Historian A.V. Pyzhikov tried to beat the leaders of the so-called. new chronology of Fomenko and Nosovsky, starting with their methodology, which he called the sledgehammer method.
It turned out ironic and funny. Although what they do with history is not at all funny and personally reminds me of the story of Pushkin's Salieri, who at first tore apart music like a corpse and believed harmony with algebra, but ended up with a banal poisoning.

Although, as for me, these gentlemen describe their method somewhat differently.

For my part, I note that chronology is an auxiliary science that deals with several things. First, it determines when an event occurred. Secondly, it monitors the sequence and position of incidents on a linear scale of years. It is divided into several sections - astronomical, geological and historical chronology. Each of these departments has its own set of dating and research methods. These include correlations of calendars of different cultures, radiocarbon analysis, thermoluminescent method, glass hydration, stratigraphy, dendrochronology, and others.

What did Fomenko and Nosovsky decide to change in it? And where did their theory come from?
In general, the theory, the authors of which are Fomenko, Nosovsky ("New Chronology"), is based on the research and calculations of N. A. Morozov. The latter, being imprisoned in St. Petersburg, made a calculation of the position of the stars mentioned in the Apocalypse. According to him, it turned out that this book was written in the fourth century AD. Not at all embarrassed, he declared falsifications in world history. -

The authors of the "New Chronology" consider the Jesuit Garduin and the physicist Isaac Newton to be Morozov's predecessors, who also tried to rethink and recalculate the chronology of mankind. The first, based on philological knowledge, tried to prove that all ancient literature was written in the Middle Ages. Newton was preoccupied with ancient history. He recounted the years of the reign of the pharaohs according to the list of Manetho. Judging by the results of his research, world history has been reduced by more than three millennia.

According to Fomenko, the "New Chronology" differs from the traditional one in that it is cleared of falsifications and errors. Its main provisions contain only five postulates. Firstly, written sources can be considered more or less reliable only later than the eighteenth century. Prior to this, from the eleventh century on, works must be treated with caution. And until the tenth century, people did not know how to write at all.

All archeological data can be interpreted as the researcher wants, so they do not carry any obvious historical value. Secondly, the European chronology appeared only in the fifteenth century. Prior to that, each nation had its own calendar and starting point. From the creation of the world, from the flood, from the birth or ascension to the throne of some ruler ... This statement grows out of this thesis. Thirdly, historical information on the pages of annals, treatises and other works shamelessly duplicate each other. Thus, Nosovsky's chronology states that most of the events of ancient history occurred in the early Middle Ages or later. But due to the discrepancy between calendars and reference points, during translation, the information was not processed correctly and the history became ancient. The traditional chronology is wrong about the age of the Eastern civilizations and the starting point of human history. Judging by the previous postulate, China and India can have no more than a thousand years of chronology. The last provision lies in the human factor and the desire of the government to legitimize itself. As Fomenko says, the chronology is written by each authority for itself, and the old data is erased or destroyed. Therefore, it is impossible to fully understand history. The only thing you can rely on is "accidentally preserved or missing fragments." This includes maps, pages from various annals, and other documents that support the theory.

The main source on which the evidence is based is the Almagest. This is a treatise that was compiled by the Alexandrian Claudius Ptolemy in the middle of the second century AD. But Fomenko, after studying the document, dates it four hundred years later, that is, at least the sixth century. It is noteworthy that only eight stars were taken from the Almagest to prove the theory (although more than a thousand are recorded in the document). Only these were declared "correct", the rest - "forged". The main proof of the theory from the point of view of eclipses is the work of Livy on the Peloponnesian War. Three phenomena are indicated there: two solar and one lunar eclipse. The catch is that Titus Livius writes about events throughout the peninsula and reports that "the stars were visible during the day." That is, the eclipse was total. Judging by other sources, a partial eclipse was observed in Athens at this time. Based on this inaccuracy, Fomenko proves that full compliance with Livy's data was only in the eleventh century AD. Thanks to this, he automatically transfers the entire ancient history one and a half millennia forward. Although the bulk of the constellation data coincides with the "traditional" history on which the world chronology is based, they are not considered correct. All such sources are declared "corrected" in the Middle Ages.

Many scientists do not agree with the postulates put forward by the New Chronology. What does it mean, for example, to "reject wrong scientific theories"? It turns out that only Fomenko, based on Morozov's notes, has "true" knowledge. In fact, there are three points that are very confusing to any sane person.

Firstly, by refuting the traditional chronology, the Fomenko group thereby crosses out all the sciences that indirectly confirm academic data. That is, philologists, archaeologists, numismatists, geologists, anthropologists and other specialists do not understand anything at all, but simply build their hypotheses based on erroneous arguments.

The second problem is a clear inconsistency in many places. We are talking about one era, for confirmation, a sky map of a completely different period is provided. Thus, all the facts are adjusted to the desired framework. This also includes discrepancies between allegedly "repeating" historical figures. For example, Solomon and Caesar are the same person, according to the New Chronology. What is the forty years of the reign of the first against the four years of the second for a non-specialist? Does not match? So, in the eighteenth century they falsified!

The last argument that defines this theory as pseudoscience is as follows. Based on numerous "amendments", it turns out that there is a worldwide conspiracy of "it is not clear-what-society" that was able to secretly rewrite the entire history of mankind. Moreover, this was done in the Middle Ages and modern times, when states were being formed and there was no question of any commonality and consolidation.

The last thing that frankly excited the scientific community was a clear attack on academic professionalism. If we consider the theory of the "New Chronology" true, it turns out that all scientists are just playing in the sandbox and do not even understand elementary things at all. Not to mention common sense.

Why are astronomers outraged?
The main stumbling block was the Almagest. If we discard exactly those stars on which Fomenko's theory is based (they cannot be dated uniquely), a picture is obtained that completely coincides with the traditional one. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the movements of the stars were recalculated using the latest techniques and computers. All the data of Ptolemy and Hipparchus were confirmed. Thus, the indignation of scientists was caused by unreasonable attacks on their professionalism by a complete amateur.

The answer of historians, linguists and archaeologists.
In the field of influence of these disciplines heated debate broke out.
First, they stood up for dendrochronology and radiocarbon analysis. Judging by Fomenko's statements, he has data for the 1960s. These sciences have long stepped forward. Their methods confirm the traditional story, and are also confirmed by related methods. These include ribbon clays, paleomagnetic and potassium-argon methods, and so on. The birch-bark letters became an unexpected turn. Judging by what the New Chronology describes, Russian history runs counter to the information of these sources. The latter, by the way, are confirmed not only by dendrochronology, but also by many other data from related disciplines. Also interesting is the complete disregard for Arabic, Armenian, Chinese and other written evidence that confirms the traditional history of Europe. Only those facts are mentioned that support the theory. The emphasis on narrative sources puts fans of the New Chronology in an uncomfortable position. Their arguments are shattered by the usual administrative and economic records. If you look at Fomenko's linguistic evidence, then, according to A. A. Zaliznyak, "this is complete amateurism at the level of errors in the multiplication table." For example, Latin is declared to be a descendant of Old Church Slavonic, and “Samara”, when read backwards, turns into “dialectal pronunciation of the word Rome”. Dates and names on coins, medals, gems fully confirm academic data. Moreover, the amount of this material simply excludes the possibility of forgery.

In addition, the chronology of wars among authors belonging to different cultures coincides when bringing calendars to a common denominator. There are even data that were simply not known in the Middle Ages, but were discovered only thanks to excavations in the 20th century.

Firstly, today traditional science listens to the works of Scaliger exactly as much as they are confirmed by the latest research. And, on the contrary, Fomenko and Nosovsky's works contain only attacks on this scientist of the sixteenth century. But there is not a single footnote or reference to the source, quotes or explicit indication of the error.

Secondly, the complete disregard for business records. The entire evidence base is based on selected chronicles and other documents that show events only one-sidedly. There is a lack of complexity in the study.

Thirdly, the so-called "vicious circle of dating" disappears by itself. That is, the supporters of the "New Chronology" are trying to prove that, based on initially false assumptions, most methods simply multiply errors. But this is not true, unlike their own methods, which are often unsubstantiated and unfounded. And the last. The notorious "conspiracy of fakes." All the proof is built on it, but if you approach it from the point of view of common sense, then the arguments collapse like a house of cards. Is it possible to secretly collect all the books, decrees, letters, rewrite them in a new way and return them to their places. In addition, the huge volumes of archaeological finds simply cannot be realistically faked. Also, the concepts of the cultural layer, stratigraphy and other typical aspects of archeology are completely unknown to the theorists of the New Chronology.

1.1. Introduction

This part outlines the concept of the New Fomenko-Nosovsky Chronology for those who have never heard of it, or heard something very casually, or perhaps heard a lot, but did not catch the essence. On several pages in this part, we will outline the most important thing. For many of you, this material will be like a blow to the head with a butt - so what is stated here contradicts what "we were taught in school" and what is "common knowledge".

A person who encounters this theory for the first time really experiences a shock, obviously greater than that which any of us would experience if we saw a flying saucer with little green men up close. We are sure, however, that any educated person who wishes to form his own idea of ​​something, and not gleaned from the newspapers and from the words of critics, will not regret the time spent and in the near future will appreciate the importance of knowing this concept for himself.

1.2. There are many problems in traditional history.

There is a huge number of facts and historical documents that do not fit into the generally accepted framework, and often simply fundamentally contradict these frameworks. The storerooms of museums in many countries of the world are overflowing with artifacts; historical exhibits that historians - specialists and officials do not dare to put on public display. A significant number of manuscripts, annals, maps, information about the circumstances of certain archaeological finds, household items, culture and religious cults have survived to this day, which testify to many "oddities" of the past, based on what we now know about it - rather than what is now generally accepted. Historians of the traditional school have come up with many ridiculous, and sometimes simply fantastic explanations for various kinds of "historical anomalies", trying to smooth out historical facts that do not fit into the usual framework. There are so many of these historical "inconsistencies" that a simple cosmetic repair of the current historical building, obviously, will not be enough. Probably, the time has come to radically reconsider whether there are fundamental problems somewhere in the traditional history. As we will show below, how much history looks like and how it is taught in schools depends extremely much in our current life, and everyday life at that.

1.3. How historical science was created.

The question of who and when created the science of history is completely removed from the school and university curriculum. But in vain. This is a very non-obvious thing, so that it can be neglected. Apparently, a detailed coverage of this issue was simply unprofitable for some very influential groups and remains unprofitable (and we would add - and dangerous for them) even today.

Disputes constantly accompanied the statements of various historians and historical schools. The debate continues to this day, moreover, on key historical events: did Schliemann really find Troy, and where was such a city? Where did almost a thousand years of the "dark" Middle Ages go, and why, according to modern historians, did this "dark" time come after the fantastic dawn of ancient Greece and Rome? What is actually written in hieroglyphs on Egyptian monuments? Who are the Etruscans and why did they end up in Italy, and also why are their texts read on the basis of the Slavic language? Why does the archeology of all of Europe in general indicate that it, Europe, was inhabited by the Slavs, and completely, the entire territory? Who are these barbarians who destroyed civilized Rome and how did they destroy it? - fought with clubs against armed chariots? Why does the radiocarbon analysis of the famous Shroud of Turin give the period of the Middle Ages, namely, the 11th-14th centuries?

Almost all books on a historical topic are rewriting of earlier works with the addition of their own interpretations, emphasizing something of their own, and simply elementary conjecture. If, however, we begin to understand and move from our time deep into the centuries and try to understand where the primary sources of all this data are, then we will be surprised to find that there are no written “ancient” primary sources of “great” works in any museum of the world, but there are only copies and translations from the "lost originals". Here we have in mind the works of Pliny and Herodotus, Aristotle and Pythagoras, as well as all other authors, on whose works the “harmonious” history of ancient civilization is built. But then the question arises - by whom and when were these "copies" and "translations" compiled? How accurate are they? Who exactly and in what political era made them?

It is believed that the modern historical paradigm was formed mainly in the 16th - early 17th centuries, and the authors of the New Chronology consider the medieval scholastic scholar Scaliger and his follower Petavius ​​to be its ancestor. The current and generally accepted concept of world history is called Scaligerian. This version was previously criticized by many famous and even great scientists: d "Arsilla, Garduin, Newton, Morozov and a number of others. Thus, the authors of the New Chronology - Fomenko and Nosovsky were not the first researchers, but they advanced significantly further than others, and so much so that they could to solve the enormous scientific problem that confronted them.

1.4. Dating methods in traditional history.

Today's historians use several methods to determine the age of structures, archaeological finds, and historical events.

We list these methods:

Dendrological,

Through the sedimentary layer

Radiocarbon (and its varieties),

Comparative (by analogy ) ,

Numismatic,

Astronomical.

It turns out that all these methods are either very imperfect or have a limited range of application. Usually historians do not like to focus on this circumstance, and often these very approximate methods are used in a biased way to justify their theories or established interpretations of world events.

1.5. What is the "New Chronology"?

Structurally New Chronology of Fomenko - Nosovsky consists of 2 parts. This is very important to remember.

First part are new modern mathematical methods research of historical material And"restored" chronological scale of world events - namely New Timeline, as opposed to the traditional one adopted today in history. Hence the name - New Chronology. The author of this scale - Fomenko called it Global Chronological Map(GHK).

The second part is the Reconstruction of world history, i.e. storytelling, what it would have to be if we follow this New Chronological Timeline.

The first part belongs to the field of mathematics and is absolutely, so to speak, "one hundred percent" scientific. It is practically not criticized by traditional historians and mathematicians, since historians cannot do this (they do not know mathematics), and mathematicians cannot, because mathematics is an exact science and it is impossible to criticize, for example, the multiplication table.

The second part is defined by the authors of the New Chronology - Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky as hypothesis, but a hypothesis with confirmation by thousands of facts that fit into this hypothesis very logically and conclusively. On the other hand, thousands of historical facts contradict traditional history, which is considered not a hypothesis, but a reality "that took place" in the past. Moreover, the authors call Reconstruction a hypothesis also because a number of its provisions can be adjusted, although, according to the authors, significant changes in Reconstruction can no longer occur under any circumstances - they have collected too much evidence in its favor. In addition, there are absolutely deadly arguments on all the most critical and important events in world history in favor of the New Chronology. It is this part of the New Chronology - Reconstruction that is subjected to fierce criticism by professional historians.

1.6. Mathematical Methods and New Chronological Scale.

Central to any historical design whatever it may be, is the time scale, which is a sequence of placing historical events on the time axis. This scale is like a spine in a living organism, without which the body turns into a pile of non-viable organs. This is understandable - any event must be somehow correlated with time - to establish in what period of history - a century and a year, at least it happened. Otherwise, it will not be possible to link events together, just as it will not be possible to interpret history itself. If the chronological scale changes, history also changes.. Dates change, everything changes! The more the scale is rebuilt, the more "unrecognizable" the story will become. It is not surprising that the main issue of confirmation or criticism of the historical paradigm is precisely the verification of the correctness of the generally accepted chronological scale. But the difficulty lies in the starting point - how to find ancient events, the time of which is known absolutely exactly, in order to then link all the events of world history to them, placing them earlier or later than such a "reference" event. And so it turned out that Scaligerian history does not have such a “standard”, and the whole edifice of the traditional chronological scale is built on the basis of some "arrangements" that arose as a result of the serious struggle of different opinions in the Middle Ages. One of the points of view won, - the point of view of Scaliger, which, however, could not scientifically substantiate its point of view. Just one group "shouted" their rivals in a "scientific" debate. Probably not without the help of influential political forces and in a certain geopolitical situation prevailing at that time. Then decades passed, then centuries. All this time, on the then accepted chronological scale, historians strung all new events, which, at the same time, acquired all sorts of colorful details. A huge amount of information has accumulated, “packed” in a certain way. Thus, in a few hundred years, the now generally accepted historical model of the past arose and gained worldwide distribution. Common - yes, but is it true? After all, all dating methods that exist today are very imperfect and work only under certain conditions, and the ultra-modern method of radiocarbon analysis is very limited and gives errors of thousands of years when trying to date events of the next 2-3 thousand years (these methods are described in more detail below).

Seriously doubting the correctness of today's historical paradigm (we will tell about when and how this happened later) to recreate - or rather to develop, since this happened for the first time - the New Chronological Scale the authors have developed a number of new mathematical and statistical methods. The first basic methods were developed by Fomenko: later, methods created jointly by Fomenko and Nosovsky were added to them. For example, Fomenko's methods are as follows:

- method of local maxima,

- method of recognition and dating of dynasties of rulers, the principle of small dynastic distortions,

- the principle of frequency attenuation, the method of ordering historical texts in time,

- the principle of frequency duplication, the method of detecting and dating duplicates,

- method of questionnaires - codes,

- a method of correct chronological ordering and dating of ancient geographical maps.

In the next, second part, we will detail these methods in a simple and accessible language.

In addition, Fomenko and Nosovsky actively used astronomical methods, coupled with computer calculations, which gave a truly impressive results - they were the first in the world to decipher many important Egyptian and European horoscopes indicating the dates of life and death of the pharaohs and other rulers. Now you no longer have to guess - in what years the ruler of a particular dynasty lived. And what did it turn out?

Having applied his methods to rich historical material, primarily chronicle, Fomenko discovered that the modern "textbook on ancient history" is a "layered cake" - as if separate periods of history were literally written off from one another. Scientists Fomenko and Nosovsky discovered "parallelisms"- so they called them - made up the New Chronological Scale, removing the "extra" periods of history from the generally accepted chronological scale. Note that the probabilities of the natural occurrence of these parallelisms were calculated by Fomenko and amounted to microscopic values ​​of the order of 10 to the minus sixth - 10 to the minus eighth power. (Let's explain what, for example, the value of 10 to the minus sixth power means with a simple example. To understand how small this probability is, imagine that you are a million times contract flipped up a coin and a million times contract you get heads, but never heads. In reality, we know that the probability of getting heads or tails with a large number of attempts - already in just 50 - 100 attempts, for example - tends to 0.5. Feel the difference between 0.000001 and 0.5?)

It turned out that written history is significantly shorter than that which is considered generally accepted today and What ancient events (Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, etc.) are a "phantom" reflection of the events of the Middle Ages. At the same time, the authors of NX argue that the events of antiquity were not “invented” by some later “writers”, they are real, but they actually happened not at all in “deep antiquity”, as we were taught to think, but in an era much closer to us 11th - 17th centuries, i.e. In the Middle Age. It's just that these medieval events and personalities were placed in "deep antiquity" and brought a certain "marafet" to the external side of events. (In the second part we will describe - who and when did it). Without the use of mathematical methods and serious research work, these repetitions in history are not striking. It is worth noting, however, that today's professional historians still sense something is wrong, which is why from time to time various theories about the "cyclicality" of history arise with attempts to create a certain model of "repeating cycles". However, these theories do not reveal the essence of the problem, but, on the contrary, only confuse and complicate the understanding of real historical processes.

Thus, after the creation of a new Chronological Scale, the task of Reconstruction arises - how, where and when did the events actually take place?

1.7. Reconstruction of world history.

Since professional historians, after becoming acquainted with the new methods created and the New Chronological Scale, realized what disastrous consequences for the Scaligerian historical science would be the recognition of the New Chronology, they calmed down in horror, not daring to reconstruct history themselves under “newly discovered circumstances”. The authors of the New Chronology themselves, mathematicians, had to take up the matter. It was necessary to bring what had been started to its logical end? And such work on the Reconstruction of world history was carried out by them, and it is this Reconstruction that continues to shock the vast majority of professional historians of the world, and after them, everyone else, including, of course, ordinary people. Below we will talk in detail about why it was mathematicians who succeeded in this breakthrough in historical science and why it was basically impossible for professional historians.

So, what is the reconstruction of world history, based on the New Chronology of Fomenko - Nosovsky? The following picture emerges.

The current view of world history prior to the 17th century AD is wrong in general and in principle. The existing version of history contains both involuntary and deliberate distortions that took hold in the 17th and 18th centuries. In particular , completely distorted Russian history and its role and place in European and world history. These distortions were not so much the fruit of a scientific delusion, but rather a weapon in the ideological and psychological struggle, the roots of which lie in the history of the 16th century. The whole history of the world before the 17th century was completely different than it is believed today.

1. The first "big" state - First Empire - originated innile delta on the territory of present-day Egypt and also seized the coastal lands of the Mediterranean Sea (due to the fact that the "peace" was mastered by coastal - that is, coastal navigation).
2. The Second Empire arose in the center with the city of Hieros, near the present city of Istanbul, where, as a more convenient place for the further expansion of the state, the new capital of the former Empire was transferred. Exactly present-day Istanbul (Ieros) is the very “evangelical” Jerusalem. It was also called Troy, Constantinople and Tsar-Grad in different eras. At that time, until the 16th century, the territory of approximately present-day Turkey was called Judea, and Israel was the European part of Russia. Jesus Christ was born in 1152 in the Crimea and was crucified in the gospel Jerusalem (Ieros) - near present-day Istanbul in 1185 AD.
3. It is this Jerusalem that is described in the Bible, and it was here that the crusaders went to punish those who crucified Christ. These campaigns happened (and there were 2 of them, not 4, as the traditional Scaligerian story claims) in 1189 - 1192 and 1199 - 1204, i.e. literally shortly after the crucifixion, and not at all more than 1000 years later - in 1095-96, as the same Scaligerian story claims. Relatives and associates Jesus Christ during the riot in Tsar-Grad and the massacre of Andronicus Christ - Byzantine ( Jewish) king at that time - they fled to Rus' and, having intermarried with the local princes, managed to unite the principalities in several generations and begin the construction of a new - Third Empire, which is being restored at a new level and with a new center. From here came a new dynasty of Russian tsars - the Horde. By the way, on the frescoes of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, preserved from pre-Romanov times, Russian princes are shown as descended from the lineage of Christ. Now it is the Great or "Mongolian" Empire, aka the Russian Empire. More precisely, it can be called the Russian - Horde Empire, from the word "horde". It turned out that "horde" ( army ) is an old Russian word meaning a large military association. In foreign sources that have come down to us, this Empire is known as the Mongol, that is, as the "Great", from the Slavic "power", "many", "power", hence the later Greek word Megalion. The center of the Empire in this era was Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. From here in the 14th century begins the conquest of the world. In particular, the "ancient" Etruscans are the Russian - Horde colonizers of the 14th century, who mastered the sparsely populated Western Europe at that time and created the well-known civilization of the Etruscans in the Mediterranean.
4. During the "Mongolian" conquest (which was mainly Slavic - Turkic), the Empire extended its power to the vast territories of Eurasia, including China, Japan , India, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Western Europe, Egypt.
5. The next stage in the development of the Empire was the era of the Ottoman -
ataman ("Ottoman") conquest, which also came from Rus' (like the first wave of conquest). As a result, the subordination of the provinces to the center increased significantly. After the next conquest of Constantinople (the old capital of Byzantium) in 1453, a second center arose in the Empire - the capital - Istanbul (aka Constantinople). The second center (Turkey or "Ottomania" = Atamania) was directly subordinate to the southern territories of the Empire. Thus, Rus' and Turkey until the end of the 16th century were two parts, “two wings” of a single powerful state that controlled almost all of Eurasia, and then America.
6. At the end of the 16th century, the Empire was a rather rigidly centralized state. The local governors ruled, subordinate to the emperor (the king - khan, located in the metropolis - in Rus') or the sultan in Istanbul. In particular, the sovereigns of Europe were vassals of the Russian Tsar-Khan, and they called him emperor. Traces of such a subordinate position have been preserved in the Western European chronicles to this day, despite many years of "purge". The nobility and the nobility of Europe at that time largely consisted of conquerors - the Slavs who came here in the 13th - 14th centuries.
7. In the middle of the 16th century, a rebellion broke out in Germany against the imperial (Russian-Ottoman) power. At first it was an uprising of some governors who wished to secede from the Empire and gain political and military independence. The rebellion grew as many rulers liked the idea. This rebellion is known from textbooks as Reformation. The empire was preparing a campaign to suppress the rebels, but the conspirators managed to disrupt this campaign, and moreover, they managed to organize the defeat of the leadership of the Russian - Horde troops (the "oprichnina" known in Russian history). The struggle between supporters and opponents of the unity of the Empire ("Russian" and "pro-Western" parties) continued with varying success for several decades (in the second half of the 16th and early 17th centuries). It ended with the victory of the pro-Western party and the split of the Empire.
8. As a result, at the beginning of the 17th century, the Great Empire broke up into several parts. Russian - Horde dynasty was exterminated. The victorious supporters of the division of the Empire brought to power in Moscow the Romanov dynasty - henchmen of the German princes. The Romanovs, during the division of the Empire, ceded the lands around the former capital. In other areas, their rulers reign. Some fragments of the Empire resisted for a long time and tried to restore the former unity. In the West, these conservative-imperial tendencies were particularly strong in Spain and England. The former provinces of the Empire, where there was no rebellion, took a hostile position towards the West and the Romanovs (China, Turkey, Iran, Japan). Attempts were made to restore the Empire. The most famous of them are Razin's war with the Romanovs and Pugachev's war with the Romanovs. Razin was the governor of the last representatives of the former dynasty, who had established themselves in southern Russia, and "Pugachev" headed the huge Moscow Tartaria, which covered Siberia and part of America (in particular, Alaska and California). A little-known fact: the most reliable troops of the Romanovs in the war with Razin consisted of Western Europeans (mostly Germans).
9. The victory over Russia-Horde at the beginning of the 17th century was secured on the one hand politically - by the forcible elevation of the Romanov dynasty to the Russian throne. On the other hand - ideologically - by creating and introducing a false version of history. Chronology became the most important "technical" means in this case. False history created a sense of loss, the absence of a national idea in Russian society in the 17th and 18th centuries.
10. The Western side, as the victorious, began to assert its ideological primacy over the rest of the former Empire. The main goal was the destruction of the historical memory of the Great = "Mongol" Empire. Apparently because earlier Europe occupied a subordinate position in the Empire. In the West, a systematic long-term rewriting of history began. Russian history was distorted even under the first Romanovs, and its final version was compiled by German historians in the 18th century (Miller, Schlozer, Bayer). In Western Europe, to support the Scaliger-Petavius ​​version, a “scientific historical school” was created, which brought all the documents that came into its field of vision into line with the task assigned to it.
11. The purpose of "correcting history" was not primarilyallow the restoration of the former Great = "Mongolian" Empire. People must have forgotten where its center was. To do this, they said that the center of the "Roman Empire" was "ancient" Italy. That is, the center of the Empire was moved (on paper) to Western Europe and called "ancient" Rome.
12. In practice, the program of distortion of history was carried out as follows. An artificial "ancient chronology" was constructed, according to which many historical documents telling about the 13th - 17th centuries and the Great "Mongol" Empire were sent to the deep past. This is how the "ancient" great Slavic conquest of the allegedly 4th - 5th centuries AD, the "great migration of peoples", the conquest of "Ancient Egypt" by the "Hyksos" allegedly long before the "new era" appeared. Artificially stretched chronology gave rise in the distant past to phantom reflections of events that actually took place in the 13th - 17th centuries AD. The compilation of a falsified "correct history" was in fact an interstate all-European program, which explains the enviable coordination of actions of historians of Western European countries and historians of the Romanov era.

As a result of a long ideological indoctrination of people with the help of a distorted history, an image of an “aggressive Russia” has developed, which, allegedly due to its genetic “malice”, is constantly striving to spread its influence throughout the world. Awareness of the correct medieval history eliminates many accumulated misunderstandings. It becomes clear, for example, that historically the closest was the union of Rus' and Turkey. Today this is forgotten. Rus' has a common past with China and Japan. In the era of the Great Empire, China and Japan were part of a single Empire. They separated from it only after the split of the Empire, in the era of the Romanovs.

1.8. A few words about the Romanovs

Here it seems appropriate for us to say a few words about the Romanovs. Having come to power by representatives of the "pro-Western party", 300 years later the dynasty ended its reign with Nicholas II, probably the most pro-Russian tsar. Historians note that there was practically no Russian blood in him, but this is the irony of history - life itself, the expanses of Russia, the people and its culture “digested” the Romanovs and forced them to serve the people and build the Russian state. The Romanovs "mutated", turning into real Russian tsars, caring about the country and the people (as far as it was possible).

1.9. On the falsification of history

The most inconvenient question from the point of view of criticism of the New Chronology (as it seems to the critics themselves) is it really possible to falsify the entire world history in all countries at the same time? Can you imagine how difficult it is? This is just unreal!

As it turned out, it was very real. Provided that all the rulers of that time were interested in this, and falsification was carried out at an accelerated pace throughout the 17th century (especially intensively), as well as during the 18th and 19th centuries. But we will talk about this in more detail a little later and present convincing arguments and evidence.

Here, we will place just one diagram to show how mathematical methods allow us to unbiasedly analyze seemingly obvious and accessible information. Diagram 1 shows a map of Europe, with the capitals of European states marked on it. We see the concentric arrangement of the European capitals existing to date in relation to the center, which turns out to be in the Russian city of Vladimir. It is clearly seen that the vast majority of capitals gravitate toward two concentric circles centered on the city of Vladimir. The radii of the circles are about 1800 kilometers and about 2400 kilometers.

Why did it happen? Most likely, the control centers - governorships - began to have along the trade routes of the Empire. And not randomly, but most likely, after some the same fixed distance. Let's say every thousand miles. Naturally, the terrain did not always allow this to be done, but something like this, most likely, was sought. Why is it beneficial? At least by the fact that such a system brought reasonable order to trade, mail, and courier service. The Tsar Khan knew approximately how long it would take for his couriers to deliver an order from the capital of the Empire to one or another of its regions. Long distances were measured in corresponding units, say, in thousands of versts. The "near" colonial centers were, say, one thousand miles away. Until the next - two thousand miles. And so on. If the idea described is correct, then many of the modern capitals should be, more or less, located on several circles with the same center. The location of this center will show us, by the way, where capital the Empire that once colonized and mastered Europe and Asia. Maybe it will be Italian Rome? It is difficult to predict this in advance. Only calculations can give the answer. They were carried out. It turned out that there is only one former capital, around which the rest line up “in circles”. And this capital is the city of Vladimir in Rus', see diagram 1.

1.10. And once again about psychology.

We once again express our understanding of how difficult it will be for the reader to believe all of the above. Someone will take it all as a joke, someone as a crazy theory, someone as a prank, because it all looks incredible. Someone will feel an angry internal protest against the fact that when revising the traditional (Scaligerian) version of history, one has to “destroy” the images of “good” and “cute” characters that have become familiar. But it is worth noting that the New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky was not invented, not sucked from the finger, but is based on new rigorous, scientific methods of research and, first of all, mathematical ones. Have patience, everything that is stated here will be covered in much more detail in the next Chapter 2 and in the films “History: Science or Fiction? ». The complexity of the perception of this material lies precisely in the breaking of the worldview, and the complexity of the presentation lies in the impossibility of giving detailed arguments in such a short text. In this chapter, we are trying to create in your mind only a certain starting point for new knowledge and a coordinate system - a system for perceiving new things and “packaging” this new knowledge. You will receive all the main arguments in favor of the New Chronology and all the evidence of its validity (if you want to dig deeper) in great detail, already directly in the books of the authors Fomenko and Nosovsky.

"Christ" historian N. M.Nikolsky .

A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky first used the term in 1995 in the title of their book “New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome” (Moscow: Moscow State University, 1995) to refer to a modified version of the world chronology, built on the basis of the widespread use of supposedly modern methods of natural science. Later, it began to be applied to the works of earlier authors, whom Fomenko and Nosovsky refer to as their predecessors: Newton, Morozov and others.

In English-language literature, the term " New Chronology" (eng. " New Chronology") is more often applied to the works of the British Egyptologist David Rola (eng. David m. Rohl), who, in his now famous book "Checking the Time" (eng. "A Test of Time"), published in 1995, used it in relation to his proposed changes in the chronology of Ancient Egypt. He has been using this name in his articles since 1990 .

Early attempts to revise the chronology referred to by the authors of "HX"

The basic information about the early attempts to revise the chronology of the NK borrows from the works of N. A. Morozov, who, in turn, learned a lot from a German newspaper article. At the same time, many of the facts reported in this article, for example, about the Salamanca professor de Arcilla and the Pisan doctor Gragani, do not find confirmation.

An attempt to revise the chronology was made by Isaac Newton, who spent several decades on the mathematical analysis of ancient history. His ideas were summarized in the book " The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended” (“Corrected chronology ancient kingdoms”), which appeared in 1725 in French, and in 1728, after his death, in English.

Based on this idea as an obvious fact that does not need proof, Morozov tried to calculate the date of the event according to the alleged astronomical indications in the text and came to the conclusion that the text was written in 395 AD. e. , that is, 300 years later than its historical dating. For Morozov, however, this was not a sign of the error of his hypothesis, but of the existing chronology of historical events. Morozov, upon leaving prison, outlined his conclusions in the book Revelation in Thunderstorm and Storm (). Critics have pointed out that this dating contradicts the undeniable quotations and references to the "Apocalypse" in earlier Christian texts. Morozov objected to this that, since the dating of the Apocalypse has been proven astronomically, then in this case we are dealing either with forgeries or incorrect dating of contradictory texts that could not have been written earlier than the 5th century BC. At the same time, he firmly believed that his dating was based on accurate astronomical data; critics' indications that these "astronomical data" were arbitrary interpretations of a metaphorical text were ignored by him.

Formation of the "New Chronology" by A. T. Fomenko

M. M. Postnikov and the revival of Morozov's ideas

The work of the Fomenko group

Fomenko actively joined the work of the group formed around Postnikov, which was supposed to confirm Morozov's theory, and soon headed this group.

To the displeasure of Postnikov, Fomenko and Mishchenko were subjected to a serious revision of Morozov's ideas. Fomenko agreed with Morozov that the existing chronology is incorrect, but disagreed with him in assessing which chronology is correct. Postnikov, in turn, considered it impossible to reconstruct history without the help of professional historians.

Relations with party leadership

However, soon Fomenko and his group resumed publishing articles on their theories. After the appearance in Questions of History (No. 12, 1983) of a new devastating article written by Golubtsova in collaboration with physicist Yu. A. Zavenyagin, Fomenko, in turn, complains to the Central Committee, attaching an article refuting the astronomical conclusions of the authors. The result was a discussion with Zavenyagin in one of the offices of the Central Committee, where Fomenko put forward his patriotic intentions as the last argument: “I am Soviet, I am Russian! I want the history of my country to be as ancient as ancient Rome!”

"New chronology" in the era of perestroika

Perestroika freed the supporters of the New Chronology from the problems of censorship. But the topic of ancient history in that era was irrelevant among the broad masses, and Fomenko continued to publish in small circulation. Later, in 1993, at the expense of the author, the Moscow State University publishing house published his first monographs on the "New Chronology": "Methods of Statistical Analysis of Narrative Texts and Applications to Chronology (Recognition and Dating of Dependent Texts, Statistical Ancient Chronology, Statistics of Ancient Astronomical Observations)" and Global Chronology. Research on the history of the ancient world and the Middle Ages. In the appendix to the second Nosovsky, a new dating of the Orthodox Paschalia and the Council of Nicaea is given. In 1993, publishers in the United States and Holland published three books outlining Fomenko's theory, with a total volume of about 1000 pages.

The transformation of the "New Chronology" into a phenomenon of mass culture

In discussions in the press and on the Internet, supporters and opponents of the "New Chronology" repeatedly accused each other of forgery, exaggeration, distortion of facts, personal revenge and political motives; in addition, professionals accused Fomenko and Nosovsky of dilettantism and incompetence. Later, the intensity of discussions decreased, since the authors of the New Chronology withdrew from direct discussions in the scientific press, turning to the general public in commercial publications. To date, the total number of books by A. T. Fomenko and his group is about 90. Reports and individual articles by critics of the "New Chronology" are collected in 7 collections of "Antifomenko" by the Russkaya Panorama publishing house and other collections.

In 2004, Anatoly Fomenko, in collaboration with Gleb Nosovsky, for books from the New Chronology series, was awarded the Antiprize  "Paragraph" in the nomination "Honorary Illiteracy" - for "particularly cynical crimes against Russian literature".

Notes

1. Condemnation of the works of A. Fomenko at the meeting of the Bureau of the Department of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998
2. Problems fight with pseudoscience  (discussion in Presidium RAN) // 1999, volume 69, no. 10, p. 879-904
   • Commission for Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences [responsible ed. Kruglyakov E.P.] In defense of science. - M.: Nauka, 2007. - T. 2. - S. 102-111. - 208 p. - ISBN 978-5-02-036182-9.
   • How does pseudoscience threaten society? (meeting Presidium RAN) 2003
   • Kruglyakov E. P. Witch hunt // "Spark", 2003
   • Efremov Yu. N., Zavenyagin Yu.A."On the so-called" "New" chronology "by A. T. Fomenko" // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1999, volume 69, no. 12, p. 1081-1092
   • Aleksandrov E. B. Problems Expansion Pseudoscience
   • Yanin V. L. In Novgorod, democracy was devoured by oligarchs
   • Zalizniak A. A."Linguistics" by A. T. Fomenko
   • Novikov S. P.“Pseudo-history and pseudo-mathematics: fantasy in our life” // UMN, 2000.
3. Nikolsky N. M. Astronomical revolution in historical science. Regarding the book by N. A. Morozov "Christ", L., 1924. // "New World", 1925, No. 1, p. 156-175; republished together with Morozov's answer: Morozov N. A. A new look at the history of the Russian state. (Volume 8 of the work "Christ"). - M.: Kraft + Lean, 2000. - 888 p. ISBN 5-85929-087-X. With. 687-709
4. Nosovsky G. V., Fomenko A. T."New chronology of Rus', England and Rome"
5. Rohl D. A Test of Time: The Bible - from Myth to History. - London: Century, 1995.

Chronology of A.T. Fomenko and the history of Russia

Since World history, due to the new global chronology of A.T. Fomenko is greatly shortened, there is a combination of "duplicates": the history of different countries or the history of different time periods of one country in the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius ​​in the new chronology turns out to be the history of one country or, accordingly, the history of a country of one period of time. And this cannot but be reflected in the history of Russia. Many historical figures, paradoxical as it may seem, will have to be recognized as one and the same person, but “multiplied” in sources in which he is mentioned under different names. This applies to both the Russian princes and the khans of the Golden Horde. Moreover, due to the hypothesis of A.T. Fomenko, that the Horde is Rus', the Russian princes will “stick together” with the Tatar khans. For example, Ivan Kalita = Batu. Funny? But here's what's funny: Batu in the "Scythian History" by A.I. There is Lyzlov, but the “collector of the Russian Land” Ivan Kalita, whom, it seems, Kalita was called not by the people, but by the historian N.M. Karamzin (Polevoi, vol. 2, p. 577) no, not mentioned.

Here is a diagram (Fig. 12) of the identification of Russian princes and tsars, borrowed from (Nosovsky, Fomenko. Empire. p. 648).

1. Nizami: "... Alexander of Macedon ... defeated the Russians ..." (Polevoi, vol. 1, p. 481). How could Macedonian fight with the Russians, because he died 1000 years before the appearance of the Russian people?

2. Find a sheet in the Radzivilov Chronicle, where the gospel events are dated around 1000 AD. ! (Nosovsky, Fomenko. Empire. p. 96).

3. How could the apostle Paul be a teacher of the Slavic language among the Slavs of Illyria? (Field, vol. 1. p. 477). After all, this contradicts the traditional chronology. But that's what it says in the PVL. However, the Apostle Luke painted an icon in Poland, which was kept in the Yasnogorsk Monastery in Czestochowa (Bushkov, 1997. p. 420), and the Apostle Andrew baptized the Slavs on the Dnieper. The saints forgot that they have been gone for several hundred years.

4. How is the word "Jesus" translated from Greek? Answer: God's help.

5. How is the word "Christ" translated from Greek? Answer: 1) anointed, dedicated; 2) letters. - smeared, painted.

G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko (Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics) Analysis of the books “Antifomenko” and “History and Antihistory” Criticism of the “New Chronology” by Academician A.T. Fomenko 1. Introduction In December 1999 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University