2: 1918-1973. Book 3: 1974-1999. Moscow, Nauka, 1999.

[737]. Rossovskaya, V. A. The Calendarian Distance of Ages. Moscow, Ogiz, 1930.

[738]. A Guide to the Paschalia for the Seminary Schools. Moscow, The V. Gautier Typography, 1853. Reprinted in Moscow by Grad Kitezh in 1991.

[739]. Bleskina, O. N., comp. An Illustrated book of Manuscripts of the USSR AS Library. Catalogue for an exhibition of illustrated chronicles of the XI-XIX century written with roman letters. Leningrad, The USSR AS Library, 1991.

[740]. Handwritten and Typeset Books. Collected Articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1975.

[741]. Manuscripts of the Late XV – early XVI century. The Kirillo-Belozersk Collection, 275/532. The M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library, St. Petersburg.

[742]. Roumyantsev, A. A. Methods of Historical Analysis in the Works of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov. The Scientific Institute of P. F. Lesgaft Notes, Vol. 10. Leningrad, 1924.

[743]. Roumyantsev, A. A. The Death and the Resurrection of the Saviour. Moscow, Atheist, 1930.

[744]. Roumyantsev, N. V. Orthodox Feasts. Moscow, Ogiz, 1936.

[745]. The Russian Bible. The Bible of 1499 and the Synodal Translation of the Bible. Illustrated. 10 Vols. The Biblical Museum, 1992. Publishing department of the Muscovite Patriarchy, Moscow, 1992 (The Gennadievskaya Bible). Only the following volumes came out before the beginning of 2002: Vol. 4 (Book of Psalms), Vols. 7 and 8 (The New Testament), and Vol. 9 (Appendices, scientific descriptions). Vols. 7 and 8 were published by the Moscow Patriarchy in 1992; Vols. 4 and 9 published by the Novospassky Monastery, Moscow, 1997 (Vol. 4), 1998 (Vol. 9).

[746]. The Pioneer of Russian Printing. A Brief Biography. Ivan Fedorov’s “Alphabet” Published in 1578. In collaboration with Translesizdat Ltd. Blessed by the Editing Board of the Muscovite Patriarchy. Moscow, Spolokhi, 2000.

[747]. Russian Chronographer of 1512. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, Vol. 22. St. Petersburg, 1911.

[748]. Knyazevskaya, T. B., comp. Russian Spiritual Chivalry. Collected articles. Moscow, Nauka, 1996.

[749]. Leyn, K., ed. Russian-German Dictionary. 11th stereotype edition. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1991.

[750]. Dmitriev, N. K., ed. Russian-Tartarian Dictionary. The USSR AS, Kazan Affiliate of the Language, Literature and History Institute. Kazan, Tatknigoizdat, 1955.

[750:1]. Mustaioki, A., and E. Nikkilä. Russian-Finnish Didactic Dictionary. Abt. 12,500 words. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1982.

[751]. Shcherba, L. V., and M. R. Matousevich. Russian-French Dictionary. 9th stereotype edition. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1969.

[752]. Rybakov, B. A. From the History of Ancient Russia and Its Culture. Moscow, MSU Press, 1984.

[753]. Rybakov, B. A. The Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities. The XII-XIII century. Moscow, Nauka, 1982, 1988.

[754]. Rybakov, B. A. The Kiev Russia and Russian Principalities. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[755]. Rybnikov, K. A. History of Mathematics. Moscow, MSU Press, 1974.

[756]. Ryabtsevitch, V. N. What the Coins Tell Us. Minsk, Narodnaya Asveta, 1977.

[757]. Savelyev, E. P. Cossacks and their History. Vols. 1 and 2. Vladikavkaz, 1991. A reprint of E. Savelyev’s Ancient History of the Cossacks. Novocherkassk, 1915.

[758]. Savelyeva, E. A. Olaus Magnus and his “History of the Northern Peoples.” Leningrad, Nauka, 1983. [Olaus Magnus. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, 1555].

[759]. Prince Obolensky’s Almanach. Part 1, Sections 1-7. N.p., 1866.

[760]. Suetonius Caius Tranquillius. History of the Twelve Caesars. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. See also the English edition: New York, AMS Press, 1967; as well as the one titled The Twelve Caesars. London, Folio Society, 1964.

[760:1]. Collected Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Tatarstan Republic. Vol. 1. Administrative regions. Kazan, Master Line, 1999.

[761]. The General Catalogue of Slavic and Russian Handwritten Books Kept in USSR: The XI-XIII century. Moscow, 1984.

[762]. St. Stephen of Perm. The Old Russian Tales of Famous People, Places and Events series. Article, text, translation from Old Russian, commentary. St. Petersburg, Glagol, 1995.

[763]. Holy Relics of Old Moscow. Russian National Art Library. Moscow, Nikos, Kontakt, 1993.

[763:1]. Stogov, Ilya, comp. Holy Writings of the Mayans: Popol-Vukh, Rabinal-Achi. Translated by R. V. Kinzhalov. With The Report of Yucatan Affairs by Brother Diego de Landa attached, translated by Y. V. Knorozov. The Alexandrian Library series. St. Petersburg, Amphora, 2000.

[764]. Semashko, I. I. 100 Great Women. Moscow, Veche, 1999.

[765]. Sunderland, I. T. Holy Books as Regarded by Science. Gomel, Gomelskiy Rabochiy Western Regional, 1925.

[766]. Sergeyev, V. S. The History of Ancient Greece. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, 1934.

[767]. Sergeyev, V. S. Essays on the History of the Ancient Rome. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Ogiz, 1938.

[768]. Sizov, S. Another Account of the Three “Unidentified” Sepulchres of the Arkhangelsky Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Materials and Research. Iskusstvo (Moscow), No. 1 (1973).

[768:1]. Shevchenko, V. F., ed. Simbirsk and its Past. An Anthology of Texts on Local History. Oulianovsk, Culture Studies Lab, 1993. The compilation includes the book by M. F. Superanskiy titled Simbirsk and its Past (1648-1898). A Historical Account, among others. Simbirsk, The Simbirsk Regional Scientific Archive Commission, The O. V. Mourakhovskaya Typography, 1899.

[769]. Sinelnikov, Vyacheslav (Rev. V. Sinelnikov). The Shroud of Turin at Dawn of the New Era. Moscow, Sretensky Friary, 2000.

[769:1]. Sinha, N. K., Banerjee, A. C. History of India. Moscow, Inostrannaya Literatura, 1954. English original: Calcutta, 1952.

[770]. Sipovskiy, V. D. Native Antiquity: History of Russia in Accounts and Pictures. Vol. 1: IX-XVI century. St. Petersburg, The V. F. Demakov Typography, 1879, 1888. Vol. 2: XIV-XVII century. St. Petersburg, D. D. Poluboyarinov Publishing House, 1904. Reprinted: Moscow, Sovremennik, 1993.

[771]. The Tale of the Mamay Battle. Facsimile edition. Moscow, Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1980.

[772]. A Tale of the Lord’s Passion. Part of the Russian handwritten collection of Christian works in Church Slavonic. Private collection. The XVIII-XIX century.

[772:1]. The Scythians, the Khazars and the Slavs. Ancient Russia. To the Centennary since the Birth of M. I. Artamonov. Report theses for the international scientific conference. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage, the State University of St. Petersburg, the RAS Institute of Material Culture History.

[773]. Skornyakova, Natalya. Old Moscow. Engravings and Lithographs of the XVI-XIX Century from the Collection of the State Museum of History. Moscow, Galart, 1996.

[774]. Skromnenko, S. (Stroev, S. M.) The Inveracity of the Ancient Russian History and the Error of the Opinions Deeming Russian Chronicles Ancient. St. Petersburg, 1834.

[775]. Skrynnikov, R. G. The Reign of Terror. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1992.

[776]. Skrynnikov, R. G. Ivan the Terrible. Moscow, Nauka, 1975. The 2nd edition came out in 1983.

[777]. Skrynnikov, R. G. Boris Godunov. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.

[778]. Skrynnikov, R. G. The State and the Church in Russia. The XIV-XVI Century. Eminent Figures in the Russian Church. Novosibirsk, Nauka, Siberian Affiliate, 1991.

[779]. Skrynnikov, R. G. The Tragedy of Novgorod. Moscow, Sabashnikov, 1994.

[780]. Skrynnikov, R. G. Russia before the “Age of Turmoil.” Moscow, Mysl, 1981.

[781]. The Slavic Mythology. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Ellis Luck, 1995.

[781:0]. Tsepkov, A., comp. The Slavic Chronicles. St. Petersburg, Glagol,1996.

[781:1]. A Dictionary of Russian Don Dialects, Vols. 1 and 2. Rostov-on-Don, Rostov University Press, 1991.

[782]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 1. Moscow, Nauka, 1975.

[783]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 2. Moscow, Nauka.

[784]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 3. Moscow, Nauka.

[785]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 5. Moscow, Nauka.

[786]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 6. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[787]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 7. Moscow, Nauka, 1980.

[788]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 8. Moscow, Nauka.

[789]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 11. Moscow, Nauka, 1986.

[790]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 13. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[791]. Dictionary of the Russian Language in the XI-XVII centuries. Edition 19. Moscow, Nauka.

[792]. Smirnov, A. P. The Scythians. The USSR AS Institute of Archaeology. Moscow, Nauka, 1966.

[793]. Smirnov, F. Christian Liturgy in the First Three Centuries. Kiev, 1874.

[794]. Soboleva, N. A. Russian Seals. Moscow, Nauka, 1991.

[795]. A Collection of State Edicts and Covenants. Moscow, 1894.

[796]. The Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1979.

[797]. The Soviet Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia, 1984.

[797:1]. The Great Treasures of the World. Gianni Guadalupi, ed. Moscow, Astrel, AST, 2001. Italian original: I grandi tresori – l’arte orafa dall’ antico egitto all XX secolo. Edizioni White Star, 1998.

[798]. Solovyov, V. Collected Works. Vol. 6. St. Petersburg, 1898.

[799]. Solovyov, S. M. Collected Works. Book 4, Vols. 7-8. Moscow, Mysl, 1989.

[800]. Solovyov, S. M. Collected Works. Book 6. Moscow, Mysl, 1991.

[800:1]. Solovyov, S. M. The History of the Ancient Russia. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1992.

[801]. Solonar, P. Most Probably Fiction… The Tekhnika i Nauka magazine, No. 4 (1983): 28-32.

[802]. The Reports of the Imperial Orthodox Society of Palestine. April 1894. St. Petersburg, 1894.

[803]. Palamarchuk, Pyotr, comp. Fourty Times Fourty. A Concise Illustrated History of All the Churches in Moscow. 4 volumes. Moscow, Kniga i Biznes Ltd., Krom Ltd., 1995.

[804]. Sotnikova, M. P. The Oldest Russian Coins of the X-XI century. Catalogue and Study. Moscow, Banki i Birzhi, 1995.

[805]. The Spaso-Andronikov Monastery. A scheme. The Central Andrey Roublyov Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art. Moscow, MO Sintez, 1989.

[806]. Spasskiy, I. G. The Russian Monetary System. Leningrad, Avrora, 1970.

[807]. Spasskiy, I. G. The Russian “Yefimki.” A Study and a Catalogue. Novosibirsk, Nauka, Siberian Affiliation, 1988.

[808]. Speranskiy, M. N. Cryptography in Southern Slavic and Russian Literary Artefacts. Published in the Encyclopaedia of Slavic Philology series. Leningrad, 1929.

[808:1]. Spiridonov, A. M., and O. A. Yarovoy. The Valaam Monastery: from Apostle Andrew to Hegumen Innocent (Historical Essays of the Valaam Monastery). Moscow, Prometei, 1991.

[809]. Spirina, L. M. The Treasures of the Sergiev Posad State Reserve Museum of Art and History. Ancient Russian Arts and Crafts. Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhpoligraf, n.d.

[810]. Contentious Issues of Native History of the XI-XVIII century. Report theses and speeches of the first readings dedicated to the memory of A. A. Zimin. 13-18 May, 1990. Moscow, The USSR AS, Moscow State Institute of Historical and Archival Science, 1990.

[811]. Brouyevich, N. G., ed. 220 Years of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1725-1945. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AS Press, 1945.

[812]. Mediaeval Decorative Stitching. Byzantium, the Balkans, Russia. Catalogue of an exhibition. The XVIII Int’l Congress of Byzantine Scholars. Moscow, 8-15 August, 1991. Moscow, The USSR Ministry of Culture. State Museums of the Moscow Kremlin, 1991.

[813]. Sobolev, N. N., ed. The Old Moscow. Published by the Commission for the Studies of Old Moscow of the Imperial Archaeological Society of Russia. Issues 1, 2. Moscow, 1914 (Reprinted: Moscow, Stolitsa, 1993).

[814]. A Dictionary of Old Slavic (by the X-XI century Manuscripts). Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1994.

[815]. Starostin, E. V. Russian History in Foreign Archives. Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola, 1994.

[815:1]. Stelletsky, I. Y. In Search of the Library of Ivan the Terrible. The Mysteries of Russian History series. Moscow, Sampo, 1999.

[816]. Stepanov, N. V. The New Style and the Orthodox Paschalia. Moscow, 1907.

[817]. Stepanov, N. V. The Calendarian and Chronological Reference Book (for the Solution of Chronographical Time Problems). Moscow, Synodal typography, 1915.

[817:1]. Pletneva, S. A., volume ed. The Eurasian Steppes in the Middle Ages. Collected works. In the USSR Archaeology series. B. A. Rybakov, general ed. Moscow, Nauka, 1981.

[818]. Stingl, Miloslav. Mysteries of the Indian Pyramids. Transl. from Czech by I. O. Malevich. Moscow, Progress, 1982.

[819]. Strabo. Geography. Moscow, Ladomir, 1994. English edition: Jones, H.L. The Geography of Strabo. With an English translation. I-VIII. London, 1917-1932.

[820]. Builders of the Burial Mounds and Dwellers of the Caves. The Extinct Civilizations encyclopaedia. Moscow, Terra, 1998. Translated from English by E. Krasoulin. Original edition: Time-Life Books BV, 1992.

[821]. Struyck, D. J. A Brief Account of the History of Mathematics. Moscow, Nauka, 1969.

[821:1]. Suzdalev, V. E. Kolomenskoye – “Memory for Ages.” Moscow, Praktik-A, 1993.

[822]. Sukina, L. B. History of Esther in the Russian Cultrure of the Second Half of the XVII century. Part of the compilation: Melnik, A. G., ed. History and Culture of the land of Rostov. 1998. Collected essays. Rostov, The Rostov Kremlin State Museum and Reserve, 1999.

[823]. Suleimanov, Olzhas. Az and Ya. Alma-Ata, Zhazushy, 1975.

[823:1]. Sukhoroukov, Alexander. From the History of Cards. The Cards Don’t Lie! The Bridge in Russia magazine, No. 1 (18) (2002), pp. 78-80. Moscow, Minuvsheye.

[824]. Sytin, P. V. From the History of Russian Streets. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1958.

[825]. Sytin, P. V. The Toponymy of Russian Streets. Moscow, 1959.

[826]. Samuels, Ruth. Following the Paths of Hebraic History. Moscow, Art-Business-Centre, 1993.

[827]. Tabov, Jordan. The Decline of Old Bulgaria. Sofia, Morang, 1997. Russian transl.: Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 2000.

[828]. Tabov, Jordan. The New Chronology of the Balkans. The Old Bulgaria. Sofia, PCM-1, 2000.

[828:1]. Tabov, Jordan. When did the Kiev Russia Become Baptized? St. Petersburg, Neva. Moscow, Olma, 2003.

[829]. Rakhmanliev, R., comp. Tamerlane. The Epoch. The Person. The Actions. Collected works. Moscow, Gourash, 1992.

[830]. Tantlevskiy, I. R. History and Ideology of the Qumran Community. St. Petersburg, the RAS Institute of Oriental Studies, 1994.

[830:1]. Tate, Georges. The Crusades. Moscow, Olimp, Astrel, Ast, 2003.

[831]. Tartarian-Russian Didactic Dictionary. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1992.

[832]. Tatishchev, V. N. Collected Works in Eight Volumes. Moscow, Ladomir, 1994-1996.

[833]. Tacitus, Cornelius. Collected Works. Vols. I, II. Leningrad, Nauka, 1969. English ed.: The Works of Tacitus. London, Cornelii Taciti Historiarum libri qui supersunt. Published by Dr. Carl Heraeus. 4th ed.: Leipzig, G. Teubner, 1885.

[834]. The Works of Maxim the Confessor. The œuvres of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Vol. 69. The Moscow Seminary Academy, 1915.

[835]. The Works of Nicephor, the Archbischop of Constantinople. Moscow, 1904.

[836]. The Works of Nile, the Holy Pilgrim of Sinai. The œuvres of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Vols. 31-33. The Moscow Seminary Academy, 1858-1859.

[837]. The Works of St. Isidore the Pelusiote. The œuvres of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Vols. 34-36. The Moscow Seminary Academy, 1859-1860.

[838]. Tvorogov, O. V. Ancient Russia: Events and People. St. Petersburg, Nauka, 1994.

[839]. Tvorogov, O. V. The Ryurikovichi Princes. Short Biographies. Moscow, Russkiy Mir, 1992.

[840]. Tereshchenko, Alexander. A Final Study of the Saray Region, with a Description of the Relics of the Desht-Kipchak Kingdom. Scientific Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, the 1st and 3rd Department. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1854. 89-105.

[841]. Tikhomirov, M. N. Old Moscow. The XII-XV century. Mediaeval Russia as the International Crossroads. XIV-XV century. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1992.

[842]. Tikhomirov, M. N. Russian Culture of the X-XIII century. Moscow, 1968.

[843]. Tikhomirov, M. N. Mediaeval Moscow in the XIV-XV century. Moscow, 1957.

[844]. Tokmakov, I. F. A Historical and Archaeological Description of the Moscow Stauropigial Monastery of St. Simon. Issues 1 and 2, Moscow, 1892-1896.

[845]. Lopukhin, A. P., ed. Explanatory Bible, or the Commentary to all of the Books of the Holy Writ, from both the Old and the New Covenant. Vols. 1-12. Petersburg, published by the heirs of A. P. Lopukhin, 1904-1913. (2nd edition: Stockholm, the Bible Translation Institute, 1987).

[846]. Toll, N. P. The Saviour’s Icon from K. T. Soldatenkov’s Collection. Moscow, 1933.

[847]. Tolochko, P. P. The Ancient Kiev. Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1976.

[848]. Tolstaya, Tatyana. The River Okkerville. Short Stories. Moscow, Podkova, 1999.

[849]. Troels-Lund, T. The Sky and the Weltanschauung in the Flux of Time. Odessa, 1912. German edition: Troels-Lund, T. Himmelsbild und Weltanschauung im Wandel der Zeiten. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1929.

[850]. Tronskiy, I. M. The History of Ancient Literature. Leningrad, Uchpedgiz, 1947.

[850:1]. Trofimov, Zhores. The N. M. Karamzin Memorial in Simbirsk. Known and Unknown Facts. Moscow, Rossia Molodaya, 1992.

[851]. Trojan Tales. Mediaeval Courteous Novels on the Trojan War by the Russian Chronicles of the XVI and XVII century. Leningrad: Nauka, 1972.

[851:1]. Thulsi Das. The Ramayana, or Ramacharitamanasa. The Multitude of Rama’s Heroic Deeds. Translated from Hindi by Academician A. P. Barannikov. Moscow-Leningrad, The USSR AS, Institute of Oriental Studies. Published by the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1948.

[852]. Tunmann. The Khans of Crimea. Simferopol, Tavria, 1991.

[853]. Turaev, B. A. The History of the Ancient Orient. Moscow, Ogiz, 1936.

[854]. Shcheka, Y. V. The Turkish-Russian Dictionary. Abt. 18,000 words. 3rd stereotype edition. Moscow, Citadel, 2000.

[855]. Turkhan, Gian. Istanbul. Gate to the Orient. Istanbul, Orient, 1996 (in Russian).

[855:1]. Turkey. The Book of Wanderings. A Historical Guide-book. Moscow, Veche, Khartia, 2000.

[856]. A Millennium since the Baptism of Russia. The materials of the International Ecclesian and Historical Conference (Kiev, 21-28 July, 1986). Moscow, Moscow Patriarchy, 1988.

[857]. Ouzdennikov, V. V. Russian Coins. 1700-1917. Moscow, Finances and Statistics, 1986.

[857:1]. The Ukrainian Books Printed in Cyrillics in the XVI-XVII century. A catalogue of editions kept in the V. I. Lenin State Library of USSR. Issue I. 1574 – 2nd half of the XVII century. Moscow, The State V. I. Lenin Library of the Lenin Order. Rare books department. 1976.

[858]. The Streets of Moscow. A Reference Book. Moscow, Moskovskiy Rabochiy, 1980.

[859]. The Ural Meridian. Topical Itineraries. A Reference Guide-book. Chelyabinsk, The Southern Ural Press, 1986.

[860]. Ousanovich, M. I. The Scientific Foresight of N. A. Morozov. The Successes of Chemistry, Vol. 16, Issue 3 (1947).

[861]. Ouspensky, D. N. Modern Problems of Orthodox Theology. The Moscow Patriarchy magazine, No. 9 (1962): 64-70.

[862]. The Writ. The Pentateuch of Moses (from the Genesis to the Revelation). Translation, introduction, and comments by I. S. Shifman. Moscow, Respublika, 1993.

[863]. Fyson, Nance. The Greatest Treasures of the World. An Atlas of the World’s Wonders. Moscow, Bertelsmann Media Moskau, 1996. Mondruck Graphische Betriebe GmbH, Güntherslau (Germany), 1996. Translated from the English edition published by AA Publishing (a trading name of Automobile Association Development Limited, whose registred office is Norfolk House, Priestly Road, Basing-stoke, Hampshire RG24 9NY).

[864]. Falkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, His Life and Works on Chemistry. The Priroda (Nature) magazine, No. 11 (1947).

[865]. Falkovich, S. I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov as a Chemist (1854-1946). The USSR AS Courier, Chemical Studies Department, No. 5 (1947).

[866]. Fasmer, M. An Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language. Vols. 1-4. Translated from German. Moscow, Progress, 1986-1987.

[867]. [Fedorov]. Ivan Fedorov [The Alphabet]. A facsimile edition. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 1974.

[868]. Fedorov, V. V., and A. T. Fomenko. Statistical Estimation of Chronological Nearness of Historical Texts. A collection of articles for the Problems of stochastic model stability magazine. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, 1983. 101-107. English translation published in the Journal of Soviet Mathematics, Vol. 32, No. 6 (1986): 668-675.

[869]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. The Coins of the Muscovite Russia. Moscow, MSU Press, 1981.

[870]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. The Coins of the Nizhny Novgorod Principality. Moscow, MSU Press, 1989.

[870:1]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. Burial Mounds, Idols and Coins. Moscow, Nauka, 1968.

[871]. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. Eight Centuries of Taciturnity. The Nauka i Zhizn (Science and Life) magazine, No. 9 (1966): 74-76.

[872]. Fedorova, E. V. Latin Epigraphics. Moscow University Press, 1969.

[873]. Fedorova, E. V. Latin Graffiti. Moscow University Press, 1976.

[874]. Fedorova, E. V. Imperial Rome in Faces. Moscow University Press, 1979.

[875]. Fedorova, E. V. Rome, Florence, Venice. Historical and Cultural Monuments. Moscow University Press, 1985.

[876]. Theophilactus Simocattas. History. Moscow, Arktos, 1996.

[876:1]. Fersman, A. E. Tales of Gemstones. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[877]. Flavius, Joseph. The Judean War. Minsk, Belarus, 1991.

[878]. Flavius, Joseph. Judean Antiquities. Vols. 1, 2. Minsk, Belarus, 1994.

[879]. Florentine Readings: The Life and Culture of Italy. Summer Lightnings. Collected essays, translated by I. A. Mayevsky. Moscow, 1914.

[880]. Florinsky, V. M. Primeval Slavs according to the Monuments of their Pre-Historic Life. Tomsk, 1894.

[881]. Voigt, G. The Renaissance of the Classical Literature. Vols. I and II. Moscow, 1885. German edition: Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Altertums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus. Berlin, G. Reimer, 1893.

[882]. Foley, John. The Guinness Encyclopaedia of Signs and Symbols. Moscow, Veche, 1996. Original by Guinness Publishing Ltd., 1993.

[883]. Fomenko, A. T. “On the Calculations of the Second Derivative of Lunar Elongation.” The problems of the mechanics of navigated movement. Hierarchic systems. The Inter-University Collection of Scientific Works. Perm, 1980. 161-166.

[884]. Fomenko, A. T. “Several Statistical Regularities of Information Density Disribution in Texts with Scales.” Semiotics and Informatics. Moscow, The National Scientific and Technical Information Institute Publication, Issue 15 (1980): 99-124.

[885]. Fomenko, A. T. Informative Functions and Related Statistical Regularities. Report theses of the 3rd International Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Conference in Vilnius, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, 1981, Volume 2, pages 211-212.

[886]. Fomenko, A. T. Duplicate Identification Methods and some of their Applications. In Doklady AN SSSR (The USSR Academy of Sciences), Vol. 256, No. 6 (1981): 1326-1330.

[887]. Fomenko, A. T. On the Qualities of the Second Derivative of Lunar Elongation and Related Statistical Regularities. The Issues of Computational and Applied Mathematics. A collection of academic works. The Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Issue 63 (1981): 136-150.

[888]. Fomenko, A. T. New Experimental Statistical Methods of Dating the Ancient Events and their Applications to the Global Chronology of the Ancient and Mediaeval World. Pre-print. Order No. 3672, No. BO7201. Moscow, State Committee for Radio and TV Broadcasting, 1981. 1-100. English translation: Fomenko, A. T. Some new empirical-statistical methods of dating and the analysis of present global chronology. London, The British Library, Department of Printed Books. 1981. Cup. 918/87.

[889]. Fomenko, A. T. Calculating the Second Derivative of Lunar Elongation and Related Statistical Regularities in the Distribution of Some Astronomical Data. In Operational and Automatic System Research, Issue 20 (1982): 98-113. Kiev University Press.

[890]. Fomenko, A. T. Concerning the Mystification Issue. In Science and Technology, No. 11 (1982): 26-29.

[891]. Fomenko, A. T. New Empirico-Statistical Method of Ordering Texts and Applications to Dating Problems. In Doklady AN SSSR (The USSR Academy of Sciences Publications), Vol. 268, No. 6 (1983): 1322-1327.

[892]. Fomenko, A. T. Distribution Geometry for Entire Points in Hyperregions. The Vector and Tensor Analysis Seminar works (Moscow, MSU Press), Issue 21 (1983): 106-152.

[893]. Fomenko, A. T. The Author’s Invariant of Russian Literary Texts. Methods of Qualitative Analysis of Narrative Source Texts. Moscow, The USSR History Institute (The USSR Academy of Sciences), 1983. 86-109.

[894]. Fomenko, A. T. The Global Chronological Map. In Chemistry and Life, No. 11 (1983): 85-92.

[895]. Fomenko, A. T. New Methods of the Chronologically Correct Ordering of Texts and their Applications to the Problems of Dating the Ancient Events. Operational and Automatic System Research (Kiev University Press), Issue 21 (1983): 40-59.

[896]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Statistical Processing of Parallels in Chronological Text and the Global Chronological Map. Operational and Automatic System Research (Kiev University Press), Issue 22 (1983): 40-55.

[897]. Fomenko, A. T. Statistical Frequency Damping Analysis of Chronological Texts and Global Chronological Applications. Operational and Automatic System Research (Kiev University Press), Issue 24 (1984): 49-66.

[898]. Fomenko, A. T. New Empirico-Statistical Method of Parallelism Determination and Duplicate Dating. Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, Moscow, 1984. 154-177.

[899]. Fomenko, A. T. Frequency Matrices and their Applications to Statistical Processing of Narrative Sources. Report theses of the “Complex Methods of Historical Studies from Antiquity to Contemporaneity” conference. The Commission for Applying Natural Scientific Methods to Archaeology. Moscow, The USSR History Institute (The USSR Academy of Sciences), 1984. 135-136.

[900]. Fomenko, A. T. Informative Functions and Related Statistical Regularities. Statistics. Probability. Economics. The Academic Statistical Notes series. Vol. 49. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. 335-342.

[901]. Fomenko, A. T. Duplicates in Mixed Sequences and the Frequency Damping Principle. Report theses of the 4th Int’l Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics Conference in Vilnius, the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Institute of Mathematics and Cybernetics, Vol. 3. 1985. 246-248.

[902]. Fomenko, A. T., and L. E. Morozova. Several Issues of Statistical Annual Account Source Processing Methods. Mathematics in mediaeval narrative source studies. Moscow, Nauka, 1986. 107-129.

[903]. Fomenko, A. T. Identifying Dependencies and Layered Structures in Narrative Texts. Problems of stochastic model stability. Seminar works. The National System Research Institute, 1987. 33-45.

[904]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and Chronological Applications. (The Identification and the Dating of Derivative Texts, Statistical Ancient Chronology, Statistics of the Ancient Astronomical Reports). Moscow, Moscow University Press, 1990.

[905]. Fomenko, A. T. Statistical Chronology. New facts in life, science and technology. The Mathematics and Cybernetics” series, No. 7. Moscow, Znanie, 1990.

[906]. Fomenko, A. T. Global Chronology. (A Research of Classical and Mediaeval History. Mathematical Methods of Source Analysis.) Moscow, MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, 1993.

[907]. Fomenko, A. T. A Criticism of the Traditional Chronology of Antiquity and the Middle Ages (What Century is it Now?). A précis. Moscow, MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, 1993.

[908]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Mathematical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications. Moscow, Nauka, 1996.

[909]. Fomenko, A. T. The New Chronology of Greece. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, MSU Centre of Research and Pre-University Education, 1996.

[910]. Fomenko, A. T. Statistical Chronology. A Mathematical View of History. What Century is it Now? Belgrade, Margo-Art, 1997.

[911]. Fomenko, A. T. Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Chronological Applications. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Kraft and Lean, 1999.

[912]. Fomenko, A. T. New Methods of Statistical Analysis of Historical Texts. Applications to Chronology. Vol. 1, Vol. 2. Vol. 3: Fomenko, A. T. Antiquity in the Middle Ages. (Greek and Bible History). Published in the series Russian Studies in Mathematics and Sciences. Scholary Monographs in Russian. Vol. 6-7. Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1999.

[912:1]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. Demagogism instead of Scientific Analysis. The RAS Courier, Vol. 9, No. 9 (2000): 797-800.

[912:2]. Fomenko, A. T., and G. V. Nosovskiy. In Re the “Novgorod Datings” of A. A. Zaliznyak and V. L. Yanin. The RAS Courier, Vol. 72, No. 2 (2002): 134-140.

[912:3]. Fomenko, T. N. The Astronomical Datings of the “Ancient” Egyptian Zodiacs of Dendera and Esne (Latopolis). In: Kalashnikov, V. V., G. V. Nosovskiy, and A. T. Fomenko. The Astronomical Analysis of Chronology. The Almagest. Zodiacs. Moscow, The Delovoi Express Financial, 2000. 635-810.

[913]. The Epistle of Photius, the Holy Patriarch of Constantinople, to Michael, Prince of Bulgaria, on the Princely Incumbencies. Moscow, 1779. See also: Photius. Patriarch of Constantinople, Epistola ad Michaelem Bulgarorum Regem. In: Roman Spicilegium. Rome, 1839-1844.

[914]. Cardini, Franco. Origins of the Mediaeval Knightage. A condensed translation from Italian by V. P. Gaiduk. La Nuova Italia, 1982. Moscow, Progress Publications, 1987.

[914:1]. France, Anatole. Selected Short Stories. Leningrad, Lenizdat, 1959.

[915]. Pototskaya, V. V., and N. P. Pototskaya. French-Russian Dictionary. 12th stereotype edition. Moscow, Sovetskaya Encyclopaedia. 1967.

[916]. Godfrey, Fr. O. F. M. Following Christ. Israel, Palphot Ltd., Millennium 2000, 2000.

[917]. Frazer, J. Attis. Moscow, Novaya Moskva, 1924. English ed.: Adonis, Attis, Osiris. London, Macmillan & Co, 1907.

[918]. Frazer, J. Golden Bough. Release 1. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, 1931.

[919]. Frazer, J. Golden Bough. Releases 3, 4. Moscow, Atheist, 1928.

[920]. Frazer, J. The Folklore in the Old Testament. Studies in Comparative Religion. Moscow-Leningrad, Ogiz, The State Social Economics, 1931. English original: London, Macmillan & Co., 1918.

[921]. Fren, H. M. Coins of the Khans of Juchiev Ulus of the Golden Horde. St. Petersburg, 1832.

[922]. Frumkina, R. M. Statistical Methods of Lexical Studies. Moscow, 1964.

[923]. Thucydides. The History of the Peloponnesian War. Eight books. Translated by F. G. Mishchenko. Vols. 1, 2. Vol. 1: books 1-4. Vol. 2: books 5-8. Moscow, 1887-1888. English edition published in the series “Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 5. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, The University of Chicago, 1952 (2nd edition 1990). See also the Penguin Books edition. London, 1954.

[924]. Thucydides. History. Leningrad, Nauka, 1981.

[925]. von Senger, Harro. Stratagems. On the Chinese Art of Life and Survival. Moscow, Progress, 1995.

[926]. Herrmann, D. The Pioneers of the Skies. Translated from German by K. B. Shingareva and A. A. Konopikhin. Moscow, Mir, 1981. German edition: Herrmann, Dieter B. Entdecker des Himmels. Leipzig-Jena-Berlin, Urania-Verlag, 1979.

[927]. Chlodowski, R. I. Francesco Petrarch. Moscow, Nauka, 1974.

[928]. The Pilgrimage of Hegumen Daniel. Literary Monuments of Ancient Russia. XII Century. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, 1980. 25-115.

[929]. Afanasy Nikitin’s Voyage over the Three Seas. 1466-1472. Moscow-Leningrad, the Academy of Sciences, Literary Masterpieces, The USSR AS Publications, 1948.

[930]. Hollingsworth, Mary. Art in the History of Humanity. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1989. Russian translation of the edition titled L’Arte Nella Storia Dell’Uomo. Saggio introduttivo di Giulio Carlo Argan. Firenze, Giunti Gruppo Editoriale, 1989.

[931]. The Kholmogory Chronicle. The Dvina Chronicler. The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, Vol. 33. Leningrad, Nauka, 1977.

[932]. Khomyakov, A. S. Collected Works in Two Volumes. A supplement to the Issues of Philosophy. Vol. 1. Works on historiosophy. Moscow, the Moscow Fund of Philosophy, Medium Press, 1994.

[933]. Aconiatus, Nicetas. History Beginning with the Reign of John Comnenus. St. Petersburg, 1860. Also see the Historia by Nicetas Aconiatus in J. P. Migne’s Patrologiae cursus completes. Series graeca. Vol. 140. Paris, 1857-1886.

[934]. Aconiatus, Nicetas. History Beginning with the Reign of John Comnenus (1186-1206). The Byzantine Historians series, Vol. 5. St. Petersburg, 1862. Also see the Historia by Nicetas Aconiatus in J. P. Migne’s Patrologiae cursus completes. Series graeca. Vol. 140. Paris, 1857-1886

[935]. Hogue, John. Nostradamus. The Complete Prophecies. First published in Great Britain in 1996 by Element Books Ltd., Shaftesbury, Dorset. Moscow, Fair-Press, The Grand Publishing and Trading House, 1999.

[935:1]. Boutenev, Khreptovich. Florence and Rome in Relation to Two XV-century Events in Russian History. A Concise Illustrated Account Compiled by Khreptovich Boutenev, Esq. Moscow, 1909.

[936]. Christianity. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. New Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron. The Orthodox Encyclopaedia of Theology. Vols. 1-3. Moscow, The Great Russian Encyclopaedia, 1993.

[937]. Pokrovskiy, N. N., ed. Christianity and the Russian Church of the Feudal Period (Materials). Novosibirsk, Nauka, Siberian Affiliation, 1989.

[938]. Istrin, V. M., ed. The Chronicle of John Malalas (A Slavic Translation). St. Petersburg, 1911.

[939]. The Chronographer. Russian National Library, the Manuscript Section. Rumyantsevsky Fund, 457.

[940]. The Lutheran Chronographer. Private collection, 1680.

[941]. Rantsov, V. L., comp. The Chronology of Global and Russian History. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus-Efron, 1905. Reprinted in Kaliningrad: Argument, Yantarny Skaz, 1995.

[942]. The Chronology of Russian History. An Encyclopaedic Reference Book. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1994.

[943]. Prakhov, Adrian, ed. The Treasures of Russian Art. A Monthly Almanac of the Imperial Society for Supporting Fine Arts. Year IV, No. 2-4, No. 5 (1904). Issue 5: The Relics of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery. Historical review by Alexander Ouspensky. Reprinted in Moscow, Severo-Print Typography, 1998. To the 600th anniversary of the Savvino-Storozhevsky stauropigial friary.

[944]. Khoudyakov, M. G. Accounts of the History of the Kazan Khanate. Kazan, State Publishing House, 1923. Reprinted in: On the Junction of Continents and Civilizations. Moscow, Insan, 1996. Published separately: Moscow, Insan, SFK, 1991.

[945]. Kjetsaa, G., S. Gustavsson, B. Beckman, and S. Gil. The Problems of the “Quiet flows the Don’s” Authorship. Who Wrote the “Quiet flows the Don”? Moscow, Kniga, 1989. Translated from the Solum Forlag edition. Oslo-New Jersey, Humanities Press.

[946]. Zeitlin, Z. Galileo. The Celebrity Biographies series, Issue 5-6. The Literary Magazine Association, Moscow, 1935.

[947]. Petrov, Leonid, comp. The Dictionary of Ecclesial History. (A Referential Theological Dictionary, Predominantly Oriented At Ecclesial History). St. Petersburg, the Province Department Typography, 1889. Reprinted: the Sretenskiy Monastery, 1996.

[948]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Dialogues. On the State. On the Laws. Moscow, Nauka, 1966. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Works. Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1977.

[949]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Three Tractates on the Art of Rhetoric. Moscow, Nauka, 1972. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Works. Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1977.

[950]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On the Old Age. On Friendship. On Responsibilities. Moscow, Nauka, 1972. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Old Age and Friendship… London, Cassel’s National Library, 1889.

[951]. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Philosophical Tractates. Moscow, Nauka, 1985. English edition: Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Works. Cambridge, Mass; Harvard University Press; London, Heinemann, 1977.

[952]. Chagin, G. N. The Ancient Land of Perm. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1988.

[953]. Chekin, L. S. The Cartography of the Christian Middle Ages in the VIII-XIII century. Moscow, Oriental Literature, RAS, 1999.

[953:1]. Chernetsov, A. V. The Gilded Doors of the XVI century. The Cathedrals of the Moscow Kremlin and the Trinity Cathedral of the Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma. Moscow, The RAS, Nauka, 1992.

[954]. Chernin, A. D. The Physics of Time. Moscow, Nauka, 1987.

[955]. Chernykh, P. Y. A Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language. Vols. 1, 2. Moscow, Russkiy Yazyk, 1993.

[955:1]. Chernyak, E. B. The Mysteries of France. Conspiracy, Intrigue, Mystification. Moscow, Ostozhye Press, 1996.

[955:2]. Chernyak, E. B. The Time of the Conspiracies Long Forgotten. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, 1994.

[956]. Chertkov, A. D. On the Language of the Pelasgians that used to Inhabit Italy, and its Comparison to Ancient Slavic. The periodical edition of the Moscow Society for the Historical Studies of Russian Antiquities, Book 23. Moscow, 1855.

[957]. Chertkov, A. D. A Description of Ancient Russian Coins. Moscow, Selivanovsky Typography, 1834.

[958]. Cinzia, Valigi. Rome and the Vatican. Narni-Terni, Italy, Plurigraf, 1995.

[959]. Chistovich, I. Textual Corrections of the Slavic Bible Before the 1751 Edition. (Article 2). The Orthodox Review, Vol. 2 (May Book, 1860): 41-72.

[960]. Chistyakov, A. S. The Story of Peter the Great. Reprint. Moscow, Buklet, Dvoinaya Raduga, 1992.

[961]. Chistyakova, N. A., and N. V. Voulikh. The History of Ancient Literature. Moscow, Vyshaya Shkola, 1972.

[962]. Imperial Society for History and Russian Antiquities Readings. Book I, Part 5. 1858.

[963]. The Miraculous Icons of Our Lady. Sisterhood of the Holy Martyr Elizabeth, the Great Princess. 103287. Moscow, 40, 2nd Khutorskaya St., 1998.

[964]. [Champollion] J. F. Champollion and Egyptian Hieroglyphs Deciphered. Collected works under the general editorship of I. S. Katznelson. Moscow, Nauka, 1979.

[965]. Chantepie de la Saussaye, D. P. Illustrated History of Religions. Moscow, 1899. English edition: Manual of the Science of Religion. London-New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1891.

[966]. Chantepie de la Saussaye, D. P. Illustrated History of Religions. Vols. 1 and 2. Moscow, Spaso-Preobrazhensky Stauropigial Monastery of Valaam, reprinted in 1992.

[967]. Shakhmatov, A. A. Manuscript Description. The Radzivilovskaya Chronicle, or the Chronicle of Königsberg. Vol. 2. Articles on the text and the miniatures of the manuscript. St. Petersburg, Imperial Antiquarian Bibliophile Society, CXVIII, 1902.

[968]. Shevchenko, M. Y. The Star Catalogue of Claudius Ptolemy: Special Characteristics of Ancient Astronomical Observations. Historico-Astronomical Research. Issue 17. Moscow, Nauka, 1988. 167-186.

[969]. Masterpieces among the Paintings in the Museums of the USSR. The Art of Ancient Russia. The Renaissance Art. Issue 1. Moscow, Goznak, 1974.

[970]. Sheynman, M. M. Belief in the Devil in the History of Religion. Moscow, Nauka, 1977.

[971]. Shakespeare. Collected Works in Five Volumes. From the Library of Great Writers series under the editorship of S. A. Vengerov. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus-Efron, 1902-1904.

[972]. Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works in Eight Volumes. Under the editorship of A. Smirnov and A. Anixt. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1960.

[973]. Shakespeare, William. King Richard III. Tragedy in Five Acts. Translated by Georgy Ben. St. Petersburg, Zvezda, 1997.

[974]. 600th Anniversary of the Kulikovo Battle. Brochure. Vneshtorgizdat, Moscow State Museum of History. 1980.

[975]. Shilov, Y. A. The Proto-Homeland of the Aryans. History, Tradition, Mythology. Kiev, Sinto, 1995.

[976]. Shiryaev, A. N. Consecutive Statistical Analysis. Moscow, Nauka, 1976.

[977]. Shiryaev, E. E. Belarus: White Russia, Black Russia and Lithuania on the Maps. Minsk, Science & Technology, 1991.

[978]. Shklovsky, I. S. Supernovae. Moscow, 1968 (1st edition). Moscow, Nauka, 1976 (2nd edition). English edition: London-New York, Wiley, 1968.

[979]. Schlezer, A. L. Public and Private Life of Augustus Ludwig Schlezer as Related by Himself. In the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Russian Language and Literature Department series, Vol. 13. St. Petersburg, 1875.

[980]. Shlyapkin I. A. Description of the Manuscripts of the Spaso-Yefimiev Monastery in Suzdal. The Masterpieces of Ancient Literature, Issue 4, No. 16. St. Petersburg, 1881.

[981]. Spilevskiy A. V. The Almagest and Chronology. The Ancient History Courier, No. 3 (1988): 134-160.

[982]. Schulmann, Eliezer. The Sequence of Biblical Events. Translated from Hebrew. Moscow, the Ministry of Defence Publications, 1990.

[983]. Shchepkin, V. N. Russian Palaeography. Moscow, Nauka, 1967.

[984]. Shcherbatov, M. M. Russian History from the Dawn of Time. St. Petersburg, 1901.

[985]. Eulia, Chelebi. The Book of Travels. Campaigns of the Tatars and Voyages through the Crimea (1641-1667). Simferopol, Tavria, 1996.

[985:1]. Eisler, Colin (Leman, Robert). The Museums of Berlin. Moscow, Colin Eisler and Little, Brown and Company, Inc. Compilation. Slovo, the World’s Greatest Museums series, 2002 (1996).

[985:2]. Eisler, Colin. The Art of the Hermitage. Moscow, Biblion, 2001.

[986]. Aitken, M. J. Physics and Archaeology. Moscow, IL, 1964. English original: New York, Interscience Publishers, 1961.

[987]. Ehlebracht, Peter. Tragedy of the Pyramids. Egyptian Shrines Plundered for 5000 Years. Moscow, Progress, 1984. German original: Haltet die Pyramiden Fest! 5000 Jahre Grabraub in Ägypten. Düsseldorf-Vienna, Econ, 1980.

[987:1]. Englund, Peter. Poltava. How an Army Perished. Moscow, Novoye Literaturnoye Obozrenie, 1995. Original: Stockholm, Bokförgalet Atlantis, 1988.

[988]. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Vols. 1-82; supplementary volumes 1-4. St. Petersburg, Brockhaus and Efron, 1890-1907.

[988:0]. Brockhaus, F. A., and I. A. Efron. The Encyclopaedic Dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1898. Reprinted: St. Petersburg, Polradis, 1994.

[988:1]. Encyclopaedia for Children. Vol. 7: Art. Moscow, Avanta-plus, 1997.

[989]. The Encyclopaedia of Elementary Mathematics. Book 1. Arithmetics. Moscow-Leningrad, the State Publishing House of Theoretical Technical Literature, 1951.

[990]. Artamonov, M. I., ed. The Hermitage. Album. Leningrad, Sovetskiy Khudozhnik, 1964.

[991]. Ern, V. The Revelation in Thunder and Storm. Anatomy of N. A. Morozov’s Book. Moscow, 1907.

[991:1]. The Art of Goldsmithery in Russia. Album. Moscow, Interbook-Business, Yural Ltd, 2002.

[992]. Yuvalova, E. P. German Sculpture of 1200-1270. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1983.

[993]. Yanin, V. L. I Sent You a Birch-Rind Epistle. Moscow, MSU Press, 1965. A revised edition: Moscow, 1998.

[993:1]. Jannella, Cecilia. Simone Martini. Album. Moscow, Slovo, 1996. Scala, 1995, Istituto Forografico Editoriale.

[994]. Ponomaryov, A. M., ed. Yaroslavl. History of the City in Documents and First-Hand Materials from First References to 1917. Yaroslavl, Upper Volga Publications, 1990.

[995]. Yaroslavl. Map 0-37 (1:1,000,000). The General Council of Ministers, Department of Geodetics and Cartography, 1980.

[996]. Yaroslavl. Monuments of Art and Architecture. Yaroslavl: Upper Volga Publications, 1994.

Sources in foriegn languages

[997]. Chrysostomos, Abbot. The Holy Royal Monastery of Kykko Founded with a Cross. Limassol, Cyprus, Kykko Monastery, printed by D. Couvas & Sons, Ltd., 1969.

[998]. ABC kulturnich pamatek Ceskoslovenska. Prague, Panorama, 1985.

[999]. Abulafia, David. Frederick II. A Medieval Emperor. New York-Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988.

[1000]. Abu Mashar. De magnis coinctiombus. Augsburg, Erhard Ratdolt (The Pulkovo Observatory Library), 1489.

[1001]. Adam, L. North-West American Indian Art and its Early Chinese Parallels. Man, Volume 36, No. 2-3 (1936): 45.

[1002]. Puech, Aime. St. Jean Chrisostome et les mœurs de son temps. Paris, 1891.

[1003]. Albright, W. F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. 7th edition. New York, 1957.

[1004]. Albumasar. De Astrú Scientia. 1515. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1005]. Alibert, Louis. Dictionnaire Occitan-Francais. Selon les parles languedociens. Toulouse, Institut d’études Occitanes, 1996.

[1006]. A List of Books on the History of Science. 2nd supplement, Part 3. Astronomy. Chicago, The J. Crerar Library, 1944.

[1007]. Allen, Phillip. L’Atlas des Atlas. Le monde vu par les cartographes. Brepols, 1993.

[1008]. Almagestu Cl. Ptolemaei Phelusiensis Alexandrini. Anno Virginei Partus, 1515.

[1009]. America. Das frühe Bild der Neuen Welt. Ausstellung der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Munich, Prestel Verlag, 1992.

[1009:1]. Silverman, David P., ed. Ancient Egypt. New York, Oxford University Press, 1977.

[1010]. Thorpe, B., ed. Ancient Laws and Institutes of England… Volume 1. London, 1840. 198.

[1011]. Anke, Victor. The Life of Charlemagne. Aachen, Einhard Verlag, 1995.

[1012]. Annales de la Société Royale d’Archéologie de Bruxelles. Fondée a Bruxelles en 1887. Mémoires, rapports et documents. Publication périodique. Tome 41e. Secrétariat Général. Musée de la Porte de Hal Bruxelles. 1937.

[1013]. Apianus, P. Cosmographicus Liber Petri Apiani mathematici studiose collectus. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Landshutae, impensis P. Apiani, 1524.

[1013:1]. Arellano, Alexandra. All Cuzco. Peru. Fisa Escudo de Oro. Centre of Regional Studies of the Andes Bartolomé de las Casas, Lima, Peru. Instituto de Investigacion de la Facultad de Turismo y Hotelria, Universidad San Martin de Porres. 1999.

[1014]. Arnim, H. Sprachliche Forschungen zur Chronologie der platonischen Dialoge. Volume 269. Appendix 3. Sitzungen Wiener Akademie, 1912.

[1015]. Wolff, Arnold. Cologne Cathedral. Its history – Its Works of Art. Greven Verlag Köln GmbH, 1995.

[1016]. Wolff, Arnold, Rainer Gaertner, and Karl-Heinz Schmitz. Cologne on the Rhine with City Map. Cologne, Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, 1995.

[1017]. Wolff, Arnold. The Cologne Cathedral. Cologne, Vista Point Verlag, 1990.

[1017:0]. Sachs, Abraham J. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Compiled and edited by Hermann Hunger. Volume 1: Diaries from 652 BC to 262 BC. Volume 2: Diaries from 261 BC to 165 BC. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften, 195. Bad. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vienna, 1988.

[1017:1]. Walker, Christopher, ed. Astronomy before the Telescope. Foreword by P. Moore. British Museum Press, 1996.

[1018]. Palairet, Jean. Atlas Méthodique, Composé pour l’usage de son altesse sérénissime monseigneur le prince d’Orange et de Nassau stadhouder des sept provinces unies, etc. etc. etc. Se trouve à Londres, chez Mess. J. Nourse & P. Vaillant dans le Strand; J. Neaulme à Amsterdam & à Berlin; & P. Gosse à La Haye. 1755.

[1019]. Atlas Minor sive Geographia compendiosa in qva Orbis Terrarum pavcis attamen novissimis Tabvlis ostenditvr. // Atlas Nouveau, contenant toutes les parties du monde, Où font Exactement Remarquees les Empires Monarchies, Royaumes, Etats, Republiques, &c, &c, &c. Receuillies des Meilleurs Auteurs. Amsterdam: Regner & Josue Ottens, n.d.

[1020]. Auè, Michèlé. Discover Cathar country. Le Pays Cathare. Toulouse, MSM, 1992.

[1021]. Bacharach. Astronomia. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library), 1545.

[1022]. Bailly, J. S. Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne depuis son origine jusqu’à l’établissement de l’école d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1st edition 1775, 2nd edition 1781.

[1023]. Baily, F. An account of the life of Sir John Flaemsteed. London, 1835.

[1024]. Baily, F. The Catalogues of Ptolemy, Ulugh Beigh, Tycho Brahe, Halley and Hevelins, deduced from the best authorities. Royal Astr. Soc. Memoirs, XIII (1843): 1-248.

[1025]. Bakker, I., I. Vogel, and T. Wislanski. TRB and other C-14 Dates from Poland. Helinium, IX, 1969.

[1025:1]. Baldauf, Robert. Historie und Kritik. (Einige kritische Bemerkungen.). Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, Universitäts-buchdruckerei, 1902.

[1026]. Bartholomaeus, Angicus. De proprietatibus rerum. lib. XV, cap. CXXXI. Apud A. Koburger. Nurenbergi, 1492,

[1027]. Barron, Roderick. Decorative Maps. With Forty Full Colour Plates. London, Bracken Books, 1989.

[1028]. Basilica, Sainte Cécile. Albi. As de Cœur Collection. Guided Visit. Albi, France: Apa-Poux S. A. Albi, 1992.

[1028:1]. Bély, Lucien. Discovering the Cathars. France, Éditions Sud Ouest, 2001.

[1029]. Bennet, J.A. The Divided Circle. A History of Instruments for Astronomy Navigation and Surveying. Christie’s, Oxford, Phaidon, 1987.

[1030]. de Sainte-Maure, Benoit. Chronique des ducs de Normandie par Benoit. Publee... par C. Fahlin, t. I. In: Bibliotheca Ekmaniana universitatis regiae Upsaliensis, Uppsala, 1951. 8-11.

[1031]. del Castillo, Conquistador Bernal Días. The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico. New Introduction by Hugh Thomas. New York, Da Capo Press. 1996.

[1032]. Bernard, Lewis. The Middle East. A brief History of the Last 2000 Years. New York, Simon & Schuster, 1997.

[1033]. Bibliography of books and papers published in 1963 on the History of Astronomy. Moscow: Nauka, 1964.

[1034]. Binding, Rudolf G. Der Goldene Schrein. Bilder deutschen Meister auf Goldgrund. Leipzig, 1934.

[1035]. Blaeu, Joan. Novus Atlas Sinensis, 1655. Faksimiles nach der Prachtausgabe der Herzog von der August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel. Herausgegeben von der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk Hannover. Mit Beiträgen von Hans Kauffmann und Yorck Alexander Haase, und einem Geleitwort von Gotthard Gambke. Verlag Müller und Schindler, 1973.

[1036]. Le Grand Atlas de Blaeu. Le Monde au XVIIe siècle. Introduction, descriptions et choix des cartes par John Goss. Ancient conseiller-expert cartographe chez Sotheby’s. Avant-propos de Peter Clark. Conservateur à la Royal Geographical Society. Adaptation Française de Irmina Spinner. Publié avec le concours de la Royal Geographical Society. Paris: Gründ, 1992. Les cartes originales de Grand Atlas de Blaeu. Le monde au XVIIe siècle ont été publiées par Blaeu dans son Atlas Major publié à Amsterdam en 1662. L’édition originale 1990 par Studio Editions sous le titre original Blaeu’s Grand Atlas of the 17th Century World. Première édition francaise 1992 par Librairie Gründ, Paris.

[1037]. Bloch, M. La societe féodale. Paris, 1968.

[1038]. Blöss, Christian, and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. C14-Crash. (Das Ende der Illusion mit Radiokarbonmethode und Dendrochronologie datieren zu können). Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1997.

[1039]. Blöss, Christian, and Hans-Ulrich Niemitz. The Self-Deception of the C14 Method and Dendrochronology. Zeitensprünge 8 (1996) 3 361-389. Mantis Verlag, January 1997.

[1040]. Bode, J.E. Claudius Ptolemäeus, Astronom zu Alexandrien im zweyten Jahrhundert. Beobachtung und Beschreibung der Gestirne und der Bewegung. Vergleichnungen der neuern Beobachtungen von J.E.Bode. With a historical review and commentary. Berlin und Stettin, 1795.

[1041]. Boll, F. Studien über Claudius Ptolemäus. Leipzig, 1894.

[1042]. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Das Geheimnis der Heiligen Nacht. Kiefel Verlag, Wuppertal/Gütersloh, Germany, 1995.

[1043]. Bonnet, C. Geneva in Early Christian times. Geneva, Foundation des Clefs de Saint-Pierre, 1986.

[1044]. Boquet, F. J. C. J. Historie de l’Astronomie. Paris, Payot, 1925.

[1045]. Borman, Z. Astra. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). 1596.

[1045:1]. [Bosch] Tout l’œuvre peint de Jerôme Bosch. Introduction par Max J.Friedländer. Documentation par Mia Cinotti. Paris, Flammarion, 1967.

1045:2 [Bosch] Fraenger, Wilhelm. Hieronymus Bosch. VEB Verlag der Kunst Dresden, 1975.

[1046]. Boszkowska, Anna. Tryumf Luni i Wenus. Pasja Hieronima Boscha. Wydawnictwo Literacklie, Krakow, 1980.

[1047]. Bourbon, Fabio. Lithographien von Frederick Catherwood. Die Mayas. Auf den Spuren einer versunkenen Kultur. White Star, Via Candido Sassone, 22/24 13100, Vercelli, Italien, 1999. Deutschsprachige Ausgabe: Karl Mükker Verlag, Danziger Strasse 6, 91052 Erlangen.

[1048]. Brahe, T. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera omnia. Ed. J. L. E. Dreyer. 15 Volumes. Copenhagen, 1913-1929.

[1049]. Brahe, T. Equitis Dani Astronomorum Coryhaei Vita. Authore Petro Gassendo. Regio ex Typographia Adriani Vlac. MDCLV.

[1049:1]. Lehane, Brendan (texte), Richard Novitz (photographies). Irlande. London, Flint River, 1997; Paris, Booking Int’l, 1997.

[1050]. Brenon, Anne. Le vrai visage du Catharisme. Toulouse, Ed. Loubatières, 1988.

[1050:1]. British Museum. A Guide to the First, Second and Third Egyptian Rooms. Predynastic Human Remains, Mummies, Wooden Sarcophagi, Coffins and Cartonnage Mummy Cases, Chests and Coffers, and other Objects connected with the Funerary Rites of the Ancient Egyptians. Third Edition, Revised and Enlarged. With 3 coloured and 32 half-tone plates. British Museum, 1924.

[1050:2]. British Museum. A Guide to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Egyptian Rooms and the Coptic Room. A series of Collections of Small Egyptian Antiquities, which illustrate the Manners and Customs, the Arts and Crafts, the Religion and Literature, and the Funeral Rites and Ceremonies of the Ancient Egyptians and their Descendants, the Copts, from about B.C. 4500 to A.D. 1000. With 7 plates and 157 illustrations in the text. British Museum, 1922.

[1050:3]. British Museum. A Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum. With 53 plates and 180 illustrations in the text. British Museum, 1909.

[1051]. Brodsky, B. E., and B. S. Darkhovsky. Nonparametric Methods in Change-Point Problems. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

[1051:1]. Brodrick, M., and A. A. Morton. A Concise Dictionary of Egyptian Archaeology. A handbook for students and travellers. London, 1902. 2nd edition 1923, 3rd edition 1924. Reprint: Chicago, Aries, 1980.

[1052]. Brooke, Christopher. From Alfred to Henry III. 871-1272. The Norton Library History of England. New York, London, W. W. Norton & Company, 1961, 1968, 1969.

[1053]. Broughton, T. R. S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Volumes 1, 2. London, 1951-1960.

[1053:1]. [Bruegel] Gerhard W. Menzel. Pieter Bruegel der Ältere. Leipzig, VEB E. A. Seemann, Buch- und Kunstverlag, 1966; 2 Auflage, 1974.

[1053:2]. Bovi, Arturo. Bruegel. The life and work of the artist illustrated with 80 colour plates. A Dolphin Art Book. London, Thames and Hudson, 1971. Reprinted 1974.

[1054]. Brugsch, H. Recueil de Monuments Egyptiens, dessinés sur lieux. Leipzig, 1862-1865.

[1055]. Buck, C. E., W. G. Gavanagh, and C. D. Litton. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Series: Statistics in Practice. John Wiley & Sons, 1996.

[1056]. Bustos, Gerardo. Yucatan and its Archaeological Sites. Mexico, Monclem; Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1992.

[1057]. Cagnat, R. Cours d’épigraphie latine. 4e éd. Paris, 1914.

[1058]. Campbell, Tony. Early Maps. New York, Abbeville Press Publishers, 1981.

[1059]. Campos, José Guerra, and Jesús Precedo Lafuente. Guide to the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. Spain, Aldeasa, División Palacios y Museos, 1993.

[1060]. Cantacuzeny, Ioannis. Opera Omnia. Patrologiae curcus completus. Series graeca. T. CLIII, CLIV. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1060:1]. Carcassonne (The City of Carcassonne. Cathar Castles). Production Leconte. Editions Estel-Blois. B. P. 45 - 41260 La Chaussée-Saint-Victor. Printed in E.E.C.

[1060:2]. Cathares. Les ombres de l’Histoire. Carcassone: Histoire d’une Cité unique. In: Pyrénées (Magazine). Une publication de Milan Presse. 2001. Éditions Milan et les auteurs. Ariège Pyrenées. (A special edition of the magazine dedicated to Cathar history).

[1061]. Cathedral and Metropolitan Church of St. Stephen in Vienna. Germany, Verlag Schnell & Steiner Regensburg, 1995.

[1061:1]. Cathédrale de l’Annonciation. Le Kremlin de Moscou. Les Musées d’Etat du Kremlin de Moscou, 1990.

[1062]. Cauville, S. Le Zodiaque d’Osiris. Peeters, Uitgeverij Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven.

[1062:1]. Cauville, S. Dendara. Les chapelles osiriennes. (5 vols.) Institut francais d’archeologie orientale du Caire, 1977.

[1063]. Chabas, F. Mélanges égyptologiques. Deuxième série. Ägyptolog. Zeitschrift. 1868. S. 49.

[1064]. Champfleury. Historie de la Caricature au Moyen Age. Paris, 1867-1871.

[1064:0]. Chapront-Touze, M., and J. Chapront. Lunar ephemere des computation software. (Program ELP2000-85, version 1.0, Fortran 77). Bureau des Longitudes, URA 707. 1988. Available online.

[1064:1]. Château de Chillon. Booklet. Château de Chillon, Veytaux (www.chillon.ch), 2000.

[1065]. Childress, David Hatcher. Lost Cities of Atlantis, Ancient Europe & the Mediterranean. Stelle, Illinois 60919 USA, Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996.

[1066]. Chirikov, B. V., and V. V. Vecheslavov. Chaotic dynamics of comet Halley. Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 221, No. 1 (1989): 146-154.

[1067]. Chmelarz, Eduard. Die Ehrepforte des Kaisers Maximilian I. Unterscheidheim 1972. Verlag Walter Uhl. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Herausgegeben unter Leitung des Oberstakämmerers seiner Kaiserlichen und Königlichen Apostolischen Majestät. Ferdinand Grafen zu Trauttmansdorff-Weinsberg vom K. K. Oberstkämmerer-Amte. Vierter Band. Mit 39 Kupfertafeln in Heliogravure und Radierung, 100 Holzschnittafeln und 56 Text-Illustrationen in Heliogravure, Holzschnitt und Zinkographie. Als Beilage: 16 Holzschnitte der Ehrenpforte des Kaisers Maximilian I. Wien, Druck und Verlag von Adolf Holzhausen, K. K. Hofbuchdrucker, 1886.

[1068]. Stubbs, W., ed. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedone. RS, N 51, Volume II. London, 1869, page 236. English translation: The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, comprising the history of England and of other countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. Tr. H. T. Riley, Volumes 1-2. London, Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, 1853.

[1069]. Pestman, P.W. Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques. Papyrologia Lugduno-Batava edidit Institutum Papyrologicum Universitatis Lugduno-Batavae Moderantibus M.David et B. A. von Groningen. Volume 15. Lugdunum Batavorum, 1967.

[1070]. Cipolla, Carlo M. Money, Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World. 5-17 century. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.

[1071]. Claudii Ptolemaei Magnae Constructionis, id est perfectae coelestium motuum pertractationis. Lib. XIII. Theonis Alexanrini in eosdem Commentariorum Libri XI; Basileal apud Ioannem Waledrum. C. priv. Caes. ad Quinquennium. 1538.

[1072]. Claudii Ptolemaei Phelusiensis Alexandrini. Anno Salutis, 1528.

[1073]. Claudii Ptolemaei Pelusiensis Alexandrini omnia quac extant opera. 1551.

[1074]. Clemens, Jöcle. Speyer Cathedral. Regensburg, Verlag Scgnell & Steiner GmBH Regensburg, 1997.

[1075]. Clinton, H.F. Fasti Hellenici, a Civil and Literary Chronology from the Earliest Times to the Death of Augustus. Oxford, 1830-1841.

[1076]. Copernici, N. Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium. Lib. VI. Ed. by G. Loachimi. Thoruni, 1873.

[1077]. Corbinianus. Firmamentum Firmianum. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). 1731.

[1078]. Cordier, H. Marco Polo and His Book. Introductory notices. In: The Travels of Marco Polo. The complete Yule-Cordier. Volumes 1 and 2. New York, Dover, 1993.

[1078:1]. Wytfliet, Cornelius. Descriptionis Ptolemaicae Augmentum sive Occidentis notitia brevis commentario. Louvain 1597. With an introduction by R. A. Skelton. Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm. A Series of Atlases in Facsimile. 1st Series, Vol. V. Amsterdam, N. Israel, Meridian, 1964.

[1079]. Costard, G. The History of Astronomy with its Application to Geography, History and Chronology. London, J. Lister, 1967.

[1080]. Harmon, Craig. The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxides between Atmosphere and Sea. Volume 9. Tellus. 1957. 1-17.

[1081]. Harmon, Craig. Carbon-13 in Plants and the Relationships between Carbon-13 and Carbon-14 Variations in Nature. J. Geol., 62 (1954): 115-149.

[1081:1]. El Mahdy, Christine. Mummies, Myths and Magic in Ancient Egypt. Thames and Hudson, 1989.

[1082]. Crowe, C. Carbon-14 activity during the past 5000 years. Nature, Volume 182 (1958): 470.

[1083]. Danit Hadary-Salomon, ed. 2000 Years of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Israel, AC Alfa Communication Ltd., 1999.

[1084]. Das Münster zu Bonn. The Bonn Minster. Former Collegiate Church of SS. Cassius and Florentius. Series: Kleine Kunstfürer. Achnell, Art Guide No. 593 (of 1954). Second English edition 1997. Regensburg, Germany, Verlag Schnell & Steiner GmbH Regensburg, 1997.

[1085]. David, Daniel. Let There be Light. William Tyndale and the Making of the English Bible. A British Library Exhibition at The Huntington. 19 November, 1996 - 7 February, 1997. London, The British Library, 1994.

[1086]. Davidovits, Joseph. Alchemy and Pyramids. The Book of Stone. Vol. 1. France-USA, Geopolymer Institute, 1983.

[1087]. Davidovits, Joseph. Alchemy and Pyramids. Translated from French by A. C. James and J. James. Rev. ed. Que le Khnoum protège Khéops constructeur de pyramide. Saint Quentin, France, 1983; Miami Shores, Fla., USA, Institute for Applied Archaeological Science, Barry University, 1984.

[1088]. Davidovits, Joseph. Amenhotep, Joseph and Solomon. 1st ed. Miami Shores, Fla., U.S.A., Geopolymer Institute, Institute for Applied Archaeological Science, Barry University, 1984.

[1089]. Davidovits, Joseph. Que le dieu Khnoum protège Khéops constructeur de pyramide: histoire de la civilisation Égyptienne de 3500 é 1500 ans avant J.-C. Saint-Quentin, 1978.

[1090]. Davidovits, Joseph. Le calcaire des pierres des Grandes Pyramides d’Égypte serait un béton géopolymére vieux de 4.600 ans. Résumé des cours-conférences tenus en 1983 et 1984. Revue des Questions Scientifiques, Volume 156(2) (1986): 199-225.

[1091]. Davidovits, Joseph. No more than 1,400 workers to build the Pyramid of Cheops with manmade stone. 3rd Int. Congress of Egyptologists. Toronto, Canada: paper AA-126, publié dans Appendix 3 de Davidovits, 1983.

[1092]. Davidovits, Joseph, and Margie Morris. The Pyramids: an Enigma Solved. New York, Hippocrene Books, 1988. New York, Dorset Press, 1989, 1990.

[1093]. Davidovits J., J. Thodez, and Gaber M Hisham. Pyramids of Egypt Made of Man-Made Stone, Myth or Fact? Symposium on Archeometry 1984, Smithsonian Institution, abstract 26-27. Washington, D.C., USA, 1984.

[1094]. Davies, Nartin. The Gutenberg Bible. London, The British Library, 1996.

[1095]. Degrassi, A. Fasti Capitolini. 1954; I Fasti consolari dell’impero romano, 1952.

[1096]. Delambre, J. B. Histoire de l’Astronomie. 2 Volumes. Paris, 1817.

[1097]. Delambre, J. Histoire de l’Astronomie moderne. 2 Volumes. Paris, 1821.

[1098]. Della origine et ruccessi degli Slavi, oratione di M. V. Pribevo, Dalmatino da Lesena, etc. et hora tradotta della lingua Latina nell’Italiana da Bellisario Malaspalli, da Spalato. Venetia, 1595.

[1099]. Der Marienschrein im Dom zu Aachen. Die Publikation dieses Sonderheftes erfolgt durch die Grünenthal GmbH, Aachen. Domkapitel, 2000.

[1100]. Description de l’Égypte. Publiée sous les ordes de Napoléon de Bonaparte. Description de l’Égypte ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l’expédition de l’Armée francaise publié sous les ordes de Napoléon Bonaparte. Bibliothèque de l’Image. Inter-Livres. 1995.

[1101]. Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane. Life and Death of Pharaoh Tutankhamen. London, Penguin Books, 1963.

[1101:1]. Deutschland. Germany. Allemagne. Germania. Euro Map. Halwag AG, Bern, Printed in Switzerland-Germany 4-26 AK.

[1102]. Dheily, J. Dictionaire Biblique. Ed. Desclec. Tournai, 1964. 193.

[1103]. Dialogus Historicus Palladii episcopi Helenopolis cum Theodoro. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Patrologiae Graecae. T. LVII. J.-P. Migne, 1858.

[1104]. Die Bibel. Oder die Ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten and Neuen Testaments. Nach der Überzetzung Martin Luthers. Württembergische Bibelanstalt, Stuttgart. 1967.

1105. Die Weihnachtsgeschichte. Nacherzählt in Bildern aus der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Stuttgart, Zürich, Belser Verlag, 1993.

[1106]. Dom Betrachtung. Die Hochgräber im Kölner Dom. 4. Herausgeber, Dompfarramt – Dompfarrer Rolf Breitenbruch, Domkloster 3, 50667, Köln.

[1107]. Douais, C. L’Inquisition, ses origines, sa procédure. Paris, 1906.

[1108]. Dreyer, J. L. E. On the Origin of Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, No. 77 (1917): 528-539.

[1109]. Dreyer, J. L. E. On the Origin of Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. Second Paper. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, No. 78 (1918): 343-349.

[1110]. Duden. Ethymologie: Herkunfswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim, Wien; Dudenverlag, Zürich, 1989.

[1111]. Duncan, A.J. Quality Control and Industrial Statistics. NY, Irwin, 1974.

[1112]. Dupont-Sommer, A. Les écrits essentiens decouverts près de la Mer Morte. Paris, 1957.

[1113]. Dupuis, C. The Origin of All Religious Worship. New Orleans, 1872.

[1114]. Duvernoy, Jean. Le catharisme. Volume I: La religion des Cathares. Volume II: Histoire des Cathares. Toulouse, Private, 1976 and 1979. Re-published 1986.

[1115]. Duvernoy, Jean, Paul Labal, Robert Lafont, Philippe Martell, and Michel Roquebert. Les Cathares en Occitanie. Fayard, 1981.

[1116]. Van Ermen, Eduard. The United States in Old Maps and Prints. Wilmington USA, Atomium Books, 1990.

[1116:1]. Égypte. Large album with photographs. Paris, Molière, Art Image, 1998.

[1117]. Eichler, Anja-Franziska. Albrecht Dürer. 1471-1528. Cologne, Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, 1999.

[1118]. Encyclopaedia Britannica; or, a Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, compiled upon a new Plan. In which the different Sciences and Arts are digested into distinct Treatises or Systems; and the various Technical Terms, etc. are explained as they occur in the order of the Alphabet. Illustrated with one hundred and sixty copperplates. By a Society of Gentlemen in Scotland. In 3 volumes. Edinburgh, A. Bell and C. Macfarquhar, 1771.

[1118:1]. Encyclopaedia Britannica. On-line version, 2001.

[1119]. Evans, James. On the Origin of the Ptolemaic Star Catalogue. Part 1. Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 18, Part 3, No. 54 (August 1987): 155-172.

[1120]. Evans, James. On the Origin of the Ptolemaic Star Catalogue. Part 2. Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 18, Part 4, No. 55 (November 1987): 235-277.

[1121]. Liebermann, F., and R. Pauli, Eds. Ex Annalibus Melrosensibus. MGH SS, T.XXVII. Hannoverae, 1885. 439.

[1121:1]. Winship, Betsy, and Sheila Stoneham, eds. Explosives and Rock Blasting. Field Technical Operations. Atlas Rowder Company. Dallas, Texas, Marple Press, 1987.

[1122]. Fatih, Cimok. Hagia Sophia. Istanbul, A turizm yayinlari, 1995.

[1123]. Fatih, Cimok. Hagia Sophia. Istanbul, A turizm yayinlari, 1985.

[1124]. Fergusson, G. I. Reduction of Atmospheric Radiocarbon Concentration by Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Mean Life of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere. London, Proc. Royal Soc., 243 A, pages 561-574. 1958.

[1125]. Filarete, Antonio Averlino. Tractat über die Baukunst. Vienna, 1890.

[1126]. Fischer, Fr. Thucydidus reliquiae in papyris et membranis aigiptiacis servatae. Lipsiae, 1913.

[1127]. Verlag, Dr. Ludwig Reichert. Flüsse im Herzen Europas. Rhein-Elbe-Donau. Kartenabteilung der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Wiesbaden, 1993.

[1128]. Fomenko, A.T. The Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon’s Elongation. Celestial Mechanics, Volume 29 (1981): 33-40.

[1129]. Fomenko, A. T. Some New Empirico-Statistical Methods of Dating and the Analysis of Present Global Chronology. The British Library. Department of Printed Books. Cup. 918/87. 1981.

[1130]. Fomenko, A.T. New Empirico-Statistical Dating Methods and Statistics of Certain Astronomical Data. The theses of the First International Congress of the International Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory. Volume 2. Moscow, Nauka, 1986. 892.

[1131]. Fomenko, A.T. Duplicates in Mixed Sequences and a Frequency Duplication Principle. Methods and Applications. Probability theory and mathematical statistics. Proceeding of the 4th Vilnius Conference (24-29 June 1985). Volume 16. Utrecht, Netherlands, VNU Science, 1987. 439-465.

[1132]. Fomenko, A.T. Empirico-Statistical Methods in Ordering Narrative Texts. International Statistical Review, Volume 566, No. 3 (1988): 279-301.

[1133]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. When was Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue in “Almagest” Compiled in Reality? Preprint. No. 1989-04, ISSN 0347-2809. Dept. of Math., Chalmers Univ. of Technology, The University of Goteborg. Sweden.

[1134]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. When was Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue in “Almagest” Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis. Acta Applicandae Mathematical. Volume 17. 1989. 203-229.

[1135]. Fomenko, A. T. Mathematical Statistics and Problems of Ancient Chronology. A New Approach. Acta Applicandae Mathematical. Volume 17. 1989. 231-256.

[1136]. Fomenko, A. T., Kalashnikov V. V., Nosovskiy G. V. Geometrical and Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations. Dating Ptolemy’s Almagest. USA, CRC Press, 1993.

[1137]. Fomenko, A. T. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating. Volume 1: The Development of the Statistical Tools. Volume 2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.

[1138]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. The dating of Ptolemy’s Almagest based on the coverings of the stars and on lunar eclipses. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae. Volume 29. 1992. 281-298.

[1139]. Fomenko, A. T., V. V. Kalashnikov, and G.V. Nosovskiy. Statistical analysis and dating of the observations on which Ptolemy’s “Almagest” star catalogue is based. In: Probability theory and mathematical statistics. Proc. of the Fifth Vilnius Conference. Volume 1. Moklas, Vilnius, Lithuania. VSP, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1990. 360-374.

[1140]. Fomenko, A. T., and S. T. Rachev. Volume Functions of Historical Texts and the Amplitude Correlation Principle. Computers and the Humanities. Vol. 24. 1990. 187-206.

[1141]. Manuel, Frank E. Isaac Newton, the Historian. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Belknap Press, 1963.

[1142]. Franke, Peter Robert, and Ilse Paar. Die Antiken Münzen der Sammlung Heynen. Katalog mit Historischen Erläuterungen. Landschaftsmuseum Krefeld-Burglinn. Rheinland-Verlag, Köln, in Kommission bei Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn. 1976.

[1143]. de Landa, Friar Diego. Yucatan before and after the Conquest. Translated with notes by William Gates. San Fernando, Atrio de San Francisco, 1993.

[1144]. Fricke, W., and A. Koff FK4. No.10. Heidelberg, Veröf. Astr. Inst., 1963.

[1145]. Fuchs, W. Nach allen Regeln der Kunst. Diagnosen über Literatur, Musik, bildende Kunst. Die Werke, ihre Autoren und Schöpfer. Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt., 1968.

[1146]. Fuchs, W. Mathematical Theory of Word-Formation. London, 1955.

[1147]. Fulton, Alexander. Scotland and her Tartans. The Romantic Heritage of the Scottish Clans and Families. Colour Library Books Ltd., Sandbach, Cheshire; Godalming, Surrey, 1991.

[1148]. Fussbroich, Helmut. St. Maria Lyskirchen in Köln. Rheinische Kunststätten. Heft 60. Rheinischer Verein für Denkmalpflege und Landschaftsschutz. Köln, Neusser Druckerei und Verlag GmbH, 1992.

[1149]. Gabovitsch, Eugen. Newton als geistiger Vater der Chronologiekritik und Geschishtsrekonstruktion (neben Hardoin). Bemerkungen zum Artikel von Uwe Topper in Synesis Nr. 4/1999. Efodon-Synesis (Germany) Nov/Dez. 1999, Nr. 6/1999, S. 29-33.

[1150]. Gabovitsch. Eugen. Die Grosse Mauer als ein Mythos: Die Errichtungsgeschichte der Chinesischen Mauer und ihre Mythologisierung. Efodon-Synesis (Germany), Nov/Dez. 1999, Nr.6/1999, S. 9-21.

[1151]. Gadol, J. Leon Battista Alberti. Chicago, London, 1969.

[1152]. Gassendi. Nicolai Coppernici vita. A supplement to the edition titled Tychonis Brahei, equitis Mani, astronomorum copyrhaei vita. XDCLV.

[1152:1]. El Gayar, El Sayed, and M. P. Jones. Metallurgical Investigation of the Iron plate found in 1837 in the Great Pyramid at Gizeh, Egypt. In: Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society, Volume 1 (1989): 75-83.

[1153]. Gingerich, O. Ptolemy Revisited: A Reply to R. R. Newton. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, No.22 (1981): 40-44.

[1154]. Ginzel, F. K. Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse für das Ländergebiet der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften und den Zeitraum von 900 vor Chr. bis 600 nach Chr. Berlin, Mayer & Müller, 1899.

[1155]. Ginzel, F.K. Handbuch der Mathematischen und Technischen Chronologie. Bd. I-III. Leipzig, 1906, 1911, 1914.

[1156]. Ginzel, F. K., and A. Wilkens. Theorie der Finsternisse. Encykl. der Wissenschaftten. Bd. VI, 2. S. 335. 1908.

[1157]. Girou, Jean. Simon de Monfort. Paris: La Colombe, 1953.

[1158]. Della Fina, Giuseppe M., Luoghi e tempi Etruschi schede di ricerca. Firenze: Fatatrac, 1989.

[1159]. Gladwin, H. Men out of Asia. NY, 1949.

[1160]. Goss, John. Kartenkunst: Die Geschichte der Kartographie. Deutsche Asgabe: Georg Westermann Verlag, Braunschweig, 1994. German translation of the English edition: Goss, John. The Mapmaker’s Art. A History of Cartography. London, Studio Editions Ltd.

[1160:1]. Granier, J., and S. Gagnière. Avignon. (The city at Sunset. The Popes’ Palace. The Saint Benezet bridge). English edition. Éditions du Boumian, Monaco.

[1161]. Grasshoff, Gerd. The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue. New York, Springer Verlag, 1990.

[1162]. Grienberger, C. Catalogus Veteres affixarum longitudiues et latitudines cum novis conferens. Romae apud B. Zannetum, 1612. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1163]. Grierson, Philip. Coinage and Money in Byzantine Empire. Spoleto, 1961.

[1164]. Grierson, Philip. Monnaies du Moyen Âge. Fribourg, 1976.

[1165]. Grimme, Ernst Günther. Der Dom zu Aachen. Architektur und Ausstattung. Aachen, Einhard-Verlag, 1994.

[1166]. Grollenberg, L. N. Atlas of the Bible. NY, 1956.

[1167]. Gualberto, Zapata Alonzo. An Overview of the Mayan World. With a Synthesis of the Olmec, Totonac Zapotec, Mixtec, Teotihuacan, Toltec and Aztec Civilizations. Mexico, Merida, 1993.

[1167:1]. Guide to Edo-Tokyo Museum (English edition). Edited by Edo-Tokyo Museum. Japan Broadcast Publishing Co., Ltd. Printed in Japan by Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.

[1168]. Gutenberg-Bibel. Geschichtliche Bücher des Alten Testaments. Die bibliophilen Taschenbücher. Dortmund, Harenberg Kommunikation, 1977.

[1169]. Gutenberg Bibel (1452-1455). Reprinted 1968 by Verlag Konrad Köbl. 8022 Grünwald bei München, Huberttusstrasse 13. Firma Elektra, Reprografischer Betrieb, Kjeld Höjring, Niedernhausen/Ts. Printed in Germany.

[1170]. Schneider, Dr. Cornelia. Gutenberg-Dokumentation. Information Mittelalter. Das Buch vor Gutenberg (I). Gutenberg-Museum Mainz, 1990.

[1171]. Schneider, Dr. Cornelia. Gutenberg-Dokumentation. Information Mittelalter. Das Buch vor Gutenberg (II). Gutenberg-Museum Mainz, 1990.

[1172]. Haack Geographisch-Kartographischer Kalender. Germany, Haack Gotha, VEB Hermann Haack Geographisch-Kartographische Anstalt Gotha, 1983.

[1172:1]. Haack Geographisch-Kartographischer Kalender. Germany, Haack Gotha, VEB Hermann Haack Geographisch-Kartographische Anstalt Gotha, 1988.

[1173]. Hagek, W. Kronyka Czeska. Prague, 1541.

[1174]. Hans, Peter. Der Dom zu Köln. 1248-1948. Düsseldorf, Verlag L. Schwann, 1948.

[1175]. Hansen, P. Ecliptische Tafeln für die Konjunktionen des Mondes und der Sonne. Leipzig, 1857.

[1176]. Hansen, P. Theorie der Sonnenfinsternisse und verwandten Erscheinungen. Leipzig, 1859.

[1177]. Harley, J. B., and David Woodward. The History of Cartography. Volume 1. Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean. Chicago & London, The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

[1178]. Harvey, Arden. Who Owns Our Past? National Geographic, Volume 175, No.3 (March 1989): 376-393.

[1179]. Hauvette, A. Herodote historien des guerres midiques. Paris, 1894.

[1180]. Haveta, E. La modernité des prophètes. Paris, 1891.

[1181]. Hazirlayan, H. H. Aliy Yalcin (Hz. Yusa Camii Imam-Hatibi). Hazreti Yusa (Aleyhisselam). Istanbul. Brochure written by the prior of the temple at the grave of St. Iusha at the outskirts of Istanbul.

[1182]. Hearnshaw, J .B., and D. Khan. An Analysis of the Magnitude Data in Ptolemy’s Almagest. Southern Stars. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of New Zealand (Wellington), Volume 36, Nos. 5-6 (December 1955): 169-177.

[1183]. Heath, T. L. Aristarchus of Samos, the Ancient Copernicus; a History of Greek Astronomy to Aristarchus, together with Aristarchus’ Treatise on the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913.

[1184]. Heine-Geldern, R., and G.Ekholm. Significant parallels in the symbolic arts of Southern Asia and Middle America. In: Selected Papers of the 29th International Congress of Americanists, Volume 1. Chicago, 1951. 306.

[1185]. Heinsohn, Gunnar. Assyrerkönige gleich Perserherrscher! (Die Assyrienfunde bestätigen das Achämenidenreach). Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1996.

[1186]. Heinsohn, Gunnar, and Heribert Illig. Wann lebten die Pharaonen? (Archäologische and technologische Grundlagen für eine Neuschreibung der Geschichte Ägyptens and der übrigen Welt.) Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1997.

[1187]. Heintze, C. Objects rituels, croyances et dieux de la Chine antique et de l’Amérique. Antwerpen, 1936.

[1188]. Heis. Die Finsternisse während des pelop. Krieges. Progr. d. Fried. Wilh. Gimn. Köln, 1834.

[1189]. Herbert, Ewe. Abbild oder Phantasie? Schiffe auf historischen Karten. Rostock, VEB Hinstorff Verlag, 1978.

[1190]. [Herodotus]. The History of Herodotus. London, 1858.

[1191]. Hignett, C. Xerxes Invasion of Greece. Oxford, 1963.

[1192]. Hincks, E. The Egyptian Dynasties of Manetho. The Journal of Sacred Literature. London, 1864.

[1193]. Hipparchus. Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi Phenomena Commentarium. Ed. and German trans. C. Manitius. Leipzig, 1894.

[1194]. Historiae bysantinae scriptores post Theophanem. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T.CIX. J.-P. Migne, 1863.

[1195]. Hochart. De l’authenticité des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite. Paris, 1890.

[1196]. Hodge, K.C., and G.W.A. Newton. Radiocarbon Dating. Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains. Edited by A. Rosalie David. Published by Manchester Museum. Manchester, England, 1979. 137-147.

[1197]. Hofflit, D. The Bright Star Catalogue. New Haven Connecticut, USA, Yale Univ. Obs., 1982.

[1198]. Hoffman. Sämtliche bei griechishen und lateinschen Schriftstellern des Altertums erwähnte Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Trieste, 1885.

[1199]. Horster, M. Brunelleschi und Alberti in ihrer Stellung zur römischen Antike. Florence, 1973.

[1200]. Horus. The Enigma Surrounding the Sphinx. An Egyptian Magazine, April/June 1999.

[1201]. Hoster, Joseph. Der Dom zu Köln. Köln, Greven Verlag, 1965.

[1202]. Huddleston, L.E. Origin of the American Indian. European Concepts, 1492-1729. Austin, 1967.

[1203]. Hütt, Wolfgang. Altdorfer. Maler und Werk. Eine Kunstheftreihe aus dem VEB Verlag der Kunst. Dresden, 1976.

[1204]. Hugot, Leo. Aachen Cathedral. Aachen, Germany, Einhard Verlag, 1988.

[1205]. Ideler, L. Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie. Band 1-2. Berlin, 1825-1826.

[1206]. Ilhan Aksit. The Topkapi Palace. Istanbul, Aksit Kultur Turism Sanat Ajans Ltd., 1995.

[1207]. Ilhan Aksit. The Museum of Chora. Mosaics and Frescoes. Istanbul, Aksit Kultur Turism Sanat Ajans Ltd., 1995.

[1208]. Illig, Heribert. Hat Karl der Große je gelebt? (Bauten, Funde und Schriften im Widerstreit). Gräfelfing, Mantis Verlag, 1996.

[1208:1]. Irish Dictionary. Collins Gem. English-Irish. Irish-English. Seamus Mac Mathuna and O Corrain (University of Ulster). Harper Collins, 1999.

[1209]. Isidori Junioris. Hispalensis episcopi: De responsione mundi. 1472. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1210]. Islam. Kunst und Architektur. Herausgegeben von Markus Hattstein und Peter Delis. Köln, Könemann, 2000.

[1211]. Istanbul and the Marmara Region. A Tale of two Continents. Turkey, The Ministry of Tourism, Istanbul, 1994.

[1212]. Janin, R. Constantinople Byzantine. Paris, 1950.

[1213]. Jirku, A. (Jurku, A.) Ausgrabungen in Palästina-Syrien. Halle, 1956.

[1214]. Johnson, Edwin. The Rise of English Culture. Williams and Norgate. London-New York, Putnam, 1904.

[1215]. Johnson, Edwin. The Rise of Christendom. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd., 1890.

[1215:1]. Johnson, Paul. The civilization of Ancient Egypt. London, Seven Dials, Cassel & Co., 2000.

[1216]. Joubert, Pierre. L’Heraldique. Les guides practiques. Editions Ouest-France, 1984.

[1217]. Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. New York, Vintage Books, 1994.

[1218]. Katalog dawnych map Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w kolekcji Emeryka Hutten Czapskiego i w innych zbiorach. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Gdansk: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, Wyd. Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania. Ossolineum. N.1. Mapy XV-XVI wieku. 1978.

[1219]. Keller, W. Und die Bibel hat doch Recht. Düsseldorf, 1958.

[1220]. Kenyon, K. M. Digging in Jericho. London, 1957.

[1221]. Kings & Queens of England. A set of picture cards. Great Britain, Fax Pax Ltd., 1988.

[1222]. Kinoshita, H. Formulas for Precession. Smithsonian Inst. Astrophys. Observatory. Cambridge, Massachussets, 1975.

[1223]. Sale, Kirkpatrick. The Conquest of Paradise. Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy. New York, Penguin Books, 1990.

[1224]. Knobel, E.B. British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Research Account. London, 1908.

[1225]. Knobel, E.B. The Chronology of Star Catalogues. Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society. No.43 (1877): 1-74.

[1226]. Kobold, H. Finsternisse. Handwörterbuch der Astronomie. Herausg. von W. Valentiner. Bd. I. Breslau, 1897.

[1227]. Koeva, Margarita. Rila Monastery. Sofia, Borina, 1995.

[1228]. Köln in historischen Stadtplänen. Die Entwicklung der Stadt seit dem XVI Jahrhundert. Berlin, Argon, 1995.

[1229]. Kostbarkeiten der Buchkunst. Illuminationen klassischer Werke von Archimedes bis Vergil. Herausgegeben von Giovanni Morello. Stuttgart-Zürich, Belser Verlag, 1997.

[1230]. Krishnaiah, P. and B. Miao. Review about Estimation of Change-Points. In: Handbook of Statistics, Volume 7. 1988. 375-402.

[1231]. Krönungen, Könige in Aachen. Geschichte und Mythos. Vom 12. Juni bis 3.Oktober 2000 in Rathaus, Domschatzkammer und Dom, Aachen. (Annette Fusenig M. A. und Barbara Jacobs M. A.). From 12th of June to 3rd October 2000 in Town Hall, Cathedral Treasury and Cathedral, Aachen. Kurzführer zur Ausstellung. Guide to the exhibition. Printed in Germany by Verein Aachener Krönungsgeschichte e. V.

[1232]. Mittelstädt, Kuno. Albrecht Dürer. Henschelverlag Kunst und Gesellschaft. Arkady, Warszawa-Berlin, 1977.

[1232:1]. Kunst des Mittelalters in Armenien. Burchard Brentjes, Stepan Mnazakanjan, Nina Stepanjan. (Kultur. Architektur. Plastik. Wandmalerei. Buchmalerei. Angewandte Kunst). Union Verlag, Berlin, 1981

[1233]. Lafuente, Jesús Precedo. Visitor’s Guide. The Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. Spain: Aldeasa, División Palacios y Museos, Estudios Gra’ficos Europeos, 1998.

[1234]. Kurth, Willi. The Complete Woodcuts of Albrecht Dürer. With an introduction by Campbell Dodgson, M.A., C.B.E. New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1963.

[1235]. Lajta, Edit. Malarstwo Francuskie od Gotyku do Renesansu. Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe-Warszawa. Drukowano na Wegrezech, 1979. Drukarnia Kossuth, Budapeszt. Wspolne wydanie wydawnictw Corvina, Budapest i WAiF, Warszawa.

[1236]. L’art de vérifier les dates faites historiques. Ed. par des Bénédictines. 1 ed., Paris, 1750; 2 ed., Paris, 1770; 3 ed., Paris, 1783, 1784, 1787.

[1237]. Laclotte, Michel (Director, Musée du Louvre). Treasures of the Louvre. New York, London-Paris, Abbeville, 1993.

[1238]. Langeteau, C. Tables pour le calcul des syzygies ecliptiques, Connaissanse des Temps pour 1846. Paris, 1843, 1850.

[1239]. Layamon. Brut, or the Chronicle of Britain. Ed. F. Madden. Volume II. London, 1847. 525-526, vv. 22589-22602.

[1240]. Stegena, Lajos, ed. Lazarus Secretarius. The First Hungarian Mapmaker and His Work. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, 1982.

[1240:1]. Lecoq-Ramond, Sylvie, and Béguerie Pantxika. Le Musée d’Unterlinden de Colmar. Musées et Monuments de France. Paris, Schongauer & Albin Michel, 1991.

[1241]. Leland, C. Fusang or discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist priests in the 5th century. London, 1875.

[1242]. Dal Maso, Leonardo B.. Rome of the Caesars. Firenze, Bonechi Editioni Il Turismo, 1974, 1992.

[1243]. Le Saint voyage de Jérusalem de seigneur d’Anglure. Paris, F. Bonnardot and A. Longnon, 1878.

[1244]. Le Wallraf-Richartz Museum de Cologne. Munich, Scala, C. H. Becksche Verlagbuchhandlung (Oscar Beck), 1992.

[1245]. Lehmann, P. Tafeln zur Berechnung der Mondphasen und Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Berlin, 1882.

[1245:1]. Les Grandes Civilisations Disparues. Sélection du Reader’s Digest. Paris-Bruxelles-Montréal-Zurich, 1980.

[1246]. Les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte. Aux origines du christianisme. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie, No. 189 (Janv. 1994).

[1247]. de Austria, Leupoldus. Compilatio de Astrorum Scientia, cuts. 1489. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1248]. Lhotsky, A. Auf Satze und Vortrage. Halle, 1970-1972.

[1249]. Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volumes 1-3. USA, University of California Press, 1975.

[1250]. Libby, W.F. Radiocarbon dating. 2nd edition. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955.

[1251]. Lilly, W. An Introduction to Astrology. London, G. Bell, 1939.

[1252]. Linde, A. v. d. Gutenberg. Geschichte und Erdichtung. Stuttgart, 1878.

[1253]. Linde, A. v. d. Geschichte der Buchdruckerkunst. Berlin, 1886.

[1254]. Lokotsch, K. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen Wörter. Heidelberg, 1927.

[1255]. Longhi, Roberto. Caravaggio. Die Italienische Malerei. Dresden: Editori Riuniti Rom, VEB Verlag der Kunst, 1968

[1256]. Lubienietski, S. Theatrum Cometicum, etc. Amstelodami, 1666-1668. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1257]. Lubienietski, S. Historia universalis omnium Cometarum. Lugduni Batavorum, 1681. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1258]. Lucas Cranach d. Ä. Herausgegeben von Heinz Lüdecke. Welt der Kunst. Henschelvarlag Kunst und Gesellschaft. Berlin, 1972.

[1259]. Magi, Giovanna, and Giuliano Valdes. All of Turkey. Firenze, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1990.

[1260]. Manuel, Chrisoloras. Manuels Chrisolorae Vita et scripta. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T.CLVI. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1261]. Manuel II Palaeologus. Laudatio funebris fratris sui Theodori Palaeologi Despotae. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T. CLVI. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1261:1]. Maps of the Ancient World. 2002 Calendar. From The Huntington Library. Avalanche Publishing, Inc., 2001.

[1262]. Mapy severni a jizni hvezdne oblohy. Praha, Kartografie Praha, 1971.

[1263]. Marco Polo. Le Livre des Merveilles. La Renaissance du Livre. Collection Références. Extrait du Livre des Merveilles du Monde (Ms. fr. 2810) de la Bibliotheque nationale de France. 1999 Ultreya srl, Milan. 1996 Faksimile Verlag Luzern pour les textes et les images. 1999 La Renaissance du Livre, Tournai pour l’edition francaise. Belgique.

[1264]. Marco Polo. The Travels of Marco Polo. The Complete Yule-Cordier Edition. With a Total of 198 Illustrations and 32 Maps and Site Plans. Three Volumes Bound as Two. Volumes 1,2. Including the unabridged third edition (1903) of Henry Yule’s annotated translation, as revised by Henry Cordier; together with Cordier’s later volume of notes and addenda (1920). New York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1993.

[1265]. Maria Da Villa Urbani. Basilica of San Marco. Milan, Editions KINA, 1993.

[1266]. Martin Behaim’s 1492 Erdapfel. A paper version of our earliest surviving terrestrial Globe. First made in Nuremberg in 1492. Follow Marco Polo and the quest for spice on this unique medieval relic. Greaves & Thomas, London, England. Registered design & Patents Pending. Artwork & Globe Gores, 1997. (A selection of facsimile globes from the Greaves & Thomas collection. Spanning cartographic history from 1492 to the present day.)

[1267]. Maso Finiguerra. A Florentine Picture-Chronicle. Reproduced from the originals in the British Museum by the Imperial Press, Berlin. A critical and descriptive text by Sidney Colvin, M. A. Keeper of the prints and drawings of the British Museum. New York, Benjamin Blom, 1970.

[1268]. [Paris, Matthew] The Illustrated Chronicles of Matthew Paris. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 1993.

[1268:1]. McKenzie, John L., S. J. Dictionary of the Bible. G. Chapman, London, 1985 (1965 by Macmillan Publishing).

[1269]. Meier, H. Deutsche Sprachstatistik. Hildesheim, 1964.

[1270]. de la Garza, Mercedes. The Mayas. 3000 years of civilization. Mexico, Monclem Ediciones; Florence, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1994.

[1271]. Germany. Michelin et Cie, 1996.

[1272]. Paris. Michelin et Cie, 1996.

[1273]. Michell, J. A. Little History of Astro-Archaeology: Stages in the Transformation of a Heresy. London, 1977.

[1273:0]. Michov, H. Weitere Beiträge zur älteren Kartographie Russlands. Mit 1 Textabbildung und 5 Karten. Sonderabzug aus den Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg, Band XXII. Hamburg: L.Friederichsen & Co. Inhaber: Dr. L. Friederichsen, 1907.

[1273:1]. Migne, J.-P. Patrologiae Cursus Completus etc. Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1800-1875.

[1274]. Miller, W. The Latins in the Levant. A History of Frankish Greece in 1204-1566. London, 1908.

[1275]. Mommsen, T. Die Römische Chronologie bis auf Caesar. Berlin, 1859, 2 Aufl.

[1276]. Montucla, J. E. Histoire des Mathématiques. T.IV. Paris, 1802.

[1277]. Montucla, J. E. Histoire des Mathématiques. 4 vols. Paris. 1799-1802.

[1278]. Musée Royal de Naples: Peintures, bronzes et statues érotiques du cabinet secret, avec les explanations de M. C. F. (César Famin). Paris, 1857.

[1279]. Museum. Gutenberg Museum Mainz. Braunschweig, Georg Westermann Verlag, 1980. (3 Auflage 1994.)

[1280]. Myres, J. Herodotus. Father of History. Oxford, 1953.

[1281]. Ahmed Kardy. Finding a Pharaoh’s Funeral Bark. National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 4 (April 1988): 513-546.

[1282]. Peter Miller. Riddle of the Pyramid Boats. National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 4 (April 1988): 534-546.

[1282:1]. Rick Gore. The Eternal Etruscans. National Geographic, Volume 173, No. 6 (June 1988): 696-743.

[1283]. National Geographic, Volume 176, No. 4 (October 1989).

[1284]. Nelli René. Ecritures cathares. Complete Cathar writings translated into French. Planete, 1968.

[1285]. Neugebauer, O. Astronomische Chronologie. Berlin and Leipzig, 1929.

[1286]. Neugebauer, O. Specieller Kanon der Sonnenfinsternisse. Ergänzungsheft, Astron. Nachr. 8, 4. Kiel, Verlag der Astronomischen Nachrichten, 1931.

[1287]. Neugebauer, O. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. 3 Vols. New York-Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1975.

[1288]. Neugebauer, O. The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. 2nd edition. Providence, Rhode Island, Brown University Press, 1957.

[1289]. Neugebauer, Otto and Richard A. Parker. Egyptian Astronomical Texts. 3 vols. Providence and London: Lund Humphries for Brown University Press, 1960-1969.

[1290]. Neugebauer, O., and H. B. Van Hoesen. Greek Horoscopes. Philadelphia, The American Philosophical Society, 1959.

[1290:1]. Neugebauer, O., and R. A. Parker. Egyptian Astronomical Texts. Vols. 1-3. London, Brown University Press, 1964.

[1291]. Neugebauer, O., R. A. Parker, and D.Pingree. The Zodiac Ceilings of Petosiris and Petubastis. Denkmäler der Oase Dachla. Aus dem Nachlass von Ahmed Fakhry. Bearbeitet von J. Osing, M. Moursi, Do. Arnold, O. Neugebauer, R. A. Parker, D. Pengree und M. A. Nur-el-Din. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 28 Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Kairo. Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1982.

[1292]. Neugebauer, P. V. Tafeln zur astronomischen Chronologie. 3 Volumes. Leipzig, 1912.

[1293]. Neugebauer, P. V. Abgekürzte Tafeln der Sonne und großen Planeten. Berlin, 1904.

[1294]. Newcomb, S. On the reccurence of solar eclipses with tables of eclipses. Astronomical Papers (Washington). Vol. 1, No. 1 (1882).

[1295]. Newcomb, S. Tables of the Motion of the Earth on its Axis and around the Sun. Astronomical Paper. V.VI, Pt.1. 1898.

[1296]. Newmann, Dianne. The Pergamon Altar. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1993.

[1297]. Newton, Isaac. Abregé de la chronologie de I. Newton fait par lui-mème, et traduit sur le manuscript Angloise [par Nicolas Freret]. Paris: Gavelier, 1725.

[1298]. Newton, Isaac. 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. London: J. Tonson, 1728. Re-edited in 1988 by Histories and Mysteries of Man Ltd.

[1299]. Newton, Isaac. La Chronologie des Ancien Royalmes Corrigée, Martin u.a. Translation F. Granet. Paris, 1728.

[1300]. Newton, Isaac. Kurzer Auszug aus der weltberühmten Isaac Newtons Chronologie derer alten Königreiche: worinnen 4 Haupt-Periodi veste gestellt u. aus d. Antiquität eruiert werden...; wobei zugl. gezeiget wird, wie d. dunckle Histoire d. alten verfallenen Königreiche... in e. richtige chronolog. Ordnung zu bringen sei... Aus d. Engl. Von Philipp Georg Hübner. Meiningen, 1741.

[1301]. Newton, Isaac. Abrégé de la chronologie des ancien royaumes. Trad. Deel Anglois de Mr. [Andrew] Reid. Geneve, 1743.

[1302]. Newton, Isaac. Kurzer Auszug aus der I.Newtons Chronologie. Von Pf. Georg Hübner, Hilburgshausen u. a. 1745.

[1303]. Newton, R. R. “Astronomical evidence concerning non-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system.” Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 16 (1972): 179-200.

[1304]. Newton, R. “Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A., 276 (2 May 1974): 99-115. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.1974.0012.

[1305]. Newton, Robert R. The Origins of Ptolemy’s Astronomical Tables. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The Center for Archaeoastronomy, University of Maryland. USA, 1985.

[1306]. Newton, R. R. Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Accelerations of the Earth and Moon. Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University Press, 1970.

[1306:1]. Newton, R. R. The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origin. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1979.

[1307]. Newton, Robert R. On the fractions of degrees in an ancient star catalogue. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume XX (1979): 383-394.

[1308]. Newton, Robert R. The origins of Ptolemy’s planetary parameters. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. The Center for Archaeoastronomy. 1982. 86-90.

[1309]. Nicolai Copernici Thorunensis de Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium Libri VI. Ex. auctoris autographio recudi curavit Societas Copernicana Thorunensis. Berolini, 1873.

[1310]. Nikulin, N. Lucas Cranach. Masters of World Painting. Leningrad, Aurora Art, 1976.

[1311]. Nilsson, M. P. Primitive Time-Reckoning. A Study in the Origins and the First Development of the Art of Counting Time among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples. Lund, Gleerup, 1920.

[1312]. Noth, M. Die Welt des Alten Testaments. Berlin, 1957.

[1313]. Oertel, F. Herodots ägyptischen Logos und die Glaubwürdigkeit Herodots. Berlin, 1970.

[1314]. Olston, A. B. The Story of Time. Chicago, Jarvis Universal Clock Co., 1915.

[1315]. Oppolzer, Th. Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Wien: K. K.Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1887.

[1316]. Oppolzer, Th. Tafeln zur Berechnung der Mondfinsternisse. Wien, 1883.

[1317]. Oppolzer, Th. Syzygientafeln für den Mond. Leipzig, Astronomische Gesellschaft, 1881.

[1318]. Orbini, Mauro. Origine de gli Slavi & progresso dell’Imperio loro. Pesaro, 1606.

[1319]. Orontij, Finai Delphinatus. Canonum Astronomicum. 1553. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1320]. Orontii, Finaei Delphinatis. Fine Oronce, etc. 1551. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1321]. Orr, M. A. Dante and the Early Astronomers. London, Gall and Inglis, 1913.

[1321:1]. Otero, Gloria. El Arte Romanico en España. Romanesque Art in Spain. Subdireccion General de Promocion Exterior del Turismo. Turespaña, Spain, 1995.

[1322]. Otero, José Carro. Santiago de Compostela. Second edition. Leon, Spain, Editorial Everest S.A., 1999.

[1323]. Ostrowski, W. The ancient names and early cartography of Byelorussia. London, 1971.

[1324]. Owen, G. F. Archaeology and the Bible. NY, 1961.

[1325]. Page, E. S. Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, Volume 41, No.1 (1954): 100-115.

[1326]. Page, E. S. A test for a change in a parameter occurring at an unknown point. Biometrica, Vol. 42, No.4 (1955): 523-527.

[1327]. Paladilhe, Dominique. Simon de Monfort et le Drame Cathare. France: Librairie Académique Perrin, 1997.

[1328]. Pannekoek, A. A History of Astronomy. New York, 1961.

[1329]. Paris. Tourist Guide. Paris: Guide Michelin, 1992.

[1330]. Parker, Richard A. Ancient Egyptian Astronomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A, 276 (1974): 51-65.

[1331]. Pastoureau, Michel. Traité d’Héraldique. Bibliothèque de la Sauvegarde de l’Art Francais. 3e éd. Paris, Grands manuels Picard, 1997.

[1332]. Venetus, Paulus. Philisiphiae naturalis compendium clarissimi philosophi Pauli Veneti: una libro de compositione mundi, etc. Paris, J. Lambert (s. d.), n.d.

[1333]. Pearce, A. The science of the stars. London, Glen & Co., 1898.

[1334]. Pearce, A. The text-book of Astrology. London, Glen & Co., 1911.

[1335]. Pedersen, O. A survey of the Almagest. Odence, 1974.

[1335:1]. Pelloutier, S. Histoire des Celtes. Paris: Quillan, 1771.

[1336]. Perrier, Jacques. Notre-Dame de Paris. Association Maurice de Sully, Paris, 1996.

[1337]. Petavius, D. De doctrina temporum. Vol. 1. Paris, 1627. (Petau, D. Opus de doctrina temporum, etc. Volume 1. Antwerpiae, M. DCCV.)

[1338]. Petavius, D. Petavii Avrelianensis e Societate Iesu, Rationarium Temporum in Partes Dvas, Libros tredecim distributum. Editio Ultima. Parisiis, Apud Sebastianum Cramoisy, Regis, & Reginae Architypographum: Gabrielem Cramoisy. M.DC.LII. Cvm Pivilegio Regis.

[1339]. Peters, C. H. F., and E. B. Knobel Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars. A Revision of the Almagest. Publ. No. 86. Washington, The Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 1915.

[1340]. Petrarca, Francesco. Familiarum rerum libri. Editione critica per cura di Vittorio Rossi. Firenze, 1968.

[1340:1]. Petrie, Flinders W. M. Athribi Mem. of British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Volume 14. 1902.

[1340:2]. Petrie, Flinders. Wisdom of the Egyptians. London, British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1940.

[1341]. Pfeil, Ulrich. Trier. A tour of the most famous sights. Kunstverlag Weick. Passau, 1996.

[1342]. Philip, A. The Calendar: Its History, Structure and Improvement. Cambridge University Press, 1921.

[1343]. Philipp Apian und die Kartographie der Renaissance. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Anton H. München, Konrad Verlag, 1989.

[1344]. [Phrantzae, Georgius] De Vita et Acriptus Georgii Phrantzae. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca posterior. T. CLVI. J.-P. Migne, 1866.

[1345]. Pingre, A. Chronologie des eclipses qui ont été visibles depuis le pole boréal jusque vers l’equateur pendant les dix siècles qui ont précedé l’ére Chrétienne. Paris, 1787.

[1346]. Pogo, A. Additions and corrections to Oppolzer’s Kanon der Mondfinsternisse. Astron. Journal, V. 43 (1937): 45-48.

[1347]. Pokorny, J. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. In 2 Bd. Tübingen. Basel: Francke Verlag, 1994 (3. Aufl.).

[1348]. Goetz, Delia and Sylvanus G. Morley. Popol Vuh. The Sacred Book of the Ancient Quiché Maya. From the translation of Adrian Recinos. Volume 29 in the “Civilization of the American Indian” series. Norman and London, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1950. (13th edition in 1991).

[1349]. Portal, Charles. Histoire de la ville de Cordes (Tarn), 1222-1799. Toulouse, 1902.

[1350]. Priese, Karl-Heinz. The Gold of Meroe. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993.

[1351]. Prowe, L. Nicolaus Copernicus. 3 Bde. Berlin, 1883-1884.

[1352]. [Ptolemaeus, Claudius]. Phelusiensis Alexandrini philosophi et matematici excellentissimi Phaenomena stellarum 1022 fixarum ad hanc aetatem reducta, atque seorsum in studiosorum gratiam. Nunc primum edita, Interprete Georgio Trapezuntio. Excessum Coloniai Agrippinae. Anno 1537, octavo Calendas 5 Septembers.

[1353]. [Ptolemaeus, Claudius]. Geographia. Ed. Sebastian Münster. Basel, 1540. Reprint: Series of Atlases in Facsimile. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd., 1966.

[1354]. [Ptolemaeus, Claudius]. Clavdii Ptolemaei Pelusiensis Alexandrini omnia quae extant opera, praeter Geographiam, etc. Baseliae, 1551.

[1355]. Ptolemy. The Almagest. (Great Books of Western World, V. 16). Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.

[1356]. Ptolemy, C. Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia. Ed. J. L.Heiberg et al. 3 volumes. Leipzig, 1898-1903,.

[1357]. Ptolemy. Tetrabiblos. Ed. and trans. F. E. Robbins. Harvard, 1940.

[1358]. Ptolemy’s Almagest. Transl. and annot. by G. J. Toomer. London, 1984.

[1359]. Putnam, James. Mummy. London, New York, Eyewitness Books. 1993.

[1360]. Putnam, James. Pyramid. London, New York, Eyewitness Books. 1994.

[1361]. Radini (Radinus), Tedeschi. Sideralis abyssus. Luteciae, Impressum opa T. Kees. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). 1514 (1511 ?).

[1362]. Ramet, Henri. Histoire de Toulouse. Toulouse, Le Pérégrinateur Editeur, Queray, 1994.

[1363]. Ranson, C. L. A Late Egyptian Sarcophagus. Bulletin of the Metropolitian Museum of Art. 9 (1914): 112-120.

[1364]. Raska. Chronologie der Bibel. Berlin, 1878.

[1365]. Rawlins, Dennis. An investigation of the ancient star catalog. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Volume XCIV. 1982. 359-373.

[1365:1]. Reade, Julian. Assyrian Sculpture. British Museum. British Museum Press, London, 1983, 1988.

[1366]. Reeves, Nicholas. The Complete Tutankhamun. The King. The Tomb. The Royal Treasure. New York, Thames and Hudson, 1990, 1995.

[1367]. Reeves, Nicholas, and Nan Froman. Into the Mummy’s Tomb. The Real-Life Discovery of Tutankhamun’s Treasures. Toronto: A Scholastic/Madison Press Book, 1993, 1994. 1st published in the United States by Scholastic, 1992.

[1368]. Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn. Tableaux dans les musées de l’Union Soviétique. Leningrad, Aurora, 1981, 1987.

[1369]. Robert, C. Archäologische Hermeneutik. Berlin, 1919.

[1370]. Roberts, J. M. The Pelican History of the World. England, Penguin Books, 1984.

[1371]. Robertson, J. M. Pagan christs; studies in comparative hierology. London, Watts & Co, 1911.

[1372]. Roche, Déodar. Le Catharisme. 2 Volumes. Narbonne, Cahiers d’Études Cathares, 1973 and 1976.

[1373]. Rogov, Alexander. Alexandrov. (Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, or, literally, “The Freemen’s Village of Alexander”). Museum Cities. Leningrad, Avrora, 1979.

[1374]. Grafton, Anthony, ed. Rome Reborn. The Vatican Library and Renaissance Culture. Washington: Library of Congress; New Haven, London: Yale University Press; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1993.

[1375]. Romero, Anne-Marie. Saint-Denis. La montée des pouvours. Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques et des Sites. Paris, CNRS, 1992, 1993.

[1376]. Roquebert, Michel. Cathar Religion. Toulouse, Editions Loubatières, 1994.

[1377]. Roquebert, Michel. L’épopée Cathare, 1209-1229. (On the Crusade against the Albigeois). 3 volumes. Toulouse: Private, 1970, 1977 and 1986.

[1378]. Rosalba, Manzo. New Castle Museum. Naples City Hall. Joint to the major for culture. D. E. C. Artistical and Museums Patrimony Service. Naples, n.d.

[1378:1]. Rose-Marie, Rainer Hagen. Egypt. People, Gods, Pharaohs. Köln: Benedikt Taschen Verlag GmbH, 1999.

[1379]. Ross. Tacitus and Bracciolini. The Annals forged in the XVth century. London, 1878.

[1380]. Rostovzeff, M. Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Paris, 1957.

[1381]. Rowley, H. H. The Old Testament and Modern Study. Oxford, 1961.

[1382]. Rundsicht der Stadt Wien zur Zeit der Türkenbelagerung, 1529, Niklas Meldemann, Nürnberg 1530. HM Inv. Nr. 48068. Faksimile 1994, Museen der Stadt Wien Druckerei Gert Herzig, Wien. (Mediaeval plan of Vienna of the XVI c. depicting the siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1529.)

[1383]. Sacro, Bosco J. de. Opusculum Johannis de Sacro busto spericum, cu figuris optimus ei novis textu in se, sive ambiguitate declarantibus. Leipzig, 1494. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1384]. Sacro, Bosco J. de. Sphera materialis. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Nürnberg, Gedruckt durch J. Getkneckt, 1516.

[1385]. Sacro, Bosco J. de. Opusculu de Sphaera . . . clarissimi philosophi Ioannis de Sacro busto. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Viennae Pannoniae, 1518.

[1386]. Sayce. Herodotus I-III. The ancient empire of the East. London, 1883.

[1387]. Scaliger, I. Opus novum de emendatione temporum. Lutetiac. Paris, 1583. (Thesaurum temporum, 1606).

[1388]. Schaarschmidt, K. Die Sammlung der Platos Schriften zur Schreidung der echten von den unechten untersucht. Bonn, 1866.

[1389]. Schäfer, Heinrich. Ägyptische und heutige Kunst und Weltgebäude der alten Ägypter. Zwei Aufsätze. Berlin, Walter de Greyter, 1928.

[1390]. Schlafke, Jakob. La Cattedrale di Colonia. Editione Italiana. Bonechi Verlag Styria, Casa Editrice Bonechi, Graz, Lahn Verlag, Limburg/Lahn, 1990.

[1391]. Schliemann, Heinrich. Ilios. Stadt und Land der Trojaner. Forschungen und Entdeckungen in der Trojas und besonders auf der Baustelle von Troja. Leipzig, 1881.

[1392]. Schliemann, Heinrich. Troja. Ergebnisse meiner neuesten Ausgrabungen auf der Baustelle von Troja, in der Heldengräbern Bunarbaschi and an anderen Orten in der Trojas im Jahre 1882. Leipzig, 1884.

[1393]. Schilgen, Jost, and Martina Wengierek. So schön ist Trier. Grasberg, Sachbuchverlag Karin Mader, 1994.

[1394]. Schjellerup, H. C. F. G. Description des étoiles fixes composée au milieu du Xe siècle de notre ère par l’astronome persan abd-Al-Rahman Al-Sufi. St. Petersburg, 1874.

[1395]. Schram, R. Tafeln zur Berechning der naheren Umstände der Sonnenfinsternisse. Wien, 1886.

[1396]. Schram, R. Reductionstafeln für den Oppolzerischen Finsternis Kanon zum Übergang auf die Ginzelschen Correctionen. Wien, 1889.

[1396:1]. Schedel, Hartmann. La chronique universelle de Nuremberg. L’édition de Nuremberg, colorée et commentée. (L’édition 1493, colorée et commentée). Introduction et Appendice par Stephan Füssel. Taschen GmbH. (Köln). Köln, London, Madrid, New York, Paris, Tokyo, 2001.

[1397]. Schram, R. Kalendariographische und chronologische Tafeln. Leipzig, 1908.

1398 Schroter, J. Spezieller Kanon der zentralen Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse. Kristiania, 1923.

[1399]. Schulten, Walter. Der Schrein der Heiligen drei Könige im Kölner Dom. Luthe-Druck Köln, 1995.

[1400]. Schwahn, P. Mathematische Theorie der astronomischen Finsternisse. Leipzig, 1910.

[1401]. Schwegler, T. Die Biblische Urgeschichte. München, 1960.

[1402]. Serrus, Georges. Montségur. Toulouse, Editions Loubatières, 1994.

[1403]. Serrus, Georges, and Michel Roquebert. Cathare Castles. Toulouse, Editions Loubatières, 1993.

[1404]. Severy, Merle. The world of Suleyman the Magnificent. National Geographic, Volume 172, No.5 (1987): 552-601.

[1405]. Siebeck, H. Zur Chronologie der platonischen Dialoge. Halle, 1873.

[1405:1]. Simon, J. L., P. Bretagnon, J. Chapront, M.,Chapront-Touze, G. Francou, and J. Laskar. Software for the calculation of heliocentric coordinates, radial vectors and immediate speeds for the 8 main planets of the Solar System (the PLANETAP program, Fortran 77) Astron. Astrophys., 282, 663 (1994).

1405:2 Sivaramamurti, Calambur. The Art of India. India Book House, Bombay, 1977. Published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

[1406]. Shaban, S. Change-point problem and two-phase regression: annotated bibliography. International Statistical Review, Volume 48 (1980): 83-86.

[1407]. Speyer. Die Kaiserstadt am Rhein. KINA Italia Mailand, Kaiserdom-Pavillon Renate Hahn am Domplatz, ATD Mailand, 1994.

[1408]. Speyer Cathedral. Regensburg, Verlag Schnell & Steiner GmbH Regensburg, 1997.

[1409]. Spielberg, W. Die Glaubwürdigkeit von Herodots Bericht über Ägypten. Berlin, 1926.

[1410]. Staccioli, Romolo A. Storia e cività degli Etruschi. Origine apogeo decadenza di un grande popolo dell’Italia antica. Rome, Newton Compton editori, 1981.

[1411]. Stancheva, Magdalina. Veliki Preslav. Sofia, Zlatostrouy, 1993.

[1412]. Steeb, J. Coelum sephiroticum Hebraeorum, etc. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library). Mainz, 1679.

[1413]. Stephan, Beissel S. J. Kunstschätze des Aachener Kaiserdomes. Werke der Goldschmiedekunst, Elfenbeinschnitzerei und Textilkunst. M. Gladbach. Druck und Verlag von B. Kühlen. Anstalt für Christliche Kunst. 1904.

[1414]. Stevens, Henry N. Ptolemy’s Geography. A brief account of all printed editions down to 1730. Amsterdam, Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd. Meridian Publishing Company, 1972.

[1415]. Stierlin, Henri. The Pharaohs Master-Builders. Paris, Finest S.A./Éditions Pierre Terrail, 1992.

[1416]. St. Lorenz. Sagen + Geschichten. 73. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. Nr. 15/3, unveränderte Auflage, 1998.

[1417]. St.Lorenz. Türme + Glocken. 81. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. Nr.25/2, verbessterte Auflage, 1998.

[1418]. St. Lorenz. Wappen in Fülle. Wappenkunde. Wappenkunst und Wappenrecht. 86. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenz-kirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF.Nr.31, 1986.

[1419]. St. Lorenz. Ich bin das Licht der Welt. Grosse und kleine Lichter. 90. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF.Nr.35, 1990.

[1420]. St. Lorenz. Sand-Sandstein. Steinsand-Sand. 91. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 36, 1991.

[1421]. St. Lorenz. Behelmt, behütet und bedacht. 92. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 37, 1992.

[1422]. St. Lorenz. Mein Auge schauet was Gott gebauet. 93. Was Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 38, 1993.

[1423]. St. Lorenz. Ecce Panis Angelorum. Das Sakramentshaus des Adam Kraft. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 39, 1994.

[1424]. St. Lorenz. 500 Jahre Sakramentshaus: Erklärung – Verklärung, Deutung – Umdeutung. 96. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 41, 1996.

[1425]. St. Lorenz. Türen. Tore. Portale. 97. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E.V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 41, 1997.

[1426]. St. Lorenz. Wandfresken. Bestand. Restaurierung. Erhaltung. 98. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenzkirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 43, 1998.

[1427]. St. Lorenz. Im Blickpunkt das Kreuz. Kruzifix-Darstellungen. 99. Verein zur Erhaltung der St. Lorenz-kirche in Nürnberg (E. V.). Herausgegeben von Gerhard Althaus und Georg Stolz. Nürnberg. NF. Nr. 44, 1999.

[1428]. Struve, O. Libroram in biblioteca Speculae Pulcovensis catalogus systematicus. Petropoli, 1860.

[1429]. Stryjkowski, Maciej. O Poczatkach, wywodach.... Of the Beginnings, Sources, the Deeds of the Knights and the Home Affairs of the Glorious Peoples of Lithuania, Zhmuda, and Russia, an Original Tale Inspired by the Lord and the Author’s Own Experience. Warszawa, 1978.

[1430]. Suckow, Hähel. Stadtführer Halle. Sehenswertes in Halle. Halle, Druckhaus Schütze, 1998.

[1431]. Suess, H. Secular variations. Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 70, No. 23 (1965).

[1432]. Suess, H. Bristlecone Pine. Radioactive Dating and Methods. Vienna, 1968.

[1433]. Suess, H. Bristlecone Pine Calibration of the Radiocarbon. XII Nobel Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology. Uppsala, 1969.

[1434]. Sueton. Die zwölf Caesaren, nach der Übersetzung v. A. Stahr neu hrsg. München, Leipzig, 1912.

[1435]. Suhle, A. Mittelalteriche Brakteaten. Leipzig, 1965.

[1436]. Swerdlow, N. M., and O. Neugebauer. Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus. 2 vols. Berlin, 1984.

[1437]. Sztuka Egipska. Piramidy i mastaby. Mala Encyklopedia Sztuki. 23. Warszawa, Arkady, 1976.

[1438]. Sztuka Egipska. Luksor. Opracowal Kazimierz Michalowski. Mala Encyklopedia Sztuki. 25. Warszawa, Arkady, 1976.

[1438:1]. Tabov, Jordan. Chronological Distribution of Information in Historical Texts. Computers and the Humanities, 2003, Volume 37, pages 235-240.

[1439]. Targuebayre, Claire. Cordes en Albigeois. Toulouse, Editions Privat, 1988.

[1440]. Tesnierio, Ioanne. Opus Matematicum octolibrum. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.) Coloniae Agrippinae, apud J. Birckmannum & W. Richwinum, 1562.

[1441]. Teutsch Astronomei. Astronomia. Woodcuts, 1545. (The Pulkovo Observatory Library.)

[1442]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: Everyman’s library, J. M. Dent. Sons Ltd., 1990.

[1443]. Wright, G. E., ed. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honour of W.F.Albright. NY, 1961.

[1444]. The Cambridge medieval history. IV. The Byzantine Empire. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966-1967.

[1445]. The Cathedral of St.Stephen in Vienna. Graz, Verlag Styria, Casa Editrice Bonechi, 1992.

[1446]. Gransden, A., ed. The Chronicle of Bury St. Edmunds, 1212-1301. London-Edinburgh, 1964.

[1447]. The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. USA, Columbia University Press, 1983.

[1448]. The Egyptian Book of the Dead. The Book of Going Forth by Day. The first authentic presentation of the complete papyrus of Ani. Featuring full color images. Transl. by Dr. R. Faulkner. San Francisco, Chronicle Books, 1994.

[1449]. The English version of the polyglot Bible with a copies and original selection of references to parallel and illustrative passages. London, S. Bagster and Sons.

[1450]. The Holy Bible, containing Old and New Testaments: Translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command. Appointed to be read in Churches. London, British and Foreign Bible Society, Instituted in London in the Year 1804.

[1451]. The Holy Bible, containing Old and New Testaments: Translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command. Authorized King James version. Salt Lake City, Utah, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1992.

[1452]. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Volume 16. 1987.

[1453]. The place of astronomy in the ancient world. A discussion organized jointly for the Royal Society and the British Academy. Philos. Trans. of the Royal. Soc. of London, Ser. A., Volume 276 (1974): 1-276.

[1454]. Farid, Shafik, ed. The Pyramids of Giza. Book 1. Simpkins Splendor of Egypt. Salt Lake City, Utah, Simpkins Souvenirs, 1982.

[1455]. The R. C. Church of St. Karl. Vienna. Salzburg, Christiche Kunststätten Österreichs, Nr.20 E. Verlag St. Peter, 1994.

[1456]. Werber, Eugen. The Sarajevo Haggadah. Svjetlost, Sarajevo. Printed by Mladinska Knjiga, Ljubljiana, 1999.

[1457]. The Shrine of Torreciudad. Guide. Oficina de Información, 22391 Torreciudad (Huesca), España.

[1458]. Farid, Shafik, ed. The Temple of Luxor. Book 3. Simpkins Splendor of Egypt. Salt Lake City, Utah, Simpkins Souvenirs, 1982.

[1458:1]. The Treasures of the Valley of the Kings. Tombs and Temples of the Theban West Bank in Luxor. Edited by Kent R.Weeks. The American University in Cairo Press. Cairo, Egypt, 2001. White Star, S. r. l. Vercelli, Italy.

[1459]. The World Encompassed. An exhibition of the history of maps held at the Baltimore Museum of Art October 1 to November 23, 1952. Baltimore, Maryland, The Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery, 1952.

[1460]. Thierry, Amedee. St. Jean Chrysostome et l’impératrice Eudoxie. Paris, 1872.

[1460:1]. Thoren, Victor E. The Lord of Uraniborg. A Biography of Tycho Brahe. With contributions by John R. Christianson. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, Cambridge University Press (1994 ?).

[1461]. Thorndike, L. H. D. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. (During the first thirteen centuries of our era). Volumes 1,2. NY, 1923., New York, Columbia University Press, 1943, 1947, 1958.

[1462]. Topper, Uwe. Die Große Aktion. Europas Erfundene Geschichte. Die planmäßige Fälschung unserer Vergangenheit von der Antike bis zur Aufklärung. Tübingen, Grabert-Verlag, n.d.

[1463]. Topper, Uwe. Erfundene Geschichte. Unsere Zeitrechnung ist falsch. Leben wir im Jahr 1702? München, F. A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, 1999.

[1464]. Turhan, Can. Istanbul, Gate to the Orient. Istanbul, Orient, 1995.

[1465]. Turhan, Can. Topkapi Palace. Istanbul, Orient, 1995.

[1466]. Eco, Umberto. Serendipities. Language and Lunacy. Weidenfeld & Nicolson (UK). NY, Orion/Columbia Univ. Press. 1999.

[1467]. Venice. Venezia, Storti Edizioni, 1993.

[1468]. Vesconte, Pietro. Seekarten. Mit einem Geleitwort von Otto Mazal. Einfürung von Lelio Pagani. Edition Georg Popp Würzburg. 1978. Grafica Gutenberg, Bergamo, 1977.

[1469]. Vidal-Quadras, José A. Torreciudad. Imprenta Moises Barbasto, Spain, 1987.

[1470]. Vidal-Quadras, José A. Torreciudad. A shrine to Our Lady. Office of Information Torreciudad, Spain, n.d.

[1471]. Villehardouin, Geoffroy de. La conquète de Constantinople. Historiens et chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge. Ed. A. Pauphilet. Paris, 1963.

[1472]. Virgil, Mocanu. Tintoretto. Clasicii Picturii Universale. Bucuresti, Editura Meridiane, 1977.

[1473]. Vries, Hesselde. Variation in concentration of radiocarbon with time and location on Earth. Koninkl. Nederlandse Akad. Wetensch. Proc. 1958, ser. B. 61, pages 1-9.

[1474]. Wallraf-Rischartz-Museum der Stadt Köln. Vollständliges Verzeichnis der Gemäldesammlung. Köln/Mailand, 1986.

[1475]. Waterfield, R. L. A Hundred Years of Astronomy. NY, Macmillan, 1938.

[1476]. Wehli, Tünde. A Középkori Spanyolország Festészete. Budapest, Corvina Kiadó, 1980.

[1477]. Wenzler, Claude. L’Héraldique. Rennes, Editions Ouest-France, 1997.

[1478]. Werner, H., and F. Schmeidler. Synopsis der Nomenklatur der Fixsterne. Wissensch. Stuttgart, Verlags-Gesellschaft 1986.

[1478:1]. Wigal, Donald. Anciennes Cartes Marines. A la Découverte des Nouveaux Mondes. 1290-1699. New York, Parkstone Press, 2000.

[1479]. Williams, John. Observations of Comets from B.C.611 A.D. to 1640, extracted from the Chinese Annals. 1871.

[1480]. Willis, E. H., H. Tauber, and K. O. Münnich. Variations in the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration over the past 1300 years. Radiocarbon, Volume 2 (1960): 1.

[1481]. Wissowa, Pauly. Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumwissenschaft in alphabetischer Ordnung. Hrsg. von Kroll. Stuttgart, 1839-1852.

[1482]. Wittkower, R. Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism. Paris, 1960.

[1483]. Wolf, R. Handbuch der Astronomie, ihrer Geschichte und Literatur. Bd. II. Zürich, 1892.

[1484]. Wooley, L. Excavation at Ur. NY, 1955.

[1485]. Woronowa, Tamara, and Andrej Sterligov. Westeuropäische Buchmalerei des 8. bis 16. Jahrhunderts in der Russischen Nationalbibliothek, Sankt Petersburg. (Frankreich. Spanien. England. Deutschland. Italien. Niederlande). Augsburg: Bechtermünz. Genehmigte Lizenzausgabe für Weltbild Verlag, 2000. England, Parkstone/Aurora, 1996.

[1486]. Wright, G. E. Biblical Archaeology. Philadelphia, London, 1957.

[1487]. Altet, Xavier Barral. Compostelle de Grand Chemin. Découvertes Gallimard Réligions. Gallimard, 1993.

[1488]. Zadkiel. The Grammar of Astrology. London, J. Cornish, 1849.

[1489]. Zarnecki, George, Florence Deucher, and Irmgard Hutter. Neue Belser Stilgeschichte. Band IV. Romantik, Gotik, Byzanz. Stuttgard, Zürich, Belser Verlag, 1986.

[1490]. Zech, J. Astronomische Untersuchungen über die wichtigeren Finsternisse, welche von den Schriftstellern des klassischen Altertums erwähnt werden. Leipzig, 1853.

[1491]. Zeitensprünge. Interdisziplinäres Bulletin. Sonderdruck. September 1996. Thema Absolutdatierung. Mantis Verlag, Germany.

[1492]. Zevi, B., E. Battisti, E. Garin, and L. Malle. Alberti. Enciclopedia universale dell’arte. Vol. I. Venezia, Roma, 1958.