Russian Horde

25 729 349
Russian Horde
A still from the film "Wicked City"


Historical myth


During my school years I read it more than once and with great pleasure. historical Vasily Yan's novels: "Lights on the Mounds" and the "Mongol Invasion" trilogy. I rooted for the characters and hated the Mongol invaders.



Later, as the facts accumulated, I realized that this was just another historical myth, distorting the true history of Rus' and Russia and humanity. There were no Mongoloid Mongols (representatives of the yellow race) in Rus'. There were battles and destroyed cities, but no Mongols from Mongolia.

Unfortunately, this myth, created in the Vatican and developed by the Germano-Roman historical school, which became “classical” (academic) in the Romanov Empire, has become the ultimate truth in Russia.

This is also demonstrated in historical-patriotic films like "The Legend of Kolovrat" (2017) and "The Evil City" (2025). It's good that the memory of Russian warrior knights and Russian fortitude remains. The bad news is that the films depict traditional "Mongols from Mongolia."

The information war waged against Russian civilization is largely based on the distortion of history. History is written by the victors.

"Mongols from Mongolia"


As has already been noted many times ("The myth of the" Mongols from Mongolia in Russia "is the most ambitious and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia"), there were no Mongols in Rus' in the 13th-15th centuries. They simply weren't there physically. Mongols are Mongoloids, representatives of the Mongoloid (yellow) race. Characteristic features of Mongoloids include straight black hair, epicanthus (the fold of the upper eyelid), prominent cheekbones, and a flattened face.

No Mongoloid skulls were found in the Ryazan, Vladimir-Suzdal, or Kyiv lands, where the main battles between the Christian Rus and the "pagans" took place. There were no signs of Mongoloidity among the local population either. Although they should have been present, given that the child of a Mongol father and a European woman would be Mongoloid.

In the West and in today's nationalist Ukraine, it is common to consider Russians to be the descendants of Mongols and Finno-Ugrics. However, genetic studies show that Russians have no Mongol admixture. And the Kazan Tatars, Volgars-Bulgars, are typical Caucasians, like the Rus-Russians.

Valery Pavlovich Alekseev (1929–1991), an academic, Soviet anthropologist, historian, archaeologist, and specialist in historical anthropology and the geography of human races, writes about the absence of Mongoloid skulls at battlefields during Batu Khan's invasion in his book "In Search of Ancestors." All serious archaeologists studying this issue are aware of this. No Mongols have been found in the ruins of Ryazan, Moscow, Vladimir, or Kyiv. Yet the battles were bloody, with many thousands killed.

There were no Mongols in Rus' during the "Tatar-Mongol" invasion and yoke. If there had been numerous tumens-tem's (10-strong cavalry corps), supposedly originating from Mongolia and depicted in novels and films, then anthropological Mongoloid material would certainly have remained in the Russian land. Just as Mongoloid traits would inevitably have remained in the local population. Because Mongoloidity (like Negroidness) is dominant, overwhelming. It would have been enough for thousands of Mongols to rape Russian women for Russian burial grounds to be filled with Mongoloid Russians for generations to come. But the Russian burial grounds and cemeteries from the time of the Horde contain Caucasians.

Mongoloidity appeared in Rus' only in the 16th and 17th centuries, along with the Tatar servicemen, who, originally Caucasian, acquired it on the southeastern borders of the new Russo-Tatar Horde, united by Ivan the Terrible. Tatars and Cossacks married local Mongoloid women. The children were Russian. Unlike their European colonizers, the Russians never had any racism.

Information war


Another fact that completely buries the myth of a "Mongol" invasion is the human resources and level of material development of Mongolia in the 13th century. Mongolia of that time simply could not field hundreds of thousands of fighters and arm them. It could not field the well-organized, disciplined, and combat-ready tumens (toma-tumens) that conquered China, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Rus', Persia, and so on. It could not create a global empire.

This is absolute nonsense. The real Mongols at that time were at the level of development of North American Indian tribes—hunter-gatherers, and partly herders. They couldn't have conquered half the world. They lacked both the manpower and the material resources.

It's enough to recall other world empires. Alexander the Great – the financial and material base created by his father Philip. Plus a revolution in military affairs – the Macedonian phalanx. The Roman Empire – the might of its economy and legions. The British Empire – the "workshop of the world" (the leading global economy), mistress of the seas, control of key maritime communications and rich colonies. The Second and Third Reichs – a powerful economy, the dark genius of the Teutonic Order. The United States – the world's leading economy, the dollar system (financial control), technology, and information.

Without an appropriate level of spiritual and material culture, an empire cannot be created. Roughly speaking, if today's blacks in Somalia, Uganda, and Congo were given millions of machine guns, hundreds of armored vehicles, and tanks, they won't create a great power. They'll continue to slaughter each other in intertribal and religious conflicts. Which is what's happening now.

Wandering Christian monks and missionaries (also serving as Vatican spies), who infiltrated as far as China during that era and established a corresponding network of agents, wrote reports to Rome, incorporating local rumors and folklore. From such reports, the "history of the great Mongols" was compiled, and returned to the East as an incontrovertible truth (like everything Western since the Romanovs).

Thus was born the great myth of the mighty Mongols; novels, paintings, and films were written. Textbooks and encyclopedias described how the Mongols, riding their shaggy horses, crossed frozen rivers in Rus' and then came to Europe. Only in Russian chronicles and European chronicles, for some reason, were the "Mongols" depicted as Russian warriors, boyars, Cossacks, and streltsy.

Golden Horde-Rod


We must forget about the Mongols from Mongolia. They didn't exist. But who did? The vast forest-steppe expanses from the Northern Black Sea region through the Southern Urals to the Altai, the Sayan Mountains, and Mongolia itself—the lands that were somehow given to the "Mongols" (who arrived later)—had long belonged to the so-called "Scythian-Siberian world."

Long before the last wave of Aryan Indo-Europeans (Rus-Yari), who left the southern Russian steppes for Persia and India in the 2nd millennium BC, the Indo-Europeans had settled the forest-steppe zone from the Carpathians to the Sayan Mountains, and even reached China. They led a semi-nomadic lifestyle, traveling on oxen harnessed to carts and cultivating the land. They also used horses, domesticated in the southern Russian steppes. Throughout the area of ​​the "Scythian-Siberian world" (legendary Hyperborea-Aria, Great Scythia, Great Tartary), numerous burial mounds containing carts and rich utensils remain. weapons. An entire world-civilization. With roots stretching back thousands of years. A rich spiritual and material culture.

These were the Hyperboreans, the Aryans, the Scythians and Tauro-Scythians, and the later Rus-Rusichi (as their direct descendants and bearers of tradition) who reigned supreme in Northern Eurasia. Across the vast expanse from the Carpathians and Crimea to Inner Mongolia, Khakassia, the Minusinsk Basin and Northern China, burial grounds of Caucasians are found.

The local Mongoloids, who were at the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age) level of development, simply couldn't compete with the Scythians (Rus). But they adopted their productive culture (the wheel, agriculture, iron production, etc.) and spiritual culture from them, from horsemanship to the entire civilization.

Therefore, experts and ordinary people alike can easily see echoes of the great northern tradition-civilization in modern China, Korea, Japan, or India. For example, ancestor worship, warrior worship (the way of the warrior), or wooden architecture. Traditions that were virtually eradicated in Russia itself have survived there.

In southern and eastern countries, memories of tall, light-eyed, and fair-haired Caucasians, gods and demigods, and heroes, have been preserved. Hence the tradition that light skin signifies belonging to the highest caste. Hence the blond (red-haired) and green-eyed Genghis Khan. The military elite, the nobility, and the warriors of Mongolia and China were Caucasian.

Only the mighty clans of the Scytho-Siberian world were the only military force capable of conquering half the world. The word "Mongols," originally "Moghuls," derives from the Russian word "mog" (mozh, mozh) meaning "muzh, husband, mighty, powerful, powerful." It was this meaning of "mighty" that later led to the etymology of the word "Moghuls" as "great."

It was part of these Siberian Scythian-Scythian clans that came to Rus'. Anthropologically and genetically, the late Scythians were as much Rus' as the Rus'ichi who lived in the Ryazan, Vladimir-Suzdal, Chernigov, and Kyiv lands. Outwardly, they could differ in their style of clothing (the Scythian animal style), their dialect of the Russian language (like today's Great Russians and Ukrainian Russians), and the fact that they were pagans. Although in a significant part of northern and eastern Rus', the majority of the population adhered to dual faith, while formally Christian, they essentially preserved the old faith. The fusion of the ancient Russian faith and Christianity into Orthodoxy ("Slavie Prav-Pravda") was not yet complete.

The word "Horde" itself is a European-style corruption of the Russian words "Rod" and "Rada." The tsars and princes of the Horde-Rod called themselves khans. But in Kievan Rus', princes also often called themselves khagans-kogans. The word "kogan-kohan," or shortened "khaan-khan," has nothing in common with Mongolian languages. It is a Russian word meaning "chosen, beloved." In Southern Russia (Little Russia), this word was preserved as "kokhany" = "chosen one, beloved."

And the fact that Rus' clashed with Rus' is a common occurrence in history. It's enough to recall how Oleg the Prophet and Yaroslav the Wise took Kyiv. How the sons of Vladimir the Saint and Yaroslav fought for power. How the Russian lands, led by Ryazan, Novgorod, Moscow, Tver, and so on, fought among themselves. How many times the two great Russian powers—Moscow Rus' and Lithuanian Rus'—warred. And now, in its fourth year, the war between the two Russian powers—Russia and Ukraine—is raging.

The Golden Family of Genghis Khan-Temuchin won from the Rurikovichs the right to rule over the large ethno-cultural-linguistic core of the Rus super-ethnos. When the war ended, the Rus'-Scythians of the Horde-Rada quickly found common ground with the princes and boyars of Vladimir, Moscow, and Tver. They fraternized, became related, and married off their daughters to both sides.

The pagan Rus', who created a vast empire, were religiously tolerant until the Horde's adoption of Islam. Only after Islamization and Arabization, when the pagan portion of the Golden Horde's elite was exterminated, did an ideological confrontation begin between the Horde and Rus', dividing them into "foreigners" and "friends." After this, many Horde-Tatar clans migrated under the rule of Russian princes.

As a result, the confrontation ended with the fact that Ivan the Terrible restored the ethnocultural and linguistic space of the Russian Horde, annexing the Volga region and Siberia.
349 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. + 31
    23 September 2025 04: 10
    The information war being waged against Russian civilization is largely based on the distortion of history.
    Well, it's about to start.....
    1. + 22
      23 September 2025 07: 44
      Are the alternative science fiction writers of the Fomenko Club relevant again? laughing
      1. + 15
        23 September 2025 10: 32
        Quote: Civil
        Are the alternative science fiction writers of the Fomenko Club relevant again? laughing

        Well, they want to eat, but they don’t know how to do anything socially useful. request
      2. +3
        24 September 2025 13: 15
        What does Fomenko have to do with this? Fomenko's main theme, the New Chronology, is not about the Mongols at all. Fomenko only touched on the Mongols (or rather, their absence from Rus') in passing, merely expanding on ideas expressed long before him, beginning in the 19th century.
        1. +2
          24 September 2025 15: 10
          https://asiarussia.ru/blogs/22778/
          Everything is in stock
          1. +1
            2 December 2025 12: 34
            This Samsonov, even if you scratch his head, will say - there was no such thing
      3. -5
        24 September 2025 23: 26
        Despite everything, NO ONE has been able to refute the "alternative to Fomenko," neither their methods nor their conclusions. There are things stronger than politics and their prostitutes—historians. This is mathematical analysis. Therefore, don't just feed your head; you also need to use it to think.
      4. +1
        5 February 2026 20: 51
        In Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Germany, they even talk about wars with the Mongols, but in Eastern Rus', there were none...

        In the West and in today's nationalist Ukraine, it is common to consider Russians to be the descendants of Mongols and Finno-Ugrics. However, genetic studies show that Russians have no Mongol admixture. And the Kazan Tatars, Volgars-Bulgars, are typical Caucasians, like the Rus-Russians.
        Russian historians and geneticists have written and continue to write about the significant admixture of Finno-Ugrians... and Finno-Ugric (from the Russian Federation) intellectuals and researchers
        It all depends on the region... what can we do about it?
    2. + 18
      23 September 2025 09: 59
      The funniest thing about all this is that at least 90% of those discussing this topic know history from school, or maybe they read about Fomenko somewhere.
      No one can say anymore what happened forty years ago, but everyone argues about the events of a thousand years ago.
      1. + 15
        23 September 2025 10: 15
        Quote: Gardamir
        The funniest thing about all this is that at least 90% of those discussing this topic know history from school, or maybe they read about Fomenko somewhere.
        No one can say anymore what happened forty years ago, but everyone argues about the events of a thousand years ago.

        What do events witnessed by the majority of forum members have to do with this? If you're an eyewitness, you have the opportunity to judge events based on your own observations. Otherwise, arguments and facts are your only recourse.
        Speaking of Mongols from Mongolia, Temujin was born in what is now Russia, but that doesn't mean he knew how to play the balalaika.
        1. + 15
          23 September 2025 10: 40
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Temujin was born in what is now Russia, but that doesn't mean he knew how to play the balalaika.
          Fell under the chair! wink
          1. +4
            23 September 2025 12: 34
            Quote: Luminman
            Fell under the chair!

            Get up, I'm trying to get up too.
          2. + 16
            23 September 2025 16: 19
            Temujin was born in what is now Russia, but that doesn't mean he knew how to play the balalaika.

            That's right, Vlad, he didn't know how - like a true Hyperborean Aryan Rusich-Rus (as in Samsonov), he was a loser. laughing
            But seriously, the origins of the Russian folk balalaika, the Tatar folk dumbra, and the Central Asian dutar, according to the renowned Russian music and art critic, folk music historian, archivist, 19th-century public figure, Honorary Academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since 1900), and Privy Councilor Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov (see photo 3), all originate from the ancient Mongol-Buryat topshur (see photos 1-2). They share the same shape (from triangular to oval), the same number of strings (2-4), are also tuned in fourths, and are played by strumming.
            1. +7
              23 September 2025 16: 21
              Photo 3 "V.V. Stasov" Portrait by Ilya Repin (1883)
            2. 0
              25 September 2025 14: 04
              Quote: Richard
              The same shape (from triangular to oval), the same number of strings (2-4), also tuned in fourth, the same way of playing - strumming.

              So Temujin did play the balalaika. lol laughing
              But he wasn't a Mongol (Menggu). He was a GREAT MOGUL. And the Moguls are the very same "Dingling" of Chinese chronicles. Another name is Rysichi (well, that's on the tombstone of their king, Kyue-Tegin (Chinese transcription of hieroglyphs).
              And finally, here are some poems (which I also set to music) by a descendant of Genghis Khan and Batu Khan, Denis Ivanovich Davydov:
              "Blessed memory of my ancestor Genghis Khan
              Grunt, mischievous with arshin mustache
              On a Udar horse like a whirlwind before thunders
              In a brilliant shell flew into an enemy camp
              And powerfully dissected with a tartar hand
              All that resisted the mighty hero ...
              My blessed ancestor... such a rude person
              Like his grandfather, the mighty Genghis Khan
              In a shining armor among the slaying swords
              Hordes ruled in the fields by the thundering war
              I burn with the same flame as Genghis Khan
              Like my ancestor Batu, I’m flying to Brann Prue
              But to me a gracious count in French robes
              Return to the avant-garde as a dandy on a spree?
              To tie a frill, to correct a hairdress
              And show off your "Lindor" to the mustachioed ones?
              Pity the descendant of the poor Batu
              And accept his empty poems as a checkmate."

              Incidentally, the Russian Empire had many descendants of Genghis Khan. Among the well-known, I'll mention the line of hereditary atamans of the Great Ural and Semirechye Host—the Khanzhins. As a reminder, during the war of 1812, Ataman Platov arrived at the Battle of Borodino with his Don Cossacks, and Ataman/General Khanzhin arrived with his Ural and Semirechye Cossacks. Together, they carried out that raid into the rear of the French army and destroyed the camps on the northern flank of the French, thereby diverting not only the light cavalry but also the plated cuirassiers, thus disrupting another attack by the main forces on the Raevsky battery.
              And during the Civil War, General and Ataman Khanzhin commanded the army of Admiral Kolchak... And under his command was the youngest general of his army, the commander of the Cossack division Borodin.
              My early childhood was spent in the Khanzhins' family village.

              More about the meaning of the word/term "Horde".
              Horde - Army. Etymologically, it is the source of such words as ORDEN (knightly, Masonic) and the German ORDUNG (order). Therefore, reading that such and such a prince "went to the Horde with his son" means he left for the Army with his son. For service! Therefore, the various names of hordes are names of TROOPS based on territoriality. Well, like the same "Region of the Great Ural and Semirechye Army (the region east of the Yaik/Ural River to Semirechye (Lake Balkhash) and the entire Urals to the north). Or, as is now the territorial division into MILITARY DISTRICTS. That is, about the same prince who left for the Horde - it should be understood - "He left with his son for the active army of the Golden Horde district." And only Russians served there. I did not meet Mongols among the Cossacks. lol Although there were probably mixed marriages – Buryat girls are beautiful. And anyone who wants to see what real Mughals (gol – steppe/land, mog – mighty, strong, giant) – steppe giants, or otherwise – STRONG warriors of the Earth) – looked like, should find a portrait of the hero of the 1812 war by D.I. Davydov and admire it. By the way, he looks a lot like his ancestor, Genghis Khan. And a full-length portrait of Genghis Khan himself can be seen on playing cards, along with his beloved wife, Subeda – a stately, fair-haired beauty in blue.
              These were the Mughals (not "Mongols") who came to Western Rus', enslaved by the West... which had already fallen under the alien yoke of Judeo-Greek schismatics and, rotting, was crumbling into strife and unrest. The Mughals did not forcibly de-baptize the renegades, but they did block the expansion of the Western hordes. They established a Yoke—a Single State. That is, they incorporated the remnants of the former Mazda-Yasni Rus' of the Western Khaganate into the Mughal Empire. That empire had two main and a third peripheral official language:
              1) Russian (although the dialects differed)
              2) Tatar (aka Turkic) - The Language of the Army (my grandfather, for example, knew all the Turkic dialects)
              3) And the peripheral third language was Chinese/Chinese.
              There were several types of writing in the Empire, from syllabics and initial letters (which schismatics appropriated as "Cyrillic") to "Avestan script"—strongly reminiscent of Arabic script. For the natural faith of the Aryans—Mazda-Yasnism (called "Zoroastrianism" in illiterate Europe)—is the Faith in Clear Reason.
              All other monotheistic heresies arose from imitation, with distortions, of our Doctrine. But they are all caricatures in relation to the Original Source. That is, they are the product of the perversions of perverts.

              And the Buryats, Meng, Bashkirs are our neighbors. Internal neighbors - part of our Empire. And the Mongols, that's US.
              The word "Tatars" means "warriors" (regardless of nationality; those who joined the Army/Horde are Tatars/warriors). From the Turkic word "tat" (tale) - to chop, to slaughter. That is, they were swordsmen, swordsmen, and warriors. At the borders of the Empire, the border guards were called... "Cossacks." Even in the Romanov Empire, Cossacks (impostors of the Gothic tribe) served on the border.
              So, I don't know about myself, but at the court of Genghis Khan, perhaps one of the servants strummed the balalaika... when the master wasn't listening. And at the court of the Great Khan, they played the lutes (the name comes from the Russian lyutichi clan, which founded Lutencia).
              So, about the "Mongols" from Mongolia - these are evil fairy tales/caricatures of European borderland perverts.
              1. +2
                25 September 2025 18: 50
                The Great Cossack Army of the Urals and Semirechye

                Well, sir, you've certainly piled it on. There were no Great Cossack Hosts in Russia. Not once, ever!!! Not even the Great Don Cossack Host existed. To claim otherwise is a typical mistake for those unfamiliar with Cossack history. There was the so-called "Great Don Army," which existed from May 18, 1918, to November 18, 1920. And, mind you, this wasn't the name for the Don Cossack Host itself or its region, but merely an autonomous entity, unrecognized by either the Reds or the Whites, under the control of Atm. Krasnov. This German puppet republic lasted less than three years.
                Further calling two different Cossack Hosts (the Semirechensk and Ural Cossack Hosts) one, and even calling them the Great Ural and Semirechensk Cossack Host (the Semirechensk Cossack Host has no relation to the Ural Cossack Host—it was formed, if I remember correctly, from two resettled regiments of the Siberian Cossack Host), is not only unwise but also dangerous. The people who frequent Cossack websites and forums honor and respect their history, and they don't accept any ad hoc or alternative narratives.
                Secondly:
                Semirechye Ataman/General Khanzhin during the war of 1812 in the Battle of Borodino

                So, I took the trouble to consult with the Semirechye guys from the "Cossack Stan" forum. The answer is this: the first Semirechye Nakaznoy Ataman appeared only in July 1867. He was Major General of Infantry Gerasim Alekseevich.
                Kolpakovsky.
                During the war of 1812, Ataman Platov with the Don Cossacks and Ataman/General Khanzhin with his Ural and Semirechye Cossacks arrived at the Battle of Borodino

                bayard, I'll disappoint you - here is a list of all the Cossack formations that fought at Borodino in 1812:
                , who fought at Borodino:
                Separate Cossack Corps under the command of M. I. Platov:. It included:
                1. Ataman Platov Regiment (7 hundreds) - Colonel S. F. Balabin,
                2. Don Cossack Lieutenant Colonel Vlasov 3rd Regiment (5 hundreds), 3. Don Cossack Ilovaisky 5th Regiment (5 hundreds) - military foreman I. G. Davydov,
                4. Don Cossack Grekov 18th Regiment (5 hundreds) - military foreman A. S. Grekov,
                6. Don Cossack Denisov 7th Regiment (5 hundreds) - military foreman G. P. Pobednov,
                7. Don Cossack Zhirov Regiment (5 hundreds) - military foreman I. I. Zhirov,
                8. Don Cossack Kharitonov 7th regiment (5 hundreds) - Lieutenant Colonel K. I. Kharitonov,
                Simferopol Cavalry Tatar Regiment (5 hundreds) - Lieutenant Colonel K. M. Balatukov-34
                General Uvarov's Combined Cossack Corps:
                1st Ural Colonel Sedov Cossack Regiment
                3rd Ural Cossack Regiment of the Polgina Military District
                1st Volga - Colonel Gridenko Terek Cossack Regiment (8 hundreds)
                2nd Volga (5 hundred) preferential troops. Senior Sergeant Srebrova Stavropol Regiment
                2nd Astrakhan (5 hundreds and horse battery) regiment of Colonel Lednev
                Kumyk Cossack Regiment
                Kalmyk Cossack regiments.
                Black Sea Hundred.
                Cossack regiment of the Kaluga militia.
                Cossack regiment of Count Dmitriev-Mamonov (formed in Yaroslavl).
                Regiment of Cossacks of the Nizhny Novgorod militia.
                squadron of Black Sea Cossacks
                Life Guards Hussar Cossack Regiment.

                As you can see, there are no traces of any Semirechye Cossacks. And there couldn't have been any, since the Semirechye Cossacks would only appear half a century later, in 1867.
                For the same reason, Ataman/General Khanzhin is also missing, as he was born only in October 1871. And you've overdone it with him—the last Minister of War in A.V. Kolchak's government, Infantry General M.V. Khanzhin, although a hereditary Cossack, was from Orenburg, not Semirechye. And he was never an Ataman. Especially since... laughing - hereditary. This was practiced only among the Zaporozhian Cossacks, and all our atamans at that time were only Nakazny. Except for the heir to the throne, to whom the title of Supreme Cossack Ataman was hereditary.
                1. 0
                  25 September 2025 20: 48
                  Quote: Richard
                  Well, sir, you have really given me a present.

                  You've also piled up quite a bit. Let's open the diary of F. Glinka, who served as Miloradovich's adjutant throughout the war. He also fought in the Battle of Borodino and described it as an eyewitness and participant. He also wrote about Platov and Khanzhin, including when they brought their Cossacks down, and about that raid, and how "the brave ataman Khanzhin and his Cossacks heroically performed" in that raid. What better way to read than from an eyewitness?
                  There was a big article about General Khanzhin himself a few years ago on VO, where his lineage from Genghis Khan is spelled out. The surname itself is translated from the founder of the dynasty, Khan Zhin, meaning "Hand of the Tsar." There was also an article about General Borodin on VO; he was the one who drew up the plan for the raid behind Red lines that destroyed the headquarters of the 25th Chapayev Division and allocated the forces. According to the official version, Borodin died shortly afterward (in fact, he was wounded), after the 25th Division went on the offensive. After Vasily Ivanovich's death, my great-uncle (my aunt's father) Kutyakov assumed command of the Chapayev Division. So, I had a curious twist of fate. I was friends with General Borodin's youngest grandson in early childhood—our grandfathers were neighbors. I only found out who my aunt's father was later. My grandfather knew Borodino was a White general, but he learned about his involvement in the "Chapayev affair" later... and from me. Sashka let it slip to me, but then remembered to promise not to tell anyone. I told my grandfather this shortly before his death, when I came to visit the Urals as a lieutenant after graduating.
                  About
                  Quote: Richard
                  There have never been any Great Cossack Troops in Russia. Not once and never!!!

                  There were territorial concepts like the Oblast of the Great Army—Don, Ural, and so on. I read a few years ago in a historiography article about General Khanzhin that Khanzhin was an ataman, and a hereditary ataman of the "Ural and Semirechye" ones at that. That's when all the stories I'd heard since childhood and the old folk's tales came to light. But what I wrote is from that article. I heard about Borodin from my own experience that his ancestor received his surname after the Battle of Borodino. And about Khanzhin, too, from my grandfather; the stanitsa (cossack village) was his family village, bearing his name. True, it was called a village under Soviet rule. In the 90s, some of them were given back their stanitsa status. Miasskaya definitely became a stanitsa (cossack village) again.
                  Quote: Richard
                  V. Khanzhin, although a hereditary Cossack, was not from Semirechye, but from Orenburg.

                  Once again, during the Civil War, Khanzhin held the status of ataman of the Ural and Semirechye hosts. Apparently they were merged then. But that's what's written about him in historiography. And I heard from my grandfather that he was a Chingizid. And near his house in the forest (the log structure of which was almost crumbling by then), we'd eat our fill in the old raspberry patch while picking mushrooms.
                  Quote: Richard
                  and he was never an ataman.

                  Well, the article/historiography says he was. There are some very interesting biographical details there. And another friend of mine's grandfather, Dunayev, served on his staff.
                  I don't trust the modern mummers who've only been registering as Cossacks since 1992. And the self-proclaimed atamans are criminals (some with three or four prison sentences), so what they write in their stories no longer interests me. I'm more interested in those I've known since childhood and adolescence, whose fathers and grandfathers I remember, with whom I served and with whom life brought me together. Back then, the myths and fairy tales of the modern era weren't so fervently concocted.
                  Quote: Richard
                  Except for the heir to the throne, the title of Supreme Cossack Ataman was passed on to him by inheritance.

                  Well, these Romanovs, they've tried everything. They're not one of ours. And DNA analysis has shown what kind of blood they have. And their blood is Gothic. Not Russian, not Slavic, and not "Aryan" - R-1B. Such people are only found in "general use" in England, Spain, France, southern Italy, Denmark, Norway, western Sweden, and western Germany. So, by claiming to be descendants of the Samogitian prince (the founder of the Romanov dynasty), they're lying. They, like the Rurikovichs, have haplogroup N (one of the Slavic haplogroups, monochromatic among the Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and our Khanty and Mansi). And the pseudo-Romanovs have a Gothic haplogroup. So either from the German "stable boy", and that's all, or (which is much more likely) - a substitute, a replacement.
                  Quote: Richard
                  There are no traces of any Semirechye Cossacks. And there couldn't have been any, since the Semirechye Cossacks would only appear half a century later, in 1867.

                  You never know what might appear in papers and when. Papers can withstand anything. There's so much written about the Tatar-Mongol invasion... and on old icons, you can't tell Tatars from Russians—they look exactly the same. And in European illustrations and engravings, Tatars and "Mongols" are depicted as emphatically fair-haired and wearing white Russian shirts without armor, splaying out against knights shod like cockroaches in armor... and supposedly "attacking." They always depict Tatars and Mongols as ordinary Russians.
                  And our prince Slaven the Young, who routed the Gothic hordes of Hermanarech and drove that devil himself to suicide... they nicknamed him something like... "Atilla." And the Russian troops who came from the Trans-Volga region and Siberia, some kind of... Huns. Although in the "Bayan Hymn" all the families that participated in that great war are listed. What haven't the Vatican devils dreamed up?
                  If you want to know the value of history written by Europeans, read the new books and textbooks written in Ukraine over the past 33 years. Even in the Russian Empire, under the Romanovs, there were people who practiced black magic.
                  1. +1
                    26 September 2025 20: 42
                    Kind bayard, you shouldn't indulge in improvisation and manipulation on a military history website, or invent non-existent characters, let alone transfer those who actually existed a hundred years back to that time. Yes Well, the word is - it's like kindergarten. Stupid and reckless. Yes After all, all this can be verified very easily. lol
                    I won't repeat what I said in my first comment, but apparently you didn't get it.
                    Continue to persist in your ignorance and falsifications? Fine. Then take this:
                    1. bayardLet's open the diary of F. Glinka, who served as Miloradovich's adjutant throughout the war. He also participated in the Battle of Borodino and described it as an eyewitness and participant. He has written everything there about Platov and Khanzhin: when they brought their Cossacks down, and about that raid, and about how "the brave ataman Khanzhin and his Cossacks acted heroically" in that raid.

                    In "Letters of a Russian Officer: Memories of the War of 1812" by F.N. Glinka there is not a word about this Yes There is information about Platov and Uvarov and the officers of their Cossack corps, but about General Ataman (!!!!???) Khanzhin - alas. Not a word. laughing
                    link: https://zyorna.ru/catalog/item/pisma-russkogo-oficera-vospominaniya-o-vojne-1812-goda-116990
                    Vika, in her article "The Raid of Platov's Cossacks and Uvarov's Cavalry Against the Left Flank and Rear of the Grand Army During the Battle of Borodino on August 26 (September 7), 1812," also doesn't mention General Ataman Khanzhin and his heroic Cossacks among the raid's participants.
                    link: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%B4_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A3%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0
                    That the Semirechye Cossacks did not yet exist in 1812. They would appear (with their first ataman, G.A. Kolpakovsky) only in July 1867.
                    Ссылка: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8
                    3bayard: And there was a big article about General Khanzhin himself on VO several years ago.

                    Missing the point again – the article wasn't about your invented hero of the War of 1812, but about Infantry General M.V. Khanzhin's participation in the Brusilov Offensive of WWI – "Hide and Show. Cavalry General A.A. Brusilov and Major General M.V. Khanzhin. Spring 1916"
                    link: https://topwar.ru/131973-spryatat-i-pokazat.html
                    4. bayardKhanzhin was an ataman, and a hereditary one, of the "Ural and Semirechye" army, as I read several years ago in a historiographic article by General Khanzhin. Again, during the Civil War, Khanzhin held the status of ataman of the Ural and Semirechye army. Apparently, they were then united.

                    And again, it's a miss. Kolchak's Minister of War, M.V. Khanzhin, was a fairly prominent figure during the Civil War, and there are numerous biographies of him online, but none mention his atamanship. Yes
                    ссылка: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
                    He's also not on the list of all atamans of the Russian Cossacks during the Civil War. Here you are again – lying. Yes
                    The ataman of the Ural Cossack army, both during the Civil War and later in exile, was the Cossack of the Gurevsky village, Lieutenant General V. S. Tolstov.
                    And the military atamans of the Semirechye Cossack army during the Civil War were successively: Shcherbakov Nikolai Sergeevich (November 1917 – 13(26).02.1918) - Ionov Alexander Mikhailovich (13(26).02.1918 – 18.11.1919 - and again Shcherbakov Nikolai Petrovich (19.11.1919 – 15.09.1922) - A.M. Ionov (in exile)
                    Source: Ivlev M.G. "Atamans of the Semirechensk Cossack Army" link:
                    https://ruskline.ru/analitika/2022/07/04/atamany_semirechenskogo_kazachego_voiska
                    4. bayardI know about Khanzhin from my grandfather's stories; it was his family village, named after him. True, it was called a village under Soviet rule. I also spent my early childhood in General Khanzhin's family village.

                    My God, what a mess you have in your head! Yes, General M.V. Khanzhin was a hereditary Cossack, but not from Semirechye, as you're making up, but from Orenburg. His parents were hereditary Orenburg Cossacks from the Blagoslovensky farmstead in the Orenburg region—Vasily Grigorievich and Ekaterina Petrovna. The future general himself was born in Samarkand on October 29, 1871, and has absolutely no connection to your village. Yes (see his biography).
                    PS. I can only guess at the reason for your persistent misconceptions, which underpin your falsifications: as a child, you apparently didn't listen well to your grandfather's stories about the history of your village—the former hamlet of St. Miasskaya. You probably heard something from him about its founder, Khanzhin, but that information has faded from your mind over time. I'll give you an idea: your village grew up on the site of a hamlet that belonged to the Isetsk ataman, Aleksey Matveyevich Khanzhin, whom you persistently confuse with his namesake, General Mikhail Vasilyevich. They are completely different people. The similarity of their surnames has nothing to do with it—they aren't related, just share the same last name. Under A. M. Khanzhin, the entire population of the hamlet was enrolled in the Isetsk Cossack class of the Miasskaya stan, 3rd Military Department of the OKV. Well, that's it in a nutshell. If you'd like to learn more about the true history of your ancestral village, I recommend A. Ulyanov's article on VK, "Petrovka: A Cossack Heritage." link - https://vk.com/wall-169480009_3623
                    And finally, unlike you, I don’t downvote my opponents in a dispute, but provide data with links.
                    I have no desire to continue our communication any longer.
                    All the best hi
                    1. 0
                      26 September 2025 23: 52
                      Young man, you've got everything mixed up, both in my words and in the sources you cited. My grandfather lived in the village of Khanzhino (I already indicated that the village/former stanitsa is of the same name, named after Khanzhino) in the Krasnoarmeysky District of the Chelyabinsk Region. I only mentioned Miasskoye because it had the status of a village and district center during the Soviet era, and became a stanitsa again in the 90s. I have relatives there. These are completely different settlements and are located quite a distance away.
                      Quote: Richard
                      In "Letters of a Russian Officer: Memories of the War of 1812" by F.N. Glinka there is not a word about this

                      Are you sure you read this book?
                      Khanzhin (the ataman) is mentioned twice there: when describing the arrival of troops at Borodino, Khanzhin is mentioned with his Uralians after Platov. And the second time is during the description of that raid, and at the end (of that raid). I have this book at home, so I can't double-check it or point to the page. But these quotes were given in an article (not about Brusilov) about Khanzhin. I don't remember the title, but at that time, articles were published at short intervals about Khanzhin, Borodin, the history of the defeat of the Chapayev Division headquarters, and a separate article about divisional commander Kutyakov (my aunt's father). I don't remember the names of the articles anymore, but they should be in the site archive. And about the origin of the Khanzhin family from the Chingizids, also in one of these VO articles.
                      I heard from my grandfather that the founder of the village was General Khanzhin, a veteran of the War of 1812. Later, I saw his name in Glinka's work. Later, a couple of VO articles mentioned this, including quotes from Glinka's book. And the fact that the commander of Kolchak's army was also from this family was also mentioned in those VO articles.
                      I haven't specifically studied or cared about the history of the Cossacks. My grandfather isn't a Cossack, he's from the Northern Urals, a dispossessed kulak, and after being exiled to Khanzhino, he worked as a forester and was respected by the locals... mostly by the descendants of Cossacks. It was in the woods, on the outskirts, and my grandfather's house was right on the edge, near the forestry. The people who lived there weren't just any ordinary people - they were descendants of White Cossacks from Borodin's division. He himself lived out his final days there. I was friends with his youngest grandson as a child; he was a year younger than me. Borodin died in the summer (August) of 1975, and the children of his former comrades-in-arms came to his funeral. Including the eldest son of Khanzhin's staff officer, also now General Dunayev (chief of counterintelligence for the Central Asian Military District), along with his nephew. From Tashkent. Later, fate brought me together with this nephew in Donbass, and it turned out that we simply had a bunch of mutual acquaintances.
                      I'm not trying to convince you of anything; I'm not interested in it at all. I'm not particularly interested in the history of the Ural Cossacks; for me, it's just a childhood memory, since I left there at the age of nine and only came back occasionally to visit. But it just so happened that in a number of publications on VO, I saw the stories of families and even relatives I knew. So, please don't be disingenuous; I've only written what I read on VO and other sources and what (practically the same thing) I've heard since childhood.
                      And yes, why are you so hung up on the Semirechye ataman? The article about Khanzhin mentioned the region of the "Great Ural and Semirechye Host" as his family's hereditary fiefdom—that's exactly how it was alluded to, all in one place, as a hereditary ataman. I didn't mention the Semirechye ataman separately, much less that he was from there. From that article, I actually understood it to be a single "region." However, materials on VO vary, including in terms of reliability. I haven't verified them, but I couldn't ignore these names. This is from childhood. And childhood memories are the most vivid.
                      Thanks for the link "Petrovka. Cossack Heritage." Khanzhino is indeed between two lakes, but the second lake there was almost never called Treustan—it was called Gorkoye. Because the water was very salty.
              2. -1
                2 December 2025 12: 37
                Chatter is verbose. It shows in you...
            3. +1
              28 September 2025 09: 18
              Quote: Richard
              But seriously, the history of the emergence of the Russian folk balalaika, as well as the Tatar folk dumbra, as well as the Central Asian dutar, according to the famous Russian music and art critic, historian of folk music, archivist, public figure of the 19th century, Honorary Academician of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since 1900), Privy Councilor Vladimir Vasilyevich Stasov


              Well, that's just his opinion. Similar string instruments originally appeared among the Persians, at a time when the Mongols simply didn't exist, and later among the Turkic peoples. From the latter, the Slavs adopted the gusli (even before the Christianization of Rus') and the balalaika. The name presumably comes from the Turkic "bala" meaning "child."
              The balalaika was first mentioned in Russian documents only in 1688, however. This was probably a late borrowing, when the "Tatar-Mongols" were no longer even mentioned.

              Much of what is attributed to the Mongols, they adopted from the Turks. Incidentally, the Turks inhabited Mongolia itself until the 6th century CE. So, this is not surprising. But the Russians became acquainted with the Turks even before the 13th century.
        2. +2
          24 September 2025 23: 28
          But that doesn't mean he couldn't play the balalaika. He might even have mastered the Stradivarin drum or another traditional Russian instrument.
      2. + 10
        23 September 2025 10: 38
        Quote: Gardamir
        No one can say anymore what happened forty years ago, but everyone argues about the events of a thousand years ago.

        Oddly enough, the more time passes, the more we know about the past. For example, even in the early 19th century, people had very little understanding of the Neolithic, let alone the age of dinosaurs.
        Or take Ancient Egypt. After Champollion deciphered their hieroglyphs, the volume of knowledge increased not just exponentially, but by an order of magnitude.
        1. +3
          23 September 2025 20: 56
          Where can I find texts written in deciphered hieroglyphs? Back in school, I asked my history teacher to show me their contents. I never got a clear answer to the question "Where?"
          1. +7
            24 September 2025 11: 46
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            Where can I get acquainted with the texts in deciphered hieroglyphs?

            Have you been banned in Google?
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            Back in school, I asked my history teacher to explain their contents. I never got a clear answer to the question, "Where are they?"

            My God, how was the teacher supposed to know? You, like me, a great sinner, probably studied, if not in the USSR, then certainly in the pre-Internet era?
            Well, here, for example, is the translation of "The Wanderings of Sinuhe"
            https://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/sinuhe.htm
        2. -1
          28 September 2025 09: 23
          It's just that the further the time goes, the easier it is to lie about the events that took place then.
          As for dinosaurs, modern views on these creatures differ from those of a century ago even more than the "New Chronology" of the notorious Fomenko differs from the traditional one as presented by Petavius ​​and Scaliger.
          Dinosaurs are no longer reptiles, but closer to birds. Well, birds, in fact, are the dinosaurs that didn't go extinct, but evolved.
          1. 0
            28 September 2025 14: 40
            Quote: Illanatol
            It's just that the further the time goes, the easier it is to lie about the events that took place then.

            Nothing like that. I mean, our contemporaries lie just as selflessly. Just look at the events surrounding the Maidan.
            Quote: Illanatol
            Modern views on these creatures differ from those of centuries ago.

            This is true, but even earlier their existence was simply not suspected.
      3. +1
        24 September 2025 19: 46
        No one can say anymore what happened forty years ago, but everyone argues about the events of a thousand years ago.
        So the history of the last forty years is a murky mess, nothing is clear. Everyone knows who fought where and how in the 10s, the Cold War is already somewhat murky, perestroika is interpreted by everyone in their own way, and the history of the last ten years is pure conspiracy theory. What's going on in the Northeast Asian region, what happened in Syria is completely unclear, speculation on all sides, the main participants are silent or bragging. recourse
    3. +1
      24 September 2025 02: 12
      You're right! I just don't have the slightest desire to take part in this bacchanalia!
  2. + 24
    23 September 2025 04: 12
    Another injection of information from the Author "about the Mongols", with a personal subtext, without the usual patronizing tone and, as usual, without a list of sources.
    What is it for?
    A rhetorical question - should we all strangle each other in the comments?
    My personal opinion is that the work should have been published in the opinion section.
    Have a nice day, everyone!
    1. + 10
      23 September 2025 06: 26
      Vladislav responded, after all. So, the task of posting the text has been accomplished.

      Anton would say something along the lines of "life-giving clickbait."
      1. + 19
        23 September 2025 08: 15
        "life-giving clickbait."

        Did I understand correctly that Genghis Khan and other Batu Khans are just a myth and the machinations of the Vatican? bully
        Hello, Sergey!
        1. +5
          23 September 2025 08: 40
          Hi Seryozha!

          You see, there is an opportunity to say hello.
          But can you really answer a rhetorical question?
        2. + 14
          23 September 2025 10: 32

          Did I understand correctly that Genghis Khan and other Batu Khans are just a myth and the machinations of the Vatican?


          When there is a wound on the heart,
          And it's cold in my chest
          To the cellars of the Vatican
          Come after midnight,
          There is no food and beer,
          Scurrying through the nights,
          The monks "glue" Clio,
          With wax candles
          1. +8
            23 September 2025 20: 31
            Did I understand correctly that Genghis Khan and other Batu Khans are just a myth and the machinations of the Vatican?

            That's right, Anton!
            The whole point here is that Batu, as a true Mongoloid—a typical representative of the Mongoloid (yellow) race, whose level of development was in the Mesolithic (as the esteemed author of the article puts it)—couldn't forgive his grandfather Timuchin for being a pale-faced, green-eyed Hyperborean, an Aryan, a Rusich, a Rus (as the esteemed author of the article puts it), and a deft balalaika player, yet he wouldn't let his grandson near it. Batu was therefore terribly envious of him and deeply resented his grandfather. This childhood resentment tormented Batu his entire life—he hated his grandfather from an early age and therefore invited no one to his funeral, burying him in secret—no one knows where to this day. And the scoundrel did this deliberately, so that Academician Gerasimov wouldn't be able to reconstruct Timuchin's true Aryan appearance from his skull. am
            This caused discontent among the Mongol authorities, uninvited to the funeral of their Genghis Don, and they brought charges against Batu. He then quickly packed his bags and fled to Italy, where he founded his own organized crime group, the "Vatican," becoming its godfather, or, as he called himself, "Pope." Indeed, the very name "Vatican" is nothing more than a Latinized corruption of our native Hyperborean word "Batu Khan." Furthermore, in exile, Batu began spreading lies and filthy tales about Timuchen in the Roman media, denigrating his illustrious name. This, over time, has given rise to a host of inaccuracies among modern historians. The myth of "Mongols from Mongolia in Rus'" is the Vatican's most colossal and monstrous provocation (as the esteemed author puts it).
            But Batu confided his true childhood obsessions and grievances against his grandfather, who did not let him near the balalaika, only to his diary, which is still kept somewhere in the basements of the Vatican and awaits its researcher (ideally, A. Samsonov).
            This is how our balalaika unwittingly became a catalyst for monstrous historical disinformation.
            A huge thank you from the readers to the respected Alexander Samsonov for the fact that this is not the first time that he has raised this topic, which is important for our entire history!!!!
            laughing
            1. +4
              23 September 2025 20: 56
              Hi Dima!
              In any case, we made a "cash register" for the author today. request
            2. +4
              23 September 2025 21: 17
              Quote: Richard
              That's right, Anton!
              The whole point here is that Batu, as a true Mongoloid - a typical representative of the Mongoloid (yellow) race, who was in the Mesolithic in terms of his level of development (as the respected author of the article puts it), could not forgive his grandfather Timuchin for being a pale-faced, green-eyed Hyperborean Aryan Rusich-Rus (as the respected author of the article puts it) and a dashing strummer of the balalaika, but he did not let his grandson near it.

              Stopudovo Richard good You seated the author Samsonov past the bench... laughing Let him know who he's talking to. laughing hi Speaking of the balalaika, it's no coincidence that when this black guy was US President, he issued an edict banning the balalaika in the US in 2011. There was a lot of talk about this edict on VO... laughing
            3. +1
              24 September 2025 16: 19
              drinks laughing good
              The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
        3. + 10
          23 September 2025 10: 41
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          Are Genghis Khan and other Batu Khans just a myth and the machinations of the Vatican?
          This is all the machinations of the State Department...
        4. + 16
          23 September 2025 10: 42
          Quote: ArchiPhil
          Did I understand correctly that Genghis Khan and other Batu Khans are just a myth and the machinations of the Vatican?

          “What,” he says, “there is a story, if Catherine the Great is Ivan Krovka, a disguised cat-like army of the Zaporizhzhya grassroots.”
    2. +4
      23 September 2025 07: 53
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Another injection of information from the Author "

      hi
      The author?

      Samsonov:
      and there were no Mongols from Mongolia.

      Unfortunately, this myth was created in the Vatican

      But the "historian" Petukhov discovered this earlier:
      The myth of "Mongols in Rus'" is the most colossal and monstrous provocation of the Vatican and the West as a whole against Russia! There was no Mongoloid invasion of Rus'. It simply didn't happen.
      .
      And here are some more of Petukhovsky's discoveries:
      Petukhov's own ideas include, in particular, such constructions in which he produces Apollo from Kupala, Indra, Thor and Taran from Perun, "Tarkh Tarkhovich" - also from Perun, through the verb "to fuck" The author derives all Indo-European peoples from the Proto-Slavs, viewing them as mere offshoots of the Slavic root. Accordingly, all mythologies, according to the author, are derivatives of the Slavic one. The author wrote about the kinship of two-root names. Hercules and Yaroslav, Pericles and Pereyaslav and others.,.
      lol
      1. + 16
        23 September 2025 08: 18
        Samsonov

        After such *creations* all desire to laugh at the neighbors disappears, really! laughing Samsonov is beyond competition! A titan, a lump, a seasoned man. bully
        1. -1
          27 September 2025 10: 12
          You can criticize Samsonov, you can engage in polemics after his articles. I don't like his excessive use of "Rusy" either, but no one offers an answer to one of the main questions posed in this article, which has intrigued me for 30 of my 50 years: "Where is the Mongoloid gene in Ryazan and other regions?"
          Let's leave aside the logistics and survivability of Mongolian horses, which feed from under the snow during long journeys, and foreign and Russian maps of Tartaria (different Tartarias at different times, and even those existing simultaneously). Where are the genes?
          1. +1
            27 September 2025 11: 26
            Genes, where are they?

            And why would they be? bully Captives were taken away, and children born to "filthy" people were rarely accepted by the community. Rather, Russian genes can be found throughout the Mongol Empire. hi
          2. 0
            2 December 2025 12: 52
            You troubled, pimply teenagers no longer care about who was having sex with whom during the Mongol invasion. Have you ever wondered why the Mongols, whose army was so strictly disciplined, were forced to have sex with someone, thereby distracting them from their combat mission? Failure to do so was punished harshly.
        2. 0
          2 December 2025 12: 48
          Yes, with people like Samsonov we cease to be any different from Ukrainians, who dug the Black Sea and generally gave rise to all of humanity...
    3. +8
      23 September 2025 08: 30
      A rhetorical question - should we all strangle each other in the comments?

      I have another suggestion. You can just... laugh. Morning laughter is very, very good for a person. laughing
      1. +3
        23 September 2025 19: 05
        You can just...laugh.

        You're wrong about that, Sergei Vladimirovich! The topic Samsonov raised is relevant today. And I can clearly explain what happened then and now. Unfortunately, I'm not very well, so I'll limit myself to just one question. Can you explain why the Presidential Administration was afraid of the Religious Procession? And depending on your answer, I'll understand to what extent you're justified in judging Samsonov's article so superficially.
        1. +5
          23 September 2025 19: 24
          To what extent are you entitled to judge Samsonov's article so superficially?

          Lyudmila Yakovlevna, forgive me, but I'm reading what I'm reading right now, and from this author. If he touches on the topic of why the presidential administration was scared (if it was, which I seriously doubt), then I'll express my opinion. For now, forgive me again, but this is a discussion about "why Volodka shaved his mustache." It's completely off topic. This is my opinion, despite my friendly disposition. hi With the greatest respect!
          1. +3
            23 September 2025 19: 29
            With the greatest respect!

            OK )))
            I'll gather my strength, write a long article, and post it as a few comments on a suitable topic. This is a crucial issue.
            So I'm wondering if the new COVID can be transmitted over the internet? Otherwise, I'll infect everyone here.
            1. +3
              23 September 2025 21: 00
              I'm wondering if the new Covid can be transmitted over the internet? Otherwise, I'll infect everyone here.
              It's okay, Lyudmila Yakovlevna, we'll put respirators on the monitors and post comments at a distance of 1,5 meters from each other.
              1. +4
                23 September 2025 21: 10
                We'll put respirators on the monitors and...



                Anton... A real holiday man! )))
                good wassat drinks ))))
                1. +4
                  23 September 2025 21: 14
                  I decided to remember my old role as the "evil Pierrot", my Columbine.
                  "A holiday that is always with you!"
              2. +3
                23 September 2025 21: 20
                We'll put respirators on our monitors and post comments 1,5 meters apart.

                ,,, laughing A minstrel has a place in any chat; he can joke, lift the mood, and smooth over conflict with a witty remark.
                1. +2
                  23 September 2025 21: 25
                  Yep. And then - bam!!!
                  "And the head rolled,
                  At the feet of the beautiful queen" (c) crying
                  1. +2
                    24 September 2025 16: 16
                    my Columbine.

                    Greetings, Anton!
                    Honestly, I didn't immediately grasp why Columbine, since our dear Lyudmila Yakovlevna has never been known to spread speculation or gossip, until I remembered she's an engineer and physicist with a passion for research. And once again, I was amazed by your erudition and your precise metaphors. Only a person familiar with the 25-volume work "Biblioteca delle tradizioni popolari siciliane" by the famous Italian ethnographer and folklorist Giuseppe Pitré could compare our highly respected Lyudmila Yakovlevna with Columbine. In this work, he irrefutably proved that the folkloric Columbine was in fact not a chatty procuress - an intriguer, a gossip and a poisoner, whose image was firmly entrenched in the minds of the people at the instigation of the Catholic Church, but a real court lady of the Sicilian March-Countess Adelaide of Savona, a certain Colombina di Aci Costelo, who actually existed in the 11th century. She was seriously interested in alchemy, astrology, the study of physical, chemical and natural phenomena and was known for her accurate predictions.
                    1. +1
                      24 September 2025 22: 00
                      Hi Dima!
                      I'll surprise you yet.... wink
                    2. +1
                      24 September 2025 23: 13
                      Dima, I'll surprise you again... wink
            2. +4
              24 September 2025 06: 41
              new covid

              Is it worth remembering this herd management test and its positive result? bully
      2. 0
        2 December 2025 12: 54
        Reading all this Samson stuff, all you can do is not even laugh, but LAUGH and point your finger at him...
    4. +9
      23 September 2025 08: 59
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Another injection of information from the Author "about the Mongols", with a personal subtext, without the usual patronizing tone and, as usual, without a list of sources.


      I like the source material. In some works dedicated to our Civil War (just a century ago), some White Guard figures and writers referred to the "Reds" as either Huns or Scythians. It's scary to imagine what conclusions future historians might draw based on such "historical documents."
      I agree with the author entirely on one point: the notorious "Tatar-Mongols" have nothing to do with modern Mongols. And how can we explain the fact that, several centuries later, the Manchus, supposedly nearly exterminated by Genghis Khan, will once again rule China, producing several emperors, while the Mongols will once again find themselves at the very bottom, despised by their neighbors, having completely forgotten their organizational skills, military technology, and other gifts of progress?
      To create a great empire without having its own written language, then completely lose all its perks and fall to the very bottom - such precedents are hard to find.
      1. +7
        23 September 2025 14: 33
        I apologize for the profanity-laden question. Why is everyone talking about the Mongols and forgetting about their other half, the Tatars? Who are the Tatars? For example, back in the 19th century, all inhabitants of the Caucasus were called Tatars; Lev Nikolayevich wouldn't let me lie.
        1. +1
          24 September 2025 13: 28
          Is this even the name of a people?
          There is a theory that the word "Tatar" comes from the Old Russian word "tat", meaning "robber".
          There's also a theory that the "Tatars" were those who came from beyond the Tatra Mountains in the Czech Republic. That is, the Tatars came from the west and were European crusaders of the "Golden Order." They supposedly conquered Constantinople and then set about conquering the "Orthodox" periphery (Rus', Georgia).

          Mongol comes from the Latin "magnum," meaning "great." Magnates, in short. In Poland, nobles called themselves Mongol and also considered themselves descendants of great conquerors, whom the local Slavic cattle were expected to serve faithfully as a conquered people.
          1. +2
            24 September 2025 14: 38
            I don’t know why, but I have the impression that all Muslims used to be called Tatars.
            1. 0
              25 September 2025 23: 25
              Quote: Gardamir
              I don’t know why, but I have the impression that all Muslims used to be called Tatars.
              Not certainly in that way...
              Here is a map from the times of the Russian Empire, it has a designation on it Turkic-Tatars - Azerbaijanis and Kyrgyz (Kazakhs, Turkmens - counted as Kyrgyz) - are practically combined into one group, and Chuvash, Kalmyks and Bashkirs are also added to them a little separately.

              This was the scientific conclusion during the Russian Empire.
        2. 0
          2 December 2025 13: 17
          The Tatars were a Mongol-speaking tribe living on the border of the nomads north of China. They coexisted peacefully with China and traded with it. China called them White Tatars, while those who lived further north and had less contact with China, which periodically attacked it, were called Black Tatars. Since communication with the outside world was primarily via the Great Silk Road, which was controlled by China, the rest of the world knew the nomads living north of China as Tatars. The fact that they were Mongols was of no concern to anyone except researchers of the time. Well, Tatars, then Tatars. And so it went...
      2. 0
        2 December 2025 13: 03
        And will the Mongols once again find themselves at the very bottom, despised by their neighbors, having completely forgotten about their organizational skills, military technology, and other gifts of progress?
        Because they, the Mongols, became Buddhists. Look at those countries where the state religion is Buddhism, specifically the Gelug sect, and where, for hundreds of years, the highest religious figure, the Bogda Gegeen, was at the head of state, and you will understand that this is the path to the degradation of the people and the state.
        To create a great empire without having its own written language
        There's no point in showing your limitations here. Writing existed in the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan—it was created by him based on the Uyghur script—and it still exists there, in Mongolia, today.
        then completely lose all the perks and fall to the very bottom - you'll have to look hard to find such precedents.
        I've already spoken about the role of Buddhism in the Gelug sect's narrative. Tibet, Mongolia, Tuva, Kalmykia... Everything was lost by the representatives of these peoples. And in Tibet, there was nothing at all. And by spreading their sectarianism to these peoples, they forced them to lose everything and descend to their level.
      3. 0
        2 December 2025 13: 09
        The notorious "Tatar-Mongols" have nothing to do with modern Mongols.
        Well, at least you could have provided some arguments. But when comparing modern Mongols with the Mongols of Genghis Khan, don't forget to compare modern Russia with 13th-century Russia. Some limited-minded people have this strange habit of comparing Russia's current level of development with Mongolia's medieval development.
    5. + 11
      23 September 2025 09: 28
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      A rhetorical question - should we all strangle each other in the comments?

      No, the commentators are unusually unanimous in their opinion))))
      1. +7
        23 September 2025 10: 59
        No, the commentators are unusually unanimous in their opinion))))

        Yeah, Dmitry, you wouldn't know!
        Now they'll take offense at us, turn on their administrative resources, and we'll welcome the first star with skulls on its shoulder straps!
        1. +5
          23 September 2025 17: 21
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          Yeah, Dmitry, you wouldn't know!
          Now they'll take offense at us, turn on their administrative resources, and we'll welcome the first star with skulls on its shoulder straps!

          Yes, Vladislav! I have only one remark from the site administration, and it's for the negative comment addressed to the Respected Author. wink
    6. +6
      23 September 2025 14: 22
      It's time to kick out the author as a discrediting element. Better yet, let him write on alternative sites; they have the right audience, everyone's stewing in their own cauldron.
      1. +5
        23 September 2025 15: 34
        Quote: Dart
        It's time to kick out the author as a discrediting element. Better yet, let him write on alternative sites; they have the right audience, everyone's stewing in their own cauldron.

        If only they hadn't put us up against the wall! laughing
      2. +9
        23 September 2025 18: 10
        Quote: Dart
        It's better if he writes on alternative websites, they have the right audience.

        You're mistaken. At least on Boroda's website, such gems are immediately dismissed. True alternative historians are interested in how real history might have unfolded had it taken a different turn at the so-called "bifurcation point."
        And under the slogan "everything was not as it really was" - cryptohistorians are cultivating the field.
      3. + 10
        23 September 2025 18: 11
        Quote: Dart
        It's better if he writes on alternative websites, they have the right audience.

        No. The author would have been torn into a British flag for such refinements.
    7. +9
      23 September 2025 16: 48
      What is it for?

      What's the point of this latest alternative hype from Samsonov on the historical thread? Ivan Ochenkov explained it very sensibly above: Yes
      Well, I'm hungry.

      Samsonov's articles are practically unread by readers, and their views are low—so the head of the history branch is forced to make a living from hype and alternative themes. He has little choice here—history is here to stay, and everyone's always hungry.
    8. +1
      2 December 2025 12: 43
      All these Samsonov tales, and those like them, are intended to destroy the history of the Russian people and the peoples of Russia, and therefore the Russian people and peoples of Russia themselves. Their efforts will destroy existing history, and no new history will be created, since a bunch of scoundrels and swindlers like Samsonov will fight over its writing. Ultimately, nothing new will be created, and the old will be destroyed. THAT'S IT! There is no history of the Russian people. And then there is no people deprived of history.
      1. +1
        2 December 2025 20: 59
        I haven't read your comments for a long time, Andrey, glad to see you on VO!!! drinks
        1. +1
          2 December 2025 21: 03
          Thank you. It's good to see you too. And to read your always sensible comments... I'm from SVO, I've been busy, so to speak. And now it's over, the war is over...
          1. +1
            3 December 2025 22: 49
            May God bless you!
            I know the comment is short.
            1. +1
              4 December 2025 23: 06
              Thank you. And may you stay healthy too.
  3. -3
    23 September 2025 04: 26

    And the fact that Rus' fought Rus' is a common occurrence in history. It's enough to recall how Oleg the Prophet and Yaroslav the Wise took Kyiv. How the sons of Vladimir the Saint and Yaroslav fought for power.

    Yeah...in our time...Prigozhin's march on Moscow alone is worth something against Shoigu's entourage. smile
    Now this whole story has been swept under the rug...like it never happened and that's it...I think they'll try to erase Prigozhin's name from the history of modern Russia...he never happened and that's it.
    So Samsonov is not so wrong.
    It's difficult to argue with him somewhere.
    1. +8
      23 September 2025 06: 32
      Yeah...in our time...Prigozhin's march on Moscow alone is worth something against Shoigu's entourage.
      Now this whole story has been swept under the rug...like it never happened and that's it...

      Not quite right. You just want this topic to be constantly discussed for some reason.
    2. + 11
      23 September 2025 08: 27
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Now this whole story has been swept under the rug...like it never happened and that's it...I think they'll try to erase Prigozhin's name from the history of modern Russia...he never happened and that's it.

      "The billionaire oligarch went to Moscow for justice" - no matter how you rearrange the words in this sentence, it still comes out as nonsense.
      And the funniest thing is that the billionaire oligarch is supported by those who can't stand oligarchs. It's a real dichotomy...
      1. +6
        23 September 2025 08: 33
        And the funniest thing is that those who can’t stand oligarchs are rooting for the billionaire oligarch.

        It's very similar to watching football and hockey matches, considering the athletes' salaries and, actually... your own pocket. bully Although? *Guilty, Your Honor!* hi
  4. + 21
    23 September 2025 04: 32
    Oh, a living Fomenkovets, I haven't seen any animals in a long time
    By the way, the Rus' also fought the lizards, so that's something we need to write about, too. Because the enemies are hiding it.
    1. + 15
      23 September 2025 04: 57
      Quote: Kvakosavrus
      Oh, a living Fomenkovets, I haven't seen any animals in a long time

      This isn't exactly Fomenkoism. Fomenko and his team's entire story is fabricated and simply invented. Here, the events of classical history and their dating are preserved, only in the place of the Mongols are "Scythian-Siberian-Volga hordes-tribes of pagan Rus." And the Mongols were invented by the pernicious and omnipresent Vatican.
      In a word, "Churchill came up with all this in 1918!"
      1. +9
        23 September 2025 09: 04
        Is it only Fomenko? In fact, the venerable Sir Isaac Newton was the first to question the traditional chronology. He, too, was fascinated by history. Fomenko and Nosovsky are merely epigones of both Newton and Morozov.
        And I don't see any compelling reason to trust the likes of Scaliger and Petavius ​​unquestioningly. They're no more trustworthy than Newton.
  5. +8
    23 September 2025 04: 34
    Yeah, the author mixed Scythians in for some reason! They lived 3-4 years, maybe more, before the "Mongol yoke." Yes, the Scythians were mostly Caucasian, but there were other races, including Mongoloids. In short, it's a read for those who watch Ren-TV. There's some truth to it, of course, but only a little!)
    1. +7
      23 September 2025 09: 48
      The author began with the absence of Mongoloid skulls in the burial grounds of that time, and draws very extravagant conclusions from this fact. The question is: were there skulls or not? Who examined which burial grounds, genetic analysis of the bones... where is all this? The descendants of the Chingizids are very numerous; many in Central Asia still trace their lineage back to them.
  6. + 16
    23 September 2025 04: 51
    After reading this article I should go and have a drink. For enlightenment. wink
    1. +4
      23 September 2025 04: 56
      ❝ After reading this article, I really need to go and have a drink. For enlightenment ❞ —
      1. +2
        23 September 2025 21: 32
        That's not bad, but what if this...
    2. +7
      23 September 2025 08: 20
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      After reading this article I should go and have a drink. For enlightenment. wink

      Misha, you can't get by with just one glass!!!
      fellow
      Start with the box!!!
      1. +8
        23 September 2025 08: 48
        Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Start with the box!!!
        My norm is a shot with every meal. No more. wink
    3. +2
      23 September 2025 08: 35
      have a drink.

      A shot? A glass! bully
      enlightenment

      For oblivion. wink
  7. + 14
    23 September 2025 05: 38
    Attention! Insider tip! Announcement of the next publication from our favorite author:
    1. +6
      23 September 2025 06: 06
      That's how it was, my great-grandfather rode to school on a dinosaur!
      1. +9
        23 September 2025 10: 44
        Quote: Kvakosavrus
        My great-grandfather rode to school on a dinosaur!
        And mine flew there on an Archaeopterex...
    2. +1
      23 September 2025 21: 35
      Quote: severok1979
      Announcing the next publication from our favorite author:

      Well, at least it's not that..., but maybe...
  8. +2
    23 September 2025 05: 41
    How many centuries have passed, but he can come to terms with the conquests of the Mongols and the greatest empire in all of history.
  9. + 11
    23 September 2025 05: 55
    It's always been interesting. The Mongol campaigns are dubious, but the myths about Sasha the Great are believed without question.
  10. +5
    23 September 2025 06: 03
    The word “Horde” itself is a distortion of the Russian word “Rod”, “Rada” in the European manner.

    Heh, now it's going to start in the independent country!!!
    The tsars and princes of the Horde-Rod called themselves khans. But in Kievan Rus', princes also often called themselves khagans or kogans.

    Our sources called the Horde khans kings. Princes – no one!
    Khan and Kagan! Why not "Padishah"!!! laughing
    Only our first princes from the Rurik dynasty were mentioned as Khagans. Is this connected to the Tatar-Mongol invasion? request
    Three hundred years before them, there was a discussion about where to assign the title of Khagan...
    1. +4
      23 September 2025 09: 09
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      Three hundred years before them, there was a discussion about where to assign the title of Khagan...


      To the khans, of course. It's the same thing.

      Kagan = kaan = khan.
      The Khagans ruled in Khazaria. The word may have come from Hebrew (khagan, kahal...)
      1. +1
        23 September 2025 20: 38
        Quote: Illanatol
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        Three hundred years before them, there was a discussion about where to assign the title of Khagan...


        To the khans, of course. It's the same thing.

        Kagan = kaan = khan.
        The Khagans ruled in Khazaria. The word may have come from Hebrew (khagan, kahal...)

        Khagans came into use at the beginning of the Great Migration Period. The Avars, Bulgars, and others like them had them. The Khazars had a khan, and so did the others. Judaism has nothing to do with this; the supreme ruler of the Khazars was called a kagan before adopting the faith. Incidentally, the second-in-command was called a "bek."
  11. +4
    23 September 2025 06: 04
    "Yes, yes, white, hot, completely white!"
    Here, in my opinion, it will be even cooler. wassat
  12. BAI
    + 10
    23 September 2025 06: 09
    The bad thing is that the films show traditional "Mongols from Mongolia."

    Are the Mongols in the movie "The Legend of Kolovrat" traditional? And Batu Khan is some kind of transgender.
    1. +4
      23 September 2025 09: 56
      Yeah, a typical Eurovision or Intervision winner, I started getting them confused. Yes laughing
    2. +7
      23 September 2025 10: 48
      Quote: BAI
      Yes, Batu Khan there is some kind of transgender.

      This was our answer to Hollywood)))
      (On BDSM artist Xerxes))
      1. +5
        23 September 2025 18: 13
        Quote: Senior Sailor
        This was our answer to Hollywood)))
        (On BDSM artist Xerxes))

        laughing good drinks
        This is a funny joke:))))
    3. +4
      23 September 2025 12: 43
      Quote: BAI
      The bad thing is that the films show traditional "Mongols from Mongolia."

      Are the Mongols in the movie "The Legend of Kolovrat" traditional? And Batu Khan is some kind of transgender.

      These are the trends. Look at the movie about the three hundred Spartans. The Persian king looks unreal.
  13. +7
    23 September 2025 06: 09
    The real Mongols at that time were at the level of development of the North American Indian tribes.
    The Mongols lived next to China, from which they had much to learn. Some of them even became Chinese emperors. An example from history - the Gauls who lived near Rome and learned a lot from it...
    1. BAI
      + 10
      23 September 2025 06: 16
      An example from history is the Gauls, who lived near Rome and learned a lot from it...

      The Gauls are the descendants of the proto-Ukrainians from Galicia. They were the ones who taught ancient Rome everything.
      1. +7
        23 September 2025 06: 21
        Quote: BAI
        The Gauls are the descendants of the proto-Ukrainians from Galicia. They were the ones who taught ancient Rome everything.
        I missed that...
      2. +1
        23 September 2025 12: 45
        Quote: BAI
        An example from history is the Gauls, who lived near Rome and learned a lot from it...

        The Gauls are the descendants of the proto-Ukrainians from Galicia. They were the ones who taught ancient Rome everything.

        I believe it, I believe it. From a good Armenian cartoon.
      3. +1
        24 September 2025 04: 23
        Yeah. And Asterix and Obelix are ancient Zaporozhian Cossacks.
    2. +2
      23 September 2025 09: 14
      Quote: Luminman
      The Mongols lived near China, from which they had much to learn. Some of them even became Chinese emperors. A historical example is the Gauls, who lived near Rome and learned much from it.


      And what did they learn? Perhaps they at least adopted writing or self-organization skills?
      This is clearly a poor example. It's more likely that the Romans learned from the Gauls. Until a certain point, the Gauls were wealthier than the Romans and had advanced technology (including military technology).
      Gallic weapons and armor were highly prized in Rome. Gladiators representing Gauls in the Colosseum fought in heavy armor.
      One could say they had almost reached feudalism, which is why they were fragmented. The Gaulish-Celtic society was caste-based, quite strictly stratified.
      1. +5
        23 September 2025 10: 23
        Quote: Illanatol
        And what did they learn?

        Military art - the Mongols learned to take well-fortified cities in China
        Post, paper, metallurgy, and many other things. The very size of the Horde was a consequence of Chinese influence; without their experience, it would have been simply impossible to organize the tools for governing such a large entity. Furthermore, only after capturing territories in the south were the Mongol army able to equip themselves en masse with good armor. The average rank-and-file Horde warrior who came to Rus' was far from the pauper depicted in films. His equipment was worth as much as an entire peasant farm, and even several. And he usually brought one or two horses with him. All this was quite expensive by the standards of the time.
        1. 0
          23 September 2025 10: 28
          If you feed a horse only grass, it won't go far.
          1. +6
            23 September 2025 10: 30
            Quote: Gardamir
            If you feed a horse only grass

            Read about the normal conditions for Mongolian horses. Don't compare a European knight's steed to a Mongolian horse. They were very different.
            1. 0
              23 September 2025 10: 40
              For simple Mongolian horses peacefully grazing or warlike ones making marches? Incidentally, why did the "Mongols" like to fight in Rus' in winter?
              1. +5
                23 September 2025 10: 45
                Quote: Gardamir
                By the way, why did the "Mongols" like to fight in Rus' in winter?

                A nation of masochists. There's nothing better to do than fight thousands of kilometers from home.
                So a Mongol sits in a yurt and thinks: "No, I'm bored enough, I need to ride a couple thousand kilometers, shake off the fat."
            2. +6
              23 September 2025 13: 38
              Quote: multicaat
              Read about the normal conditions for Mongolian horses. Don't compare a European knight's steed to a Mongolian horse. They were very different.


              I have to disappoint you: the physiology of all horses, like people, doesn't differ much. The endurance and racing qualities of Mongolian horses have been greatly exaggerated by novelists. A war horse, regardless of breed, must be fed high-calorie forage, otherwise it will barely move its hooves. And Mongolian horses die from starvation ("jute"), just like any other.
              Ask yourself: if Mongolian horses are so good, why don't they shine in races, hippodromes, why aren't they particularly popular with wealthy breeders, Arab sheikhs, for example?
              Mongolian horses are quite ordinary. In terms of ease of maintenance, they're even inferior to the Yakut breed. Oddly enough, the Yakuts, like the neighboring Chukchi, haven't been noted for their extensive conquests.
              The best fighting breed of racehorse was and remains the Akhal-Teke pacer.
              1. +5
                23 September 2025 14: 21
                Quote: Illanatol
                Ask yourself: If Mongolian horses are so good, why don't they shine in races?

                That's why they had only two important qualities: climate resistance and efficiency. They couldn't carry much weight, weren't particularly fast, and simply carried it without breakdowns or maintenance. They carried exactly what was needed and nothing more. Incidentally, this is why steppe dwellers had to take two or three horses with them, because carrying a rider and cargo was simply too much in terms of efficiency.
              2. +2
                24 September 2025 06: 44
                == Ask yourself: if Mongolian horses are so good, why don’t they shine in races, hippodromes, why aren’t they particularly popular with rich breeders, Arab sheikhs, for example ==

                Mongolians value Mongolian horses for a different purpose: endurance and ease of maintenance. This is necessary for a horse to survive and maintain performance in temperatures ranging from -50°C to +50°C. The standard distance for Mongolian races is 30 km. There are summer (July) and winter (January-February) naadams. In July, temperatures are typically around +40°C, while in winter, they drop to -40°C. In such climates and over such distances, most purebreds would simply die.
                The Yakut horse is a direct descendant of Mongolian-type horses, because the Yakuts descended the Lena from the Baikal region, displaced by the Mongolian-speaking ancestors of the Buryats.
                This video features a story about winter horse racing in the Huluin-Buir aimag of Inner Mongolia, China; watch from the 25th minute. Incidentally, the video's subjects are the Shenehen Buryats—a Buryat émigré community in China that emerged in the first third of the 20th century. This is clearly evident in their clothing and headdresses.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPa71mzncY&list=PL4YcmB6duia9nslHqDLEiVuUvxOC-lnEN&index=3
              3. +1
                2 December 2025 13: 32
                There's still a lot to teach you about the past and present, judging by such basic questions, which speaks to a complete ignorance of the subject... Come to the Mongolian horse races and see Mongolian horses in action. Any other thoroughbred horse would die in the first 10 km of these races, let alone the entire 30 km.
              4. +1
                2 December 2025 13: 46
                Quote: Illanatol
                A war horse, regardless of breed, must be fed high-calorie forage, otherwise it will barely move its hooves. Mongolian horses die from lack of food ("jute"), just like any other.

                Cavalry divisions' raids into the German rear areas near Moscow were only possible with Mongolian horses, which could feed on the grass. And those "combat" horses fed on high-calorie fodder are only good for parades.

                "At first, we thought such small horses wouldn't be able to carry soldiers with their full gear... Having traveled difficult military roads on Mongolian horses, we were convinced that they were strong, tireless, and undemanding in their diet. During the short breaks between battles, they nibbled on grass, gnawed on tree bark, and were always ready to fight."

                From the book by Alexander Lepekhin "The First Guards Cavalry Corps"
                Mongolia supplied half a million horses to the Red Army.
          2. +1
            2 December 2025 13: 28
            You, such simpletons, should be brought to the Mongolian steppe, even the current one, and allowed to spend the winter with the family of a modern arat. All this mental suffering would be immediately banished from your minds. You would know perfectly well how cattle graze outside year-round without any reserves, on grass alone.
            1. 0
              2 December 2025 13: 58
              What, you don’t give grain on principle?
              1. 0
                2 December 2025 14: 13
                Firstly, there's no need for this. The Mongol cattle are fed with enough food. This diet has been present in horses, as well as cattle, sheep, and other herbivores, for centuries. It provides everything they need, and the very existence of these animals after so many centuries speaks for itself. Secondly, the Mongols, like the nomads before them, had no grain; they didn't cultivate or grow it. And buying it in huge quantities from the Chinese, for example, when there was nutritious food available, would have been a foolish undertaking.
        2. +1
          23 September 2025 12: 49
          Quote: multicaat
          mail, paper and metallurgy and many other things.

          And plus the Uyghurs. They made quite a significant contribution.
        3. +1
          23 September 2025 13: 20
          Both in the 19th and even in the 20th centuries, the Mongols demonstrated an almost complete lack of this "military art." And in earlier times, the same Manchus chased the Mongols across the steppe with piss-soaked rags.
          And there have never been any "well-equipped warriors" in Mongolia. They were pure savages until modern times, and even now, in terms of development, they are roughly on par with Nigeria.
          And yes... the Mongols themselves never considered themselves Mongols or called themselves Mongols. That nickname was imposed on them by others. Incidentally, Indians don't call themselves Indians, and the Chinese don't call themselves Chinese.
          The origin of the word "Mongol" remains a great mystery. It's possible that it originally referred not to a people but to a group of people with a similar occupation (similar to the term "pirate").

          Yes, the Mongols were rich and developed. A reasonable question arises: why did they enter the 20th century as utter paupers, lacking the skills to govern or a combat-ready regular army, occupying territories least suitable for habitation and economic activity?
          Why do the neighboring Buryats (according to Mongolian fables, the portion of the Mongols who refused to go on military campaigns of conquest) so noticeably surpass these Mongols in both development and quality of life? And they only chuckle when they hear about the "great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan"? He most likely had a real historical prototype, but it's unlikely he was a Mongol. He was either a Manchu or some other local.
          The Manchus are related to the Mongols, but a more developed and numerous people. They ruled the region more than once, including China. But they weren't known for their campaigns against Rus' or Europe; apparently, they didn't need to. Well, yes, if they'd conquered at least half of China, why attack distant and impoverished Rus'? China has everything and more. Precious metals, spices, silk, slave labor—everything in abundance. Only in bad historical novels would you think of driving slaves thousands of kilometers to China. Yes, yes, to Tula with your samovar, to Newcastle with your coal... laughing
          1. +2
            23 September 2025 13: 26
            Quote: Illanatol
            And there have never been any "well-equipped warriors" in Mongolia.

            The excavations show a different story. Klim Zhukov recounted how the expedition recently concluded.
            Quote: Illanatol
            Were the Mongols rich and developed?

            Firstly, I don’t see any connection between this question and the discussion, and secondly, there are no such statements either.
            I'll note that they weren't poor, but as for development, it depends on what you consider it. For example, some peoples developed writing, others improved livestock breeds, others cleared the land of stones and expanded cultivated areas, others perfected their naval skills, and others developed crafts.
          2. +9
            23 September 2025 17: 35
            Quote: Illanatol
            Both in the 19th and even in the 20th century, the Mongols showed an almost complete lack of this “military art”.

            Well, Anatoly, let's be honest – today's Italians are also seriously inferior to the Roman legionaries, and the French of the 20th century are clearly inferior to the French of the 16th-18th centuries. The Poles initially created a decent country and even beat the Turks and Germans, but then something "broke" in them. So there's no need to compare today with the past century.
            The analogies seem clear)
            The origin of the word "Mongol" remains a great mystery. It's possible that it originally referred not to a people but to a group of people with a similar occupation (similar to the term "pirate").

            It's a perfectly possible assumption. Personally, when reading old texts, I got the impression that it was simply a collective name for "Tatars," for example, steppe robbers. Maybe I'm wrong.
            And yes, in Rus', "Nemtsy" wasn't just a term used to describe Germans.
            Sincerely.
          3. +2
            24 September 2025 04: 30
            Quote: Illanatol
            A reasonable question arises: why did they enter the 20th century as complete paupers, without any skills in public administration or a combat-ready regular army, occupying territories that were the least suitable for habitation and economic activity?

            Read the memoirs of travelers to Mongolia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including those who took part in Roerich's journey through Tibet to India. They noted that the Mongols, unlike the Han, maintained their personal independence, and the Honghuzi did not dare to plunder Mongol-inhabited areas. The Mongol state power was simply slightly different, but no less effective than that of sedentary tribes. The Russians had great difficulty subjugating both the Buryats and the Mongols. But the Manchus were only able to stop Khabarov's advance up the Sungari River with the help of Korean riflemen.
          4. +4
            24 September 2025 07: 54
            Clearly, you have a poor understanding of East Asian history. The Mongols of the Qing Empire under the Manchu Dynasty were considered a privileged military class, but their organization differed. The Mongols of Inner Mongolia, which the Manchus subjugated by 1635, were directly integrated into the banner troops, forming their own eight Mongol banners and enjoying equal class rights with the Manchus proper. The banner troops were the foundation of the army and administrative apparatus of the Qing Empire, its support and main beneficiaries. The Mongol aristocracy was closely intertwined with the ruling dynasty through dynastic marriages, and the Manchus made full use of the power capital of the Chinggisid tradition. Suffice it to say that both wives of the last emperor, Puyi, who married according to the throne ceremony, were Mongol.
            The famous Qing military leader of the Opium Wars and the Taiping Rebellion, Sengerinchen, was a banner Mongol from the Borjigin clan. The banner troops also included the Barguts (a people closely related to the Buryats) and the Daurs.
            The Mongols of Outer Mongolia, which fell under Qing rule after 1691 and consisted of Khalkha Mongolia, Tannu-Uryangkhai, Altai-Uryangkhai, and the Kobdos and Altai districts, were organized as border guards. In terms of social organization principles, they were almost identical to the Cossack troops of the Russian Empire.

            And there have never been any "well-equipped warriors" in Mongolia. They were pure savages until modern times, and even now, in terms of development, they are roughly on par with Nigeria.

            I won't attempt to disprove your assertions on behalf of all the Mongols, although it's clear from what I've written above. But let's briefly discuss a faction of the Mongolian peoples known as the Oirats. These include the Kalmyks (I hope you're familiar with them), the Dzungars, and the Khoshuts of the Khoshut Khanate. These three Oirat polities controlled territory from the Kuban to the Chinese province of Yunnan at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. They fought, quite successfully, against four powerful empires of the time—the Ottomans, the Russians, the Qing, and the Mughals (for Kashmir and Ladakh). The Oirat khanates fell as a result of their own internecine strife, having exhausted themselves in more than 100 years of endless warfare. Moreover, the armies of the Eastern Mongols played a key role in the fall of the Dzungar and Khoshut Khanates.

            == They just laugh when they hear about the "great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan" ==
            Where did you get that from? Buryats generally hold Genghis Khan in high esteem. He is the founder of the Mongolian identity, which Buryats, again, generally share and consider themselves his heirs. Buryatia has many sacred sites associated with Genghis Khan.
          5. +3
            24 September 2025 08: 09
            The "degradation" of Mongolian society at the end of the 19th century, visible to outside observers, was linked to the general degradation of the ossified imperial structure of the Qing Empire. The Opium Wars and rebellions of the mid- to late 19th century demonstrated the inadequacy of the banner troops to the changing conditions; their privileged position was steadily eroded, while class restrictions remained strict enough to hinder social development. For example, the military class was prohibited from engaging in industry and trade, making the Mongols hostage to the more or less developing Chinese market and Chinese merchant capital.
            Well, we must also take into account the observers' perspective - for a European in the second half of the 19th century, nomadic life was unusual and incomprehensible, and therefore was automatically considered "wild."
          6. 0
            2 December 2025 13: 35
            Why the neighboring Buryats (according to Mongolian fables, part of the Mongols who refused to go on campaigns of conquest)
            Yeah, your difficulty is off the charts..... The difficulty of your mind is simply fantastic.
      2. +5
        23 September 2025 10: 28
        The presence of metal-rich ores in northern Europe does not make it more civilized.
        Rome exerted pressure with its level of culture - it could simply produce a lot of people who were trained in something.
        That's exactly how Carthage was ultimately defeated. While Carthage had three or four competent commanders, Rome could find about forty similar men. The Gauls were defeated by their organization, their army, and their economy. And the Greeks, with their hoplites, fell for the same reason.
        1. +2
          23 September 2025 13: 31
          Gaul, also known as France, is clearly not "northern Europe".
          The Gaulish-Celtic people had a class of professionally trained warriors, excellent in close combat. And who were the geese that saved Rome from, remember? And whose leader, having stormed Rome, uttered the epic "Woe to the vanquished!"
          Gaul was ruined by disunity. Moreover, Caesar was not so much a talented commander as a skilled politician and intriguer. He discreetly omitted in his memoirs the real contribution of his Gaulish and Germanic allies to his victories.
          I wonder how many medieval European states would have been able to resist Rome during its heyday? And?
          Culture and combat effectiveness aren't closely related. The Spartans were highly capable militarily, but they weren't particularly renowned for their advanced culture.

          Carthage waged war against Rome for over a century. And Rome's victory wasn't entirely inevitable. And let's not forget that Carthage was essentially a "city-state," while Rome was able to win because it had the support of almost all the Italians (that is, thanks to its allies). In the final battle against Hannibal, the Numidians' defection to the Romans played a decisive role.
          1. +4
            23 September 2025 13: 39
            Quote: Illanatol
            Carthage fought Rome for over a century. And Rome's victory wasn't entirely inevitable.
            If you look closely at the course of the battles, it all boils down to the fact that Rome won 80% of the minor and secondary skirmishes, and the major battles were won roughly equally. This is what ultimately determined the outcome of the war. The reasons for this odd statistic lie in the way the war was managed and financed. Rome simply supplied the fighting more adequately, promptly, and consistently, including with money and soldiers.
          2. +3
            23 September 2025 18: 19
            Quote: Illanatol
            I wonder how many medieval European states would have been able to resist Rome during its heyday?

            There is a strong suspicion that there are none at all.
            1. 0
              23 September 2025 21: 06
              If you used knightly cavalry wisely, like the Parthians did with cataphracts, then you could very well do it.
              1. +3
                24 September 2025 06: 35
                Quote: 3x3zsave
                If you use knightly cavalry wisely

                For me, this whole thing is unrealistic. How much cavalry was there? And most importantly, it was a hodgepodge of knights, not an army detachment.
      3. +5
        23 September 2025 10: 38
        Quote: Illanatol
        And what did they learn?
        What is now called civilization is, first and foremost, statehood...
        1. +3
          23 September 2025 13: 52
          Quote: Luminman
          What is now called civilization is, first and foremost, statehood...


          Which for some reason had to be created practically from scratch already during the time of Sukhbaatar.
          Because Baron Ungern behaved in this "civilized" Mongolia like a real white sahib among the Papuans.
        2. 0
          24 September 2025 04: 26
          Only the Mongols established a state at the beginning of the 20th century.
          1. +2
            24 September 2025 08: 14
            A modern state. Until 1912, the Mongols were part of the military-administrative apparatus of the Qing Empire.
            1. 0
              24 September 2025 10: 41
              Not all Mongols, but Manchus. And they didn't take anything, they simply integrated into what was already there.
              1. +2
                24 September 2025 13: 02
                The Manchus borrowed much from the Mongols during the construction of their state, even their written language. And when they managed to obtain the jade seal of the Yuan khagans, it gave them the opportunity to ceremoniously establish their dynasty as emperors in 1636.
      4. +1
        24 September 2025 04: 25
        The Gauls didn't even break free of tribal ties, yet you're attributing feudal fragmentation to them. And the gladiator example is a poor one. Gladiators never fought in heavy armor. Where did you get that from?
  14. + 13
    23 September 2025 06: 09
    Once again, we encourage nonsense writing with comments.
    1. + 12
      23 September 2025 06: 23
      Quote: Cartalon
      Once again, we encourage nonsense writing with comments
      Entertainment for grown men. Besides drinking vodka, fishing, and courting women... wink
  15. BAI
    +7
    23 September 2025 06: 14
    Only our first princes from the Rurik dynasty were mentioned as Khagans.

    Note to the author. Since we're talking about the Rurikids, it's worth recalling that a month ago, one of the "Samsonovs" (the author isn't alone) "proved" that Trump is a Rurikid of the 38th generation. Therefore, the word "president" is a native Russian word, as all the princes in Rus' were called that way.
  16. +6
    23 September 2025 06: 52
    An alternative story: after a few joints of marijuana, they ate something even stronger...
  17. + 13
    23 September 2025 07: 06
    The author of this article, of course, doesn't know that during the so-called "Mongol Yoke," the Scythians were no longer in Siberia, including the Minusinsk Basin, where I now live! Instead, there was a Kyrgyz cognate here, the so-called Yenisei Kyrgyz.
    1. +1
      23 September 2025 13: 54
      It seems that even the European contemporaries of Khan Batu did not know this, calling his warriors, among other things, Scythians.
  18. +5
    23 September 2025 07: 41
    Whether you believe it or not is a personal matter. But in a hundred years, what will remain of the memory of the Soviet Union? Our grandchildren will know that there was a country that made galoshes and that's all.
    By the way, the words "horde" and "order" are more similar.
    1. +7
      23 September 2025 08: 16
      We didn't even have Šilyalis TVs made in Šiauliai, and the great Ereliukas)) and Vyarpstas covered the whole country, and so what wasn't brought from Lithuania, we wore galoshes and kosovorotkas, and what about the balalaika?
    2. +5
      23 September 2025 08: 35
      Quote: Gardamir
      Whether you believe it or not is a personal matter. But in a hundred years, what will remain of the memory of the Soviet Union? Our grandchildren will know that there was a country that made galoshes and that's all.
      By the way, the words "horde" and "order" are more similar.

      Exactly the same thing as about the Russian Empire 100 years later - "There was such a country with an unpredictable history...."
  19. +3
    23 September 2025 07: 53
    There is no objective evidence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'. One thing is clear: the topic is highly politicized and generates nothing but heated debate.
    1. +4
      23 September 2025 18: 21
      Quote: Glock-17
      There is no objective evidence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'.

      There is objective evidence that at this very time the cities of Rus suffered greatly, most were burned, many were not restored, and crafts and art went into decline.
      1. +1
        23 September 2025 19: 15
        Who didn't fight with whom in ancient times? It's hard to believe that tribes still in the primitive communal stage suddenly organized themselves so quickly and went on a campaign of conquest. And their warriors were either ascetics or eunuchs, since they left no trace of Mongol genes in the Russian people.
        1. +3
          24 September 2025 09: 17
          Quote: Glock-17
          It is very difficult to believe that tribes are at the stage of primitive communal system

          That is if they were like that, which is far from certain.

          Quote: Glock-17
          And their warriors were either ascetics or eunuchs, since they did not leave Mongol genes in the Russian people.

          Either they simply and en masse took women captive, or killed them after entertainment
          1. -1
            25 September 2025 00: 32
            If their economy was based on livestock breeding, they were more nomads than a developed civilization. Even if the Mongols possessed the secrets of the composite bow and somehow managed to build an organized army, the most they could do was plunder the conquered peoples, not unite them into an empire. Statecraft isn't learned overnight.
            What they did with the women of the defeated peoples can only be guessed at, as there are no witnesses to those events.
        2. +2
          24 September 2025 11: 25
          The nomadic societies of East Asia experienced a primitive communal stage even in prehistoric times. In historical times, they competed on equal terms with, for example, Chinese states, often establishing ruling dynasties (the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Turks, Khitans, Jurchens-Manchus – and this predates the Mongols). They significantly influenced the political life of all of Eurasia – the Avars-Rourans, Turkic Khaganates, Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsians, and others – and this also predates the Mongols.
          The Mongols left their genes and their clan structure in the post-Horde peoples—the Crimean Tatars, Nogais, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Hazaras, and Afghan aimags. They did not occupy Russian lands, limiting themselves to periodic raids during which they attempted to take the entire captured population captive for sale. Therefore, we should not look for Mongol genes among Russians, but rather for Russian genes in the countries of Southern Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa—these were the main streams of the slave market. How many genes did the Crimean Tatars leave behind during their march on Moscow in 1571?
          1. 0
            2 December 2025 13: 51
            It's hard to explain anything to these troubled teenagers with their primitive communal mentality. Their heads are so clogged and polluted that it's difficult to change anything. Almost impossible.
        3. +3
          24 September 2025 11: 59
          Quote: Glock-17
          And their warriors were either ascetics or eunuchs, since they did not leave Mongol genes in the Russian people.

          How do you imagine that?
          Step by step.
          1) The girl was captured and immediately impregnated by a hypothetical Mongol.
          2) The girl escaped from captivity (otherwise, she would have gone into nomadic life along with her genes)
          3) During the escape and subsequent wanderings, she managed not to lose her child.
          4) The child was born and managed to survive, despite the fact that infant mortality was at a high rate.
          Remove any one point and there will be no genes left, and fulfilling all four is so unlikely that there is nothing to talk about.
        4. -1
          2 December 2025 13: 48
          tribes that were at the stage of a primitive communal system suddenly self-organized so quickly and went to conquer everyone
          Well, if anyone is at the stage of a primitive communal system in terms of their level of thinking, it's you.... With respect. Hee hee
    2. -1
      2 December 2025 13: 46
      There is no objective evidence of the Mongol-Tatar invasion of Rus'.
      If there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for anything, it is the existence of the "great Scythian-Siberian Rus"
      One thing is clear: the topic is highly politicized.
      Yes, this topic is highly politicized by Russia's enemies and their idiots in Russia who write things like this article.
      1. 0
        2 December 2025 18: 06
        You've offered nothing but emotion and insults. In an argument, that's a sign of weakness. If you want to believe the myth of the Mongol-Tatars, no objections. But that doesn't mean everyone should believe the same thing or have their own point of view.
  20. +6
    23 September 2025 08: 14
    I read something like that in the 90s, but those guys ended badly, some of whom were jailed and released, and some of whom are still in prison. (((Maybe there weren't any Mongoloids, but who were there back then?))? Did they just kill each other for fun?)) oh author what a head
    1. +1
      23 September 2025 08: 39
      Quote from Mazunga
      Maybe there were no Mongoloids, but who was there then? Did they just kill each other for fun? Oh, the author, what a brain.

      Of course, you saw this in the 1990s. Small gangs divided up neighborhoods and worked as "protectors."
      And then they came up with the Horde - but forgot about logistics and the number of settlements.
    2. +2
      24 September 2025 09: 34
      Quote from Mazunga
      Maybe there weren't any Mongoloids, but who was there then? Did they just kill each other for fun?


      The events of the 13th century were in many ways reminiscent of the events of the 17th century, the notorious "Time of Troubles".
      A crisis of power associated with the transfer of the capital from Kyiv to Vladimir, civil strife, and, to top it all off, external intervention by "Western partners" and their local "proxies," who became the "evil Tatars." These "proxies" were those who would later be called Cossacks. Incidentally, during the "Time of Troubles" of the 17th century, it was the Russians, not the Swedes and Poles, who shed the most Russian blood.
  21. + 10
    23 September 2025 08: 35
    The article was clearly published in the wrong section; its place isn't in "history," but in the "opinions" section, and alternative ones at that...
    1. +2
      23 September 2025 12: 02
      After all, the current official version of history was once an alternative. And it's not at all certain that it will remain official forever.
      Moreover, 97% of the current official version of history was created by those whom today's professional historians call amateurs—people without degrees in history. Those include Jan Długosz, Matvey Mekhovsky, E. Gibbon, Tatishchev, and Karamzin.
      1. +1
        23 September 2025 21: 06
        The fact that the Greeks once used rudimentary mathematics for astrology and biology for fortune-telling doesn't mean that modern mathematics and biology are nonsense that can be replaced with any alternative theory. And in history, hypotheses have long been based on more than just chronicles or "histories of the state of N-sky," fortunately, science has long since moved beyond the 17th century.
        1. 0
          23 September 2025 23: 52
          I don't know where you personally got the idea that certain "Greeks" used rudimentary mathematics for astrology and biology for fortune-telling (I assume you can't answer that question yourself), but we shouldn't substitute one for the other. Biology, while not meeting all the criteria for scientific validity, does meet far more of them than history.
          Let me remind you that Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" is from the 19th century, not the 17th.
          And the discipline of History (not the science, but the discipline) hasn't gone anywhere. Because more than 90% of history, as created in the 16th-18th centuries, remains unchanged. New things appeared only in the History of the New World, as European historians of the 16th-18th centuries created the history of the Old World. In which, as I've said many times, nothing fundamentally changed since then. The changes are merely cosmetic. At the end of the 19th century, the Hittites, Sumerians, and a few other minor ones were introduced into history. But, I repeat, these innovations had no fundamental impact on the picture of Old World history created by amateurs in the 16th-18th centuries.
          1. +2
            24 September 2025 04: 46
            Quote: Seal
            Because more than 90% of history, as it was created in the 16th-18th centuries, has remained unchanged.

            Read books or watch lectures, for example, by Zaliznyak, at least for gifted schoolchildren, from the "Academy" series. You'll discover a method for determining the age of documents based on the laws of language development and change. Methods for studying documents using chemical analysis have emerged. In the 20th century, numerous historical forgeries were exposed. In Russian history, this included the Council Act against Monk Martin, the falsifications of Sulakadzev, and in European history, the falsification of Czech history by the "awakeners." Historical science is the emergence of new falsifications and erroneous theories and their debunking with a certain degree of certainty. Now, the popular theories include Fomenko's theory, the Party's gold, Lenin as a German spy, and many others.
          2. 0
            24 September 2025 21: 49
            I see a smart person has already answered you, so I can only add that history is not limited to Russian school textbooks or even university manuals. If you want, look at articles in, for example, Scopus-indexed journals.
            And what kind of radical changes do you want in the works of the "amateurs of the 16th-18th centuries"? I wonder, the Anunnaki, the nuclear wars of 1812, or Atlantis?
            PS: Astrology actively used geometry for celestial calculations, but fortune telling on entrails requires at least a rudimentary knowledge of biology.
            1. 0
              24 September 2025 23: 09
              Well, you apparently have your own definition of "intelligence." But I'll try to explain it again. In normal sciences, as these sciences develop, versions and theories change. The geometry of the Middle Ages, known as Euclidean geometry, was replaced by Lobachevsky's geometry. In physics, for example, as physics developed and new tools emerged, the theory of light shifted almost sine-wave, from corpuscular to wave, back to corpuscular, and back to wave. The result was a situation where two serious scientific theories coexisted, each explaining some properties of light but failing to explain others. Together, these two theories complemented each other completely.
              But in history, no matter how historians and people like you insist that
              In the 20th century, history "learned critical analysis" and became a scientific discipline with its own methodology and criteria of truth. Research became much more scientific: critical examination of sources was supplemented by critical examination of arguments.
              - Essentially NOTHING has changed in it!!! The picture of the world created in the 17th century remains the same.
              Only, as I already mentioned, at the end of the 19th century, the Hittites, Sumerians, and a few other minor additions were added. But this wasn't a complete overhaul of the entire edifice called "history," merely a small addition of embellishment to its balconies. In other words, all these so-called "new historical scientific methods" merely confirmed everything that amateurs had once written.
              If you believe this happens in normal science, that's your choice, of course. I've already noted that your circle apparently has its own definition of "intelligence." By the way, are the Anunnaki, the nuclear wars of 1812, and Atlantis also subjects of study for your circle? lol
              1. 0
                24 September 2025 23: 53
                Yeah, come on, tell me how Lobachevsky's geometry "displaced" Euclidean geometry, so much so that its axioms can no longer be used. It's all for nothing, then, that the "stupid Soviets," and everyone else in schools and universities, taught and still teach it. Let me give you a hint for the less intelligent: the word you're looking for is "supplemented." No one has abolished Euclidean geometry, just as modern quantum physics research doesn't abolish Newton's laws or classical mechanics. And as for physics, Maxwell's equations and Huygens-Fresnel principles didn't negate Newton's achievements in optics, and Planck's blackbody research didn't erase everything that came before, and only later did de Broglie and Schrödinger bring it all together. Basically, I advise you to pick up a physics textbook, at least for the ninth grade, and brush up on your knowledge. So, by your own logic, "essentially NOTHING has changed" in physics, lol.
                And neither physics, nor mathematics, nor history were "overhauled"; rather, they were augmented and added to, large and small. I can even help you, if you're so weak in finding examples: biology. Darwin, and then Mendel, truly saw a major revolution there, but even there, all the changes in systematization didn't lead to the "complete reversal of all previous facts" you so passionately dream of.
                So I highly recommend studying the history of science and, preferably, a textbook on logic, rhetoric, and the scientific method, and then go to VM and talk about what "normal science" should look like.
                1. 0
                  25 September 2025 07: 34
                  Once again. Keep your ego to yourself and try to think. To avoid writing too much (I'm afraid you won't understand again, and if, God forbid, I don't mention a particular science, you'll think I don't know it exists), I'll say it briefly. History (not science) differs from other sciences in that normal sciences develop over time. But the history created by amateurs in the 17th century remains the same today. Is that clearer? Or again, not?
                  P.S. And about this expression that caused a nervous reaction in you.
                  The geometry of the Middle Ages, called Euclidean geometry, was replaced by Lobachevsky's geometry.
                  The geometry of the Middle Ages was replaced by the geometry of Lobachevsky, which absorbed the geometry of the Middle Ages into itself.
                  Is there a similar example in History?
                  1. +2
                    25 September 2025 19: 39
                    Quote: Seal
                    And what kind of history was it created by amateurs in the 17th century?


                    Which 17th century historians have you read?
                  2. +1
                    25 September 2025 20: 15
                    Your advice, I wish I'd listened to it. And yes, no matter how much you repeat like a mantra that "history is not a science," it won't change objective reality. This isn't even a polemical ploy, it's simply slow-witted. Development is the accumulation and expansion of a knowledge base. How did it develop? Well, at least read about modern research into the ancient world, how far they've advanced in the study of society. Otherwise, it's convenient to repeat the mantra about some "17th-century historians" without a shred of factual evidence.
                    Quote: Seal
                    The geometry of the Middle Ages was replaced by the geometry of Lobachevsky, which absorbed the geometry of the Middle Ages into itself.

                    Now, go ahead and explain to me in detail in which areas and how Lobachevsky's geometry replaced Euclidean geometry. I really want to see it. And don't try to demagogue here and just say, "You won't understand anyway."
                    Well, I'll throw you a bone.
                    Quote: Seal
                    Is there a similar example in History?

                    For example, we have learned so much new in the last 30 years about humanity in 5-2 thousand BC; our picture has greatly expanded from just Egypt and the area between the rivers.

                    P.S.: How it developed, how it developed - well, at least the period from the 17th century to the present day had to be described, otherwise the "amateurs of the 17th century" were not Vangas. smile
                    1. 0
                      26 September 2025 13: 24
                      First, come to your senses and tone down your rudeness. You're not the school principal here.
                      What's this
                      Now let me explain it in detail.
                      And more
                      Well, I'll throw you a bone.
                      However, understanding that all you can do is be rude, I will still answer.
                      1.
                      And yes, no matter how much you repeat like a mantra that “history is not a science,” objective reality will not change. This is not even a polemical tactic, it is simply slow-wittedness.
                      You're the one with the slow-wittedness, my dear. I have objective reality. There are established criteria for scientific validity. Not invented by me, mind you, but invented. As I understand it, you've never even heard of them, have you? I've included them in the appendix.
                      So what criteria does the discipline History meet?
                      The first criterion is evidence (rationality). History absolutely and fundamentally fails to meet this criterion, and cannot. Even the word "history" itself reveals this impossibility. History comes from the ancient Greek ἱστορία, literally "questioning"; "information obtained through questioning." What evidence is there? Everything depends on the storyteller's imagination.
                      History has never even come close to rationality. The historical process, at its core, is not subject to strict laws, logic, or predestination, but rather includes chance, emotion, and the irrational motives of people, making it unpredictable and difficult to fully explain rationally.
                      2. ConsistencyIn history, in the strict logical sense, there is no and cannot be consistency, since history is a human construct that inevitably includes contradictions due to the subjectivity of interpretations, incomplete sources, and conflicting evidence.
                      3. Empirical (experimental, practical) verifiabilityHistory does not and cannot have empirical verifiability, since it studies past events, not repeating phenomena that can be experimentally controlled. Instead of experiments, historians rely on all sorts of sources, such as documents (of which not a single one has been found dating back to before the 15th century AD) and archaeological finds, to construct the most plausible explanation of the past, rather than to reproduce it.
                      4. Reproducibility of empirical material. I hope I don’t need to explain that this doesn’t exist in history and can’t exist?
                      5. General significance, intersubjectivity. In history, there is no "universal validity" in the same sense as in logic, where a universally valid formula is true under any interpretation. History is a realm of human experience and interpretation that does not admit of universal truths applicable to absolutely all situations or people. In history, nothing is absolutely true or universally valid in a strict, logical sense, since everything in history is subject to context, evaluation, and interpretation.
                      Intersubjective is the scientific knowledge that is obtained under conditions of a “continuous (continuously repeating) experiment and verified by an infinitely large number of researchers.”
                      6. Systematicity. Well, one can agree that there is a certain systematicity in history. And not in all of history, but mostly in the field of archeology.
                      7. Essentiality. History lacks essentiality in the sense that one cannot ascribe to it an unchanging, profound essence or nature, as essentialism does to objects and phenomena. History is a constantly evolving, multifaceted process of human activity, not a set of fixed, fundamental elements.
                      So what's the conclusion? Does the story meet the criteria of scientific validity or not?
                      1. 0
                        26 September 2025 21: 04
                        I believe respect must be earned, not given to everyone by default. So I'm still waiting for a detailed explanation of the areas and ways in which Lobachevsky's geometry replaced Euclidean geometry. No one forced your hand, Vasma; be responsible for your words. Now let's examine your own "brilliant" arguments.
                        Quote: Seal
                        The first criterion is evidence (rationality). History absolutely and fundamentally fails to meet this criterion, and cannot. Even the word "history" itself reveals this impossibility. History comes from the ancient Greek ἱστορία, literally "questioning"; "information obtained through questioning." What kind of evidence is there? Everything depends on the storyteller's imagination.

                        And then there's complete bullshit. The story, at least today's, is no longer based on the gossip of old ladies at the entrance, but on a conclusion drawn from a vast evidence base, including numerous contemporary testimonies, descriptions from later times, and archaeological finds. By your "brilliant" logic, the court case is absolutely "unsubstantiated and irrational," since it literally involves the same process of gathering information to form a picture of what happened and making a judgment. When you resolve this contradiction, into which you've driven yourself, answer.
                        Quote: Seal
                        2. Consistency. In history, in a strictly logical sense, there is no consistency, nor can there be, since history is a human construct that inevitably includes contradictions due to the subjectivity of interpretations, incomplete sources, and conflicting evidence.

                        Just see above. Get your head out of wherever you've got it and understand that history isn't a rewrite of a single source, but a combination of multiple written and physical testimonies left by multiple people. What other human construct is this? And again, by your logic, none of the natural sciences except mathematics and logic satisfies this point, since they all involve a human intermediary in collecting and analyzing data, who is a priori subjective (you might even realize that it's not the presence of subjectivity that's important, but the desire to get rid of it).
                        Quote: Seal
                        3. Empirical (experimental, practical) verifiability. History does not and cannot have empirical verifiability, since it studies past events, not repeating phenomena that can be experimentally controlled. Instead of experiments, historians rely on all sorts of sources, such as documents (of which not a single one has been found dating back to before the 15th century AD) and archaeological finds, to construct the most plausible explanation of the past, rather than to reproduce it.

                        Quote: Seal
                        4. Reproducibility of empirical data. I hope I don't need to explain that this doesn't and can't exist in history.

                        This is already one of the few valid arguments against. Although even here, your position is not without its silly errors. Empirical verifiability—does the phrase "historical experiment" mean anything? Google it. And this gem
                        Quote: Seal
                        such as documents (of which not a single one has been found dating back to before the 15th century AD)

                        This is simply mind-blowing. Leaving aside the absurdity of the lack of books older than the 15th century, have you even heard anything about Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Persian, Assyrian, and other written sources? Those not written on paper or parchment and therefore perfectly preserved to this day? And a great deal of them have survived: documents, religious literature, reference books, correspondence, laws, judicial practice, and entertaining texts. Explore them, get out of your limited world.
                        Quote: Seal
                        5. Universal validity, intersubjectivity. In history, there is no "universal validity" in the same sense as in logic, where a universally valid formula is true under any interpretation. History is a realm of human experience and interpretation that does not admit of universal truths applicable to absolutely all situations or people. In history, nothing is absolutely true or universally valid in a strict, logical sense, since everything in history is subject to context, evaluation, and interpretation.

                        Nothing is absolutely true except mathematics and logic. Let's move on. History doesn't describe "universal truths applicable to all people"; it describes objective knowledge about past events, i.e., facts. Accordingly, the claim of non-intersubjectivity, or even less so of "insignificance," for other sciences is, frankly, absurd (though, of course, if we were to write off all sociological sciences as sciences...).
                        6. Systematicity. Well, one can agree that there is a certain systemicity in history. And not in all of history, but mostly in a branch of it called archeology.

                        At least they didn't go all out here, and even then, it's interesting to know if archaeology is systematic, where it isn't, in which areas, and why? Go ahead, if you're so omniscient, explain your thoughts, or I'll finish the thinking for you.
                        7. Essentiality. History lacks essentiality in the sense that one cannot ascribe to it an unchanging, profound essence or nature, as essentialism does with objects and phenomena. History is a constantly evolving, multifaceted process of human activity, not a set of fixed, fundamental elements.

                        Again, the subject of history is historical facts, which are by definition unchanging entities.
                        So what's the conclusion? Does the story meet the criteria of scientific validity or not?

                        Partially meets the criteria for scientific knowledge from the Baumanka manual. Now I'll play this criteria-selection game and take the definition of science from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
                        Science is a sphere of human activity whose function is the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality; it is a form of social consciousness. Over the course of historical development, science becomes a productive force of society and a vital social institution. The concept of "science" encompasses both the activity of acquiring new knowledge and the result of this activity—the sum of scientific knowledge acquired to date, which, taken together, forms a scientific picture of the world. The term "science" is also used to denote individual branches of scientific knowledge.

                        Источник: https://gufo.me/dict/bse/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0?ysclid=mg15abdp1w188019508

                        So, does it meet the definition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?
                      2. 0
                        26 September 2025 22: 25
                        Hmm, that's a tough case. A ruble's worth of pride, but a penny's worth of logic.
                        Earn your respect? God forbid I earn the respect of someone like you. I'll lose all respect for myself if that happens. I won't even bother to parse all your verbal diarrhea, because I'm no gold digger.
                        I will dwell on your most outstanding pearls.
                        multiple testimonies of contemporaries, and descriptions of later times, and archaeological finds.



                        1. Show at least one contemporary testimony. But please, not the way Moishe showed Isaac how Chaliapin sang, but the original. That is, the testimony of a contemporary whose handwriting is known to humanity.
                        2. What are "descriptions of later times"? Are they descriptions of recent times or descriptions of ancient times, written recently? So what do recent descriptions of ancient times represent in the absence of authentic evidence that has survived to the time of historical materialism from those very "ancient times" described in descriptions written later than those ancient times? Are we resorting to E. Gibbon's concept again?
                        Archaeological finds? Archaeological finds alone don't tell us anything. The official version of history's chronology was established some 400 years ago. Accordingly, archaeologists don't date everything they find themselves, but rather date it according to the official chronology. And nothing else.
                        Just see above. Get your head out of wherever you've got it and understand that history isn't a rewrite of a single source, but a combination of multiple written and physical evidence left by multiple people. What other human construct is that?
                        Here, as they say, each person talks about what's hurting. What, you have a headache, right? Did the Ministry of Emergency Situations help you get your head out of there? More blah-blah-blah and shamanic spells about how there's supposedly a lot a multitude of written and material evidence that was left by many people,
                        Show me at least one written source left by a person whose reality of existence is confirmed either by documents or by several independent narrative sources of that very time, compiled by people whose handwriting is known to humanity.
                        It goes without saying that the handwriting of the person who left the written source must also be known to humanity.
                        Have you ever heard anything at all about Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Persian, Assyrian, and other written sources? Those that weren't written on paper or parchment and therefore have survived perfectly to this day? And a great deal has survived: documents, religious literature, reference books, correspondence, laws, judicial practice, and entertaining texts.
                        Another baby talk.
                        1. Papyrus, because it contains adhesive, is a thermodynamically nonequilibrium structure. And, according to the law of entropy, it must disintegrate within 500-600 years at most. Therefore, there are no thousand-year-old papyri, and there cannot be any.
                        Parchment. At high humidity (over 70%), parchment sheets become deformed, wrinkled, and stick together. When the British decided to digitize their old parchment documents at the end of the last century, they were horrified to discover that they were a continuous, stuck-together mess.
                        At low humidity (less than 40%), as a result of water loss, the material underwent a significant change in volume (shrinkage), causing the sheets to become deformed (shrink), which often led to the ink and paint layer shedding.
                        Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite, Persian, Assyrian and other written sources
                        Firstly, natural sciences have not yet learned to date scratches on stones or clay.
                        Secondly, these hieroglyphs (Egyptian) and scratches (Babylonian, Hittite, Persian, Assyrian, and others) can be deciphered in at least ten ways, each hieroglyph or scratch. And any text can be created.
                        Moreover, and this is no small matter, all the so-called "decodings" of all the above-mentioned texts were made AFTER the creation of the now official historical structure. The Hittites and Sumerians, added to history in the late 19th century, fundamentally changed nothing about Histories.
                        Another point. Anyone, including you, can walk through our most ancient cemeteries (well, of course, relatively ancient ones, some 400-500 years old, since there are none older) and see that it's impossible to tell what was once carved or scratched on the gravestones. But historians try to convince everyone that the Behistun Inscription, which they claim was carved over 2 years ago in a highly seismically active region of the world, on a cliff exposed to all rain, wind, and sun, polished annually by dust storms carrying thousands of tons of sand that grinds like sandpaper across the rocks, periodically covered in ice, was legible by the mid-19th century, when the Englishman Rawlinson climbed it. Historians are either the most naive or the most cynical people.
                        Here is a photo of that rock in tongues of ice.
                      3. +2
                        27 September 2025 00: 36
                        Once again I am convinced of Dunning Kruger - the less a person knows, the more self-confident he is.
                        Show me at least one contemporary testimony. But please, not the way Moishe showed Isaac how Chaliapin sang, but the original. That is, the testimony of a contemporary whose handwriting is known to humanity.

                        Yes, please. Certificate #155. And the "handwriting" part is, of course, a joke. Literally proving that God doesn't exist is a demagogic ploy of the same level.
                        Quote: Seal
                        2. What are "descriptions of later times"? Are they descriptions of recent times or descriptions of ancient times, written recently? So what do recent descriptions of ancient times represent, given the lack of authentic evidence that has reached the time of historical materialism from those very "ancient times" described in descriptions written later than those ancient times?

                        Firstly, they find originals; secondly, even when copying, especially if it wasn't done by a random peasant off the street, very little information is lost in most cases; thirdly, if three sources from different places say roughly the same thing, then the rational conclusion is that this event took place, and not that since I didn't see it with my own eyes, I don't know anything.
                        Archaeological finds? Archaeological finds alone don't tell us anything. The official version of history's chronology was established some 400 years ago. Accordingly, archaeologists don't date everything they find themselves, but rather date it according to the official chronology. And nothing else.

                        It's getting funnier and funnier. No one forced your hand, go ahead and provide a link to this official archaeological scale, preferably not on a shady website, but in a peer-reviewed journal. As for this "some" independent dating—it's even interesting to imagine how it works. Apparently, mummies found in Andean rock formations, tin tools in Albion, and even traces of prehistoric sites are determined by some universal 400-year method. Provide a link to this method.
                        Show me at least one written source left by a person whose reality of existence is confirmed either by documents or by several independent narrative sources of that very time, compiled by people whose handwriting is known to humanity.

                        A classic demagogic tactic is to demand inherently absurd claims. Show me your great-grandfather's text immediately, certified by notaries and attested by at least two other people, along with a handwriting expert, otherwise it wouldn't exist. But in reality, if someone discovers an archaeological site in the cultural layer of a city described in numerous sources with a clearly meaningful and structured text dating back to that era, they will rationally assume that these are the remains of that particular civilization, rather than running around like a chicken searching for several more notarized sources.
                        Papyrus, because it contains adhesive, is a thermodynamically nonequilibrium structure. And, according to the law of entropy, it must disintegrate within 500-600 years at most. Therefore, there are no thousand-year-old papyri, and there cannot be any.

                        Ahahaha, you're not much of a chemist either. What is this "entropy law"? Please provide the formulation and calculations, according to which the papyrus "should" disintegrate in 500 years. If you've already given the figures, please justify them. I won't even mention the strikingly different storage conditions; just provide your calculations, for example, for the climate of a typical mastaba.
                        Parchment. At high humidity (over 70%), parchment sheets become deformed, wrinkled, and stick together. When the British decided to digitize their old parchment documents at the end of the last century, they were horrified to discover that they were a continuous, stuck-together mess.
                        At low humidity (less than 40%), as a result of water loss, the material underwent a significant change in volume (shrinkage), causing the sheets to become deformed (shrink), which often led to the ink and paint layer shedding.

                        And? Do you even see what you're writing? Firstly, gluing sheets of paper together has long ceased to be an unsolvable problem, fortunately, humanity as a whole is clearly smarter than you and has long since invented and put numerous non-destructive testing methods to the service of science. Secondly, you yourself write "often cited." Let me give you a hint: the sources that have come down to us are a small fraction of everything created in ancient times, and in most cases they reached us by chance. Can you figure out the rest yourself?
                        Quote: Seal
                        Firstly, natural sciences have not yet learned to date scratches on stones or clay.

                        Don't lie so brazenly. Everyone's deaf these days, but there's also thermoluminescence, other isotope dating, and especially rehydroxylation. Go read some books before you post such clever nonsense online.
                        Secondly, these hieroglyphs (Egyptian) and scratches (Babylonian, Hittite, Persian, Assyrian, and others) can be deciphered in at least ten ways, each hieroglyph or scratch. And any text can be created.

                        If you're, pardon me, short-sighted, then don't assume others are the same. Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, and Assyrian have long been thoroughly studied by historians and linguists; their spelling and grammar are well-known, especially since in the real world, unlike your little world, scholars have access to tens of thousands of different tablets and other sources, and you can even find textbooks on them online. But if you're so distrustful of all science, here's a website with an archive of most of the available tablets. Study linguistics, decipher the languages, and then tear those foolish scholars to shreds.
                        https://www.ebl.lmu.de/library
                        Moreover, and this is no small matter, all the so-called "decodings" of all the above-mentioned texts were made AFTER the creation of the now official historical structure. The Hittites and Sumerians, added to history in the late 19th century, fundamentally changed nothing about Histories.

                        Lol, yeah, it was hard to do that when linguistics and cryptography were still in their infancy or didn't even exist. I'll even let you in on a secret: normal science as a whole only began to take shape in the 17th and 18th centuries and didn't fully mature until the 20th. Arguments like "genomes have only been decoded in the last 20 years, suspicious, they're hiding something, they weren't there before!" are pure absurdity.
                        One more thing. Anyone, including you, can walk through our oldest cemeteries (well, relatively ancient ones, of course, some 400-500 years old, since there are none older) and see that it's hard to tell what was once carved or scratched on the gravestones.

                        Well, yes, it's true that it's difficult to read the text on 400-500-year-old stone tombstones, when they only appeared in most cemeteries in the 18th or 19th centuries, and were usually made of limestone, not granite, diorite, or even marble. But I can go to, say, Greece and see countless perfectly preserved tombstones with inscriptions, or I can Google them and see even more Roman tombstones scattered throughout Europe.
                        But historians are trying to convince everyone that the Behistun inscription, which, according to historians, was carved more than 2 thousand years ago in a very seismically dangerous area of ​​the world, on a rock open to all the rain, wind, sun, which is annually polished by dust storms carrying thousands of tons of sand, which passes like sandpaper over the rocks, which is periodically covered with ice, by the middle of the 19th century

                        Hmmm, you're also a homegrown meteorologist. It's really interesting to see those super-sandstorms in the Iranian mountains, selectively erasing the inscriptions but leaving the surrounding rocks completely untouched (have you even seen any photos of it other than this one from your schizotheoretic website)? Or how is water supposed to erode the surface of a non-porous, crack-free stone? And yet, there are cracks and crevices there, and what a surprise – the text and bas-relief are almost completely destroyed, what a surprise! Those falsifiers, they thought of everything! I'm afraid to even ask how the earthquakes were supposed to destroy it; I hope it wasn't through resonance.
                        Historians are either the most naive or the most cynical people.

                        No, it's you, the conspirators, who are the most naive or cynical (if you're one of those profiting from this) people. Google has been around for a long time, and you can literally check claims in 5 minutes, but you still continue to blindly believe the first tabloid article or, even better, so-called "common sense."
                      4. 0
                        27 September 2025 21: 44
                        Don't lie so brazenly. Everyone's deaf these days, but there's also thermoluminescence, other isotope dating, and especially rehydroxylation. Go read some books before you post such clever nonsense online.

                        To date within the so-called "limits of historical materialism," professional historians use radiocarbon dating, which relies on counting carbon isotopes: stable ones—12C and 13C—and radioactive ones—14C. The latter is very rare, accounting for approximately 10-12 of all modern carbon on Earth. However, this method is highly unreliable. One telling example of the RC method's effectiveness is the controversial dating of the Shroud of Turin:
                        "The results of the Shroud dating experiment were published in the journal Nature in 1989 and caused a great stir. The Arizona laboratory determined the age to be 646±31 years BC, Oxford 750±30 years BC, and Zurich 676±24 years BC. When compared, the errors were found to be statistically indistinguishable within the 95% confidence interval, so the data were averaged, yielding an age of 689±16 years BC. The Shroud turned out to be significantly younger than 2000 years."
                        The stark discrepancy between the data presented in the Nature article and the conclusions drawn from them is striking to any specialist in mathematical statisticians. A detailed analysis and critical analysis of the Nature article can be found, for example, in articles by Remi Van Haelst. They present verification calculations and demonstrate that the Arizona measurement results constitute a deliberately heterogeneous sample. Furthermore, van Haelst, based both on a statistical analysis of the Nature data and on information obtained from private conversations with specialists involved in dating the Turin Shroud, draws a conclusion—which we consider quite plausible—that the measurements were somewhat "tightened" toward the mid-14th century.
                        In 1973, Allan L. Brian from the University of Alberta, using the radiocarbon method, determined the age of human footprints on volcanic ash in Akavalinka (Acahualinca, Nicaragua) at 5945 ± 145 radiocarbon years, and in 2008 a group of scientists (H.–U. Schmincke, S. Kutterolf, W. Perez, J. Rausch, A. Freundt, W. Strauch) dated the age of the volcanic deposits themselves under these traces, having obtained an age of only 2120 ± 120 years.
                        The RU dating method itself is certainly scientific, but it requires careful calibration. No radiocarbon lab in the world will accept a sample from a historian or archaeologist for dating without a preliminary date derived from historical considerations. This is a kind of agreement that prevents radiocarbon dating from altering modern chronology. The entire system was developed in the late 20th century, when archaeologists and historians recognized the dangers of the radiocarbon method and began to achieve accuracy, albeit low, of plus or minus 500-600 years. After all, many supposedly very ancient and highly valuable museum exhibits submitted for analysis demonstrated their novelty using radiocarbon dating. Several congresses were convened, and an international methodology was developed that essentially protects modern historical chronology from radiocarbon dates. As a result, modern radiocarbon dating used by historians is not really dating, but simply advertising.
                        I can add that the late Stanislav Pokrovsky convincingly proved that in this method Soil carbon must be taken into account. But no one takes this into account. Moreover, even cosmic radiation affects the RU method. There's even a correction factor that supposedly offsets this radiation. But in reality, science can't even estimate what percentage of cosmic radiation types we actually detect.
                        About other methods in another comment.
                      5. 0
                        27 September 2025 22: 04
                        but there are also thermoluminescent, and other isotopes, and especially rehydroxylation.
                        Potassium-argon method:
                        "Uncertainty in the initial data leads to uncertainty in the results. Thus, a large number of different lava samples from the Hawaiian Islands, the origin of which is documented in 1800-1801, were dated by the potassium-argon method at 160 million-2 billion years, while their real age is 166-167 years. ... The ground rock, in itself, can in no way irrefutably indicate its age." [Junker R., Scherer Z. History of the origin and development of life. - Minsk: Kairos, 1997. - P. 158]
                        and especially rehydroxylation
                        With the following shortcomings. Yes, we can start with the fact that official historiography believes that the so-called "Sumerian" tablets were originally made of dried, unbaked clay. This means that the rehydroxylation method is completely unsuitable for these tablets.
                        His mistakes.
                        Effect of temperature changes on the rate of rehydroxylation. For example, a hypothetical example with a 1000-year-old sample: for the first 500 years, the ambient temperature remains at 10°C, then rises to 15°C over the next 500 years. After the first 500 years, the rate of rehydroxylation increases, and the mass of the material begins to increase at a faster rate than before.
                        Influence of ceramic components on the rehydroxylation measurement processFor example, materials added during quenching or compounds incorporated into the object during use (organic residues) cause either additional mass gain or additional mass loss during rehydroxylation measurements.
                        Systematic error due to changes in humidity that affects instantaneous gravimetric measurements. For example, due to capillary condensation. To avoid errors, scientists must be able to assess the temperature dynamics of the sample.
                      6. 0
                        27 September 2025 22: 11
                        Thermoluminescence dating (TLD) has several disadvantages related to errors, conditions of implementation, and limitations of the method.
                        The influence of the number of defects in the crystal lattice on the amount of accumulated light energy in a mineral. Different substances have different numbers of electron traps, so samples prepared at the same time and found in the same location may exhibit different levels of emissivity.

                        Results may be distorted by intense heat or prolonged sun exposure (bleaching). In this case, the initial accumulated signal is erased, and the time measurement should be taken from that point on.

                        The difficulty of deciphering the thermoluminescence signal. Some approaches to determining the signal's temporal component lack reliable analytical support or are based on outdated assumptions about the physics of luminescence.

                        Conditions of conducting
                        The influence of local radiation levels on dating accuracy. If the object being studied has traveled significant distances, has come into contact with other objects with elevated radiation levels (such as groundwater), or the area itself has been exposed to radiation (not necessarily due to a nuclear power plant accident or nuclear weapons test, but also due to a natural increase in background radiation, which occurs not only in the African Great Lakes region but also in the Caucasus and elsewhere), this reduces the reliability of the results.
                        And most importantly. The need to calibrate the method using known radiation doses, since the density of traps varies greatly.
                        Restrictions
                        It is impossible to carry out dating on individual samples – the method can only be used if there is a series of samples with similar physical characteristics. The series must have at least one sample with a chronological reference.
                        Distortion of results for ancient supersaturated samples - after reaching saturation, age information is not retained.
                        Limitations in the application of some methods—for example, the integral dating method based on the comparison of thermoluminescence curves from samples irradiated by the natural field of rocks and an artificial high-intensity field in the laboratory—are that the equilibrium concentration of filled local levels or the saturation point depends on the intensity of the field.

                        P.S. Basically, this is the moment The series must have at least one sample with a chronological reference. This is a universal limitation for almost all methods. Almost all methods require a sample whose age is precisely known. And where do such samples come from? From historians!! They send a sample to a lab and, with a straight face, declare, "This sample is so-and-so old, it's supposedly known for certain from historical documents."
                        laughing laughing laughing fool
                      7. +1
                        27 September 2025 00: 37
                        (didn't fit)
                        Finally, I recommend remembering Occam's razor. Consider how many entities and conspirators you have to invent, hiding everything from each other, rewriting everything, and simultaneously "doing nothing," just so your "superintelligence" can expose all their machinations in a matter of moments. What is the motivation of these conspirators, and what do they actually gain from this conspiracy?
                      8. 0
                        5 December 2025 22: 49
                        Russophobia, of course. Don't you know that the entire course of world history revolves around Russians, and its main motive is Russophobia.
  22. +3
    23 September 2025 09: 25
    The Golden Family of Genghis Khan-Temuchin won from the Rurikovichs the right to rule over the large ethno-cultural-linguistic core of the Rus super-ethnos.

    What a twist...
    Fomenko's case is alive and well
    1. 0
      24 September 2025 04: 56
      Quote: Trapper7
      The Golden Family of Genghis Khan-Temuchin won from the Rurikovichs the right to rule over the large ethno-cultural-linguistic core of the Rus super-ethnos.
      What a twist...

      The Rurik line died out during the Time of Troubles. The Romanov line degenerated into a prostitute in Paris for the German occupation officers. Various Chingizids descended from the khans of the Great, Kazan, and Siberian Hordes are thriving in Russia. For example, there's the Bulushev family. They run a large jewelry factory in France and, despite Macron's malicious machinations, maintain economic ties between Russia and France. Perhaps in the near future, they will establish production of CNC and precision machine tools in Russia. However, this is the initiative of a collateral branch of the Bulushev family.
  23. +3
    23 September 2025 09: 49
    "This is also shown in historical-patriotic films like "The Legend of Kolovrat" (2017), "The Evil City" (2025)..."
    Who continued reading after this? laughing Yes
  24. +5
    23 September 2025 09: 57
    In short, the Mongols in the troops of the red-haired, pale-faced Genghis Khan weren't slant-eyed (forgive me, the super-tolerant), but descendants of Indo-European tribes. So what, there was no invasion? But the author writes that the outskirts of Rus' were full of slant-eyed people. In short, it's just a simple, pointless sketch. Personally, I think the troops of Genghis Khan and his descendants were made up of many different tribes, very different in appearance and language, but very similar in clothing, weapons, and tactics, which in turn was determined by the mega-region of origin—Southern Siberia, Northern China, and Mongolia.
    1. +1
      23 September 2025 10: 35
      What did the Mongols look like? It's very simple: I was a Soviet schoolboy from the Vyatka forests, came home from school, turned on the TV, and saw a historical film about the Horde. The Mongols were played by Georgian, Azerbaijani, and Kyrgyz actors. To me, they all looked the same. I think even the scientists who came up with the idea that the pyramids were built by slaves didn't see the difference.
    2. +1
      24 September 2025 14: 05
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      So what, there was no invasion?


      Or maybe the majority didn’t perceive it as an invasion?
      And internal squabbles played the primary role, with outsiders (not from the east, but from the west or from the south, from the Black Sea coast) playing a secondary role? And these outsiders were, for the most part, originally local, but serving the interests of some foreign "puppeteers"?
  25. +2
    23 September 2025 10: 01
    I wonder if this is the author's way of making money?
    Write crap so that a thousand people rush to write "author-stupid person"
    Well, these are comments to the article, paid interactive content...
  26. +4
    23 September 2025 10: 17
    I don't know about Mongoloid skulls, but typical steppe armor and weapons are found in commercial quantities. I can't say who wore them—maybe even blacks or Mayans—but someone definitely came from the east, and someone who controlled at least part of the Silk Road.
  27. +4
    23 September 2025 11: 07
    It's autumn! Is there an open house at Kashchenko?
  28. -2
    23 September 2025 11: 46
    Hmm. It started out okay, but when I got to this paragraph, I lost the desire to read further.
    It's enough to recall other world empires. Alexander the Great – the financial and material base created by his father Philip. Plus a revolution in military affairs – the Macedonian phalanx. The Roman Empire – the might of its economy and legions. The British Empire – the "workshop of the world" (the leading global economy), mistress of the seas, control of key maritime communications and rich colonies. The Second and Third Reichs – a powerful economy, the dark genius of the Teutonic Order. The United States – the world's leading economy, the dollar system (financial control), technology, and information.

    Well, how can one put the real-life empires and states of the British Empire, the Second and Third Reichs (and the USA still exists today) on the same level with the legendary "Macedonian Empire" and "Ancient Roman Empire" that existed only in the pages of books?
    But even within the framework of official history, which recognizes both of these empires, nonsense is written. What the hell Revolution in military affairs – the Macedonian phalanx. The phalanx was introduced into history by amateurs who had never served in the army. After all, to use a phalanx in an offensive battle, the opponents must first agree that the battle will take place on a level field, free of bushes, ravines, and hills. Yes, a phalanx can block a coastal strip from cliffs to the water's edge, or a road flanked by dense forest or cliffs. It must stand still and intimidate the enemy with its long spears.

    Just look at the large-scale maneuvers of our army under Nicholas I. The grounds for large-scale maneuvers were level, the fields for maneuvers were wide. There were almost no hills. And yet, the troops maneuvered with only rifles, the length of which, with the bayonet attached, did not exceed two meters.
    Yes, the author might object that, yes, military leaders chose battlefields, like Kutuzov and Napoleon. Borodino suited both. But Napoleon and we had armies similar in composition and combat methods. And Samsonov presents the "phalanx" as a "revolution in military affairs" that the other side lacked.
  29. +1
    23 September 2025 11: 56
    Quote: multicaat
    and someone who controlled at least part of the Silk Road.
    Well, first we need to prove the reality of this "Silk Road".
    1. In the East (China, Korea, Japan, India, Burma, the Indochina countries, the islands), the population in the era that historians attribute to the era of the Great Silk Road was an order of magnitude (10 times) or even more (maybe 20 times, or maybe 50 times) than in the West (Europe, the Middle East, Egypt, Transcaucasia).
    2. Accordingly, the market for silk consumption in the East itself was quite huge. And it could well absorb the entire volume of silk production in China and ask for more.
    3. If suddenly there was an overproduction of silk products and they ceased to be in demand in China, Japan, Korea and the islands, then we should not forget that on the way to Europe there were also Tibet, Iran, India and Central Asia, where silk was also loved and valued.
    4. So what could have motivated the so-called “silk caravans” to move from China to Europe, incurring enormous costs, including customs duties and caravan protection?
    5. The only possible reason for this was a situation in which silk suddenly ceased to be in demand throughout China, Korea, Japan, Indochina, the islands, Tibet, India, and Central Asia. And precisely because no one was buying it in China, Korea, Japan, Indochina, the islands, Tibet, India, Central Asia, Iran, etc., Chinese merchants were forced to export their silk to Europe for sale.
    However, I believe that, given transportation and other costs, it would have been cheaper to burn silk products produced one or two years ago in China, thereby restoring demand for silk in the East, than to ship them to Europe. Or perhaps not burn them, but simply halt silk sales. Moreover, silk products, even with the utmost care, are only worn for a year. Therefore, demand for silk would recover within a year.
    But there's another point that casts doubt on the existence of the Great Silk Road. According to the official version of history, silk production in Persia began under the Sassanid Shah Shampur II (309-379), who brought in skilled weavers from Mesopotamia and Syria.
    But if Shampur II attracted skilled weavers from Mesopotamia and Syria, it means that sericulture in Syria and Mesopotamia arose in an even earlier period? 100 years before the birth of Shampur II? In 200 years? For 300 years???
    Then the whole point of the Great Silk Road is lost. Why bother hauling goods from China to European markets that are produced in regions much closer to Europe, in what is now Iraq, Syria, and Iran?
    1. +3
      23 September 2025 15: 14
      The situation right now is exactly as you describe. There are billions of people in Asia, India, and China. But they still keep flocking to Europe, where 500 million people live. And they're building routes under the same names. Customs, security, and distances don't bother them.
      1. 0
        24 September 2025 14: 00
        Quote: glory1974
        But still they all go to Europe, where 500 million people live.


        And in times not so long ago, these same Europeans were moving, en masse, to other regions of the world. Among the first was a certain Christopher Columbus, and also someone named Vaska or Gama. :-)
        Why couldn't they just sit in their native Europe? Were they bored?
        1. 0
          25 September 2025 17: 04
          Why couldn't they just sit in their native Europe? Were they bored?

          There were many reasons. One of them was the exchange of glass beads for gold. In other words, trade.
    2. +2
      23 September 2025 22: 08
      Quote: Seal
      1. In the East (China, Korea, Japan, India, Burma, the Indochina countries, the islands), the population in the era that historians attribute to the era of the Great Silk Road was an order of magnitude (10 times) or even more (maybe 20 times, or maybe 50 times) than in the West (Europe, the Middle East, Egypt, Transcaucasia).


      According to modern estimates (e.g. economist Angus Maddison) the population in 1000:
      East Asia - 66 million
      South and Southeast Asia - 80 million
      Central Asia and Eastern Europe - 13 million.
      Middle East and North Africa - 24 million.
      Western Europe - 25 million.

      There is no difference of 50 times, and there couldn’t be.

      Quote: Seal
      4. So what could have motivated the so-called “silk caravans” to move from China to Europe, incurring enormous costs, including customs duties and caravan protection?


      The same as always - profit.

      Quote: Seal
      Chinese merchants had to transport silk to Europe for sale.


      No Chinese merchants ever reached Europe; it was trade through a bunch of intermediaries, with a corresponding markup of prices.

      Quote: Seal
      However, I believe that, taking into account transportation and other costs, it would have been cheaper to burn silk products produced one or two years ago in China and thereby restore demand for silk in the East.


      So, merchants come from somewhere like Samarkand, and the Chinese will burn silk in front of them because it’s easier to sell it to Japan, right?

      Quote: Seal
      But if Shampur II attracted skilled weavers from Mesopotamia and Syria, does this mean that sericulture in Syria and Mesopotamia arose at an even earlier period?


      Do you think weavers only work with silk?
      And what other skewer?
    3. +1
      24 September 2025 08: 41
      The "Silk Road" is a conventional term; silk was just one commodity in the overall trade flow. For example, tea was a commodity of strategic importance. And the trade didn't look like the Chinese were transporting goods anywhere. The goods were usually exported by Central Asian traders, primarily Uyghurs and Bukharans during the Mongol and post-Mongol periods. Transit trade was their primary occupation.
  30. +5
    23 September 2025 12: 06
    Quote: Gardamir
    Whether to believe it or not is a personal matter. But in a hundred years, what will remain of the memory of the Soviet Union?
    The memory of the Soviet Union will undoubtedly remain. Because the Soviet Union really existed. And this is confirmed by billions of documents, hundreds of millions of photographs, millions of kilometers of film, billions of square meters of newspapers, and so on, all of which capture the Soviet Union.
    1. +5
      23 September 2025 13: 48
      Documents can be erased, something can be forged.
      The best lies are made from half-truths.
      And the USSR in the distant future (as it is now, by the way) can be imagined either as a great power with epic achievements, or as a bloody "totalitarian Mordor" that dreamed of "forcibly falling in love" with white and fluffy Europe with its highest culture and Western values.

      And manuscripts burn beautifully, as do any documents that claim to be "historical."
      Yes, they will now turn the USSR and Russia into a “bloody horde” in the memory of their descendants, leaving others free.
      And when other descendants question such an unflattering image, such unbelievers will be accused of relapsing into "Fomenkoism."
  31. +2
    23 September 2025 12: 09
    Quote: multicaat
    So a Mongol sits in a yurt and thinks: "No, I'm bored enough, I need to ride a couple thousand kilometers, shake off the fat."
    You see, for millennia, the Mongols had a great Mongol dream, or idée fixe. It was that all of the Mongols' misfortunes (cattle die-offs, wolf attacks, failed marriages, and so on) stemmed from the fact that somewhere far to the West there was a certain Ryazan. And as long as this Ryazan stood, the Mongols' misfortunes would continue. Many generations of Mongols were born and died, carrying this idea throughout their lives and passing it on to their descendants: to march west, to find and burn this very Ryazan. And finally, a Great Leader emerged among the Mongols, who declared: "Mongols, come with me to the West. I give you my word of honor as Mongolians that we will find and burn Ryazan." And the Mongols perked up, mounted their swift horses, and galloped west in search of Ryazan. laughing
  32. +3
    23 September 2025 12: 16
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    Or take Ancient Egypt. After Champollion deciphered their hieroglyphs, the volume of knowledge increased not just exponentially, but by an order of magnitude.
    The only problem is that even using Champollion's "decoding" principle, it still turns out that almost every hieroglyph can have dozens of meanings, often very different from each other. Champollion merely selected the most suitable meanings to construct a coherent narrative that confirmed everything Europe already "knew" about Ancient Egypt. He then offered this narrative to the community of historians and the reading public in general. The community of historians and the reading public saw that Champollion hadn't shaken any of the established beliefs, and so they favorably received his translations.
  33. +1
    23 September 2025 12: 19
    What's interesting is that Chyskhaan (or rather, Chinggis Khan, pronounced in Yakut) is the lord of cold; in Yakut, his name means "frost." Chyskhaan (Chinggis Khan) is the Yakut equivalent of our Father Frost. Chyskhaan (Chinggis Khan) lives in the Ebe-Khaya ice cave near the village of Tomtor in the Oymyakon district of Yakutia. Chyskhaan doesn't give gifts or stage performances, but rather introduces guests to his residence and Yakut legends.
    1. +4
      23 September 2025 15: 23
      A very interesting theory. The cataclysm resulted in a cold snap, and severe frosts descended on Rus'. Different tribes called it by different names. Some called it Kolotun-bobo, others Ded Moroz, and others Chyskhaan. Later, in legend, it became a pagan army that killed many people.
      There is evidence, mammoths are extinct, the Little Ice Age is officially recognized.
      1. 0
        1 October 2025 10: 23
        The behavior of the "historians" here is indicative. They don't downvote you!!! They downvote me. Even though I merely provided generally neutral information about the Yakuts having their own Father Frost, and his name is Chyskhaan. And you've already drawn your own conclusion based on this information. Apparently, the locals (and not only the locals) hate the very fact of the appearance of information that will inevitably create problems for them. How the local (and not only the local) historians would like it if no one searched for any information anywhere independently, but for everyone to read only their articles and books and respectfully listen to their "works". All the "discussion" that they allow and pass off as "historical debates", "the development of history", "discussions on fundamental historical issues", and so on - are disputes on topics like: Speaker: "The length of Alexander the Great's spear was 2 meters",
        First opponent: "No, no, what are you saying? I assure you that the length of Alexander the Great's spear was 2 meters 40 centimeters."
        Second opponent: "What are you talking about, colleagues? It seems like you think Alexander the Great was a weakling? The length of his spear was almost 3 meters!!! Or maybe even 3 meters 10 centimeters!!!"
        Historians love these kinds of "historical disputes" laughing
  34. +2
    23 September 2025 12: 32
    Quote: KVU-NSVD
    So what, there was no invasion?
    So, was there an invasion? China has been reconsidering its concept for several years now and decided it wasn't invaded. So why should we continue to believe in these invasion tales?
    1. +1
      23 September 2025 21: 08
      Well, to cite a country where officially there was nothing in a certain square on a certain date as an example of historicism is simply ridiculous.
      1. +1
        24 September 2025 07: 54
        Quote: shocktrooper
        Well, to cite a country where officially there was nothing in a certain square on a certain date as an example of historicism is simply ridiculous.
        Are you talking about China?
  35. +3
    23 September 2025 12: 41
    Quote: Cartalon
    Once again, we encourage nonsense writing with comments.
    How is this nonsense any worse than the hundreds of others posted here? What about all those "ancient Egypts," "Alexander the Great's campaigns," or "Ancient Roman campaigns," and especially "the Ancient Roman fleet"?
    How is this nonsense worse than the official nonsense about the Mongol invasion of Rus'? The Mongols, who lived scattered in small clans, some of whose members met with members of other Mongol clans only once or twice a year on major holidays, who peacefully grazed their livestock using nomadic herding, suddenly recognized a single Mongol as their leader, under whose leadership they instantly organized themselves into a super-duper army with iron discipline, became the most powerful warriors in the universe, and set out to conquer the entire world? Isn't this the worst nonsense?
    1. +1
      23 September 2025 22: 12
      Quote: Seal
      How is this nonsense worse than the official nonsense about the Mongol invasion of Rus'?


      Tell me, are the Crimean Tatar campaigns against Poland, Lithuania, and Rus' also "official nonsense"?
      1. +1
        24 September 2025 09: 27
        Quote: Tulus12
        Tell me, are the Crimean Tatar campaigns against Poland, Lithuania, and Rus' also "official nonsense"?


        What relation do the "Crimean Tatars" have to the conquests of Genghis Khan?
        The Crimean Tatars are Turkic-speaking and were most likely formed by the mixing of the ancient Bulgar people (the part that did not leave their homelands) with other tribes, such as the Khazars.

        And earlier, the Pechenegs and Cumans (Turks) had raided these same regions. So what? They managed without Genghis Khan and Subedei, so to speak.
        1. 0
          24 September 2025 11: 43
          The Crimean Tatar clan structure includes many clans of Mongolian origin, most notably the Mangyts. Indeed, the ruling dynasty of the Crimean Tatars traced its lineage back to Genghis Khan.
          1. +1
            24 September 2025 13: 20
            Quote: ORINCH
            Well, in fact, the ruling dynasty of the Crimean Tatars traced its roots back to Genghis Khan.


            The Japanese emperors traced their lineage back to the goddess Amaterasu. And the Chinese emperors traced their lineage back to a celestial dragon—reptilians, in short. laughing

            You can come up with anything to elevate yourself above your subjects—be it a mythical ancestor, gods, or even just as real and incredible creatures in your genealogy.
            1. -1
              24 September 2025 13: 35
              Celestial dragons and Amaterasu did not cross cultural boundaries, as they are the domain of national mythology. The image of Genghis Khan is cross-cultural, from Japan and Korea to Western Europe and North Africa. Therefore, there was an objective reason for the emergence of such an image in the cultural and political life of Eurasia—namely, the conquests of Genghis Khan himself and his descendants.
              1. +1
                24 September 2025 13: 47
                Heavenly dragons didn't cross borders? Are you sure? Winged dragons were quite popular among many peoples, and for most, they were associated with a negative, hostile image.
                For example, among those same Russians. Who did the Russian heroes fight? Not the dragon, aka the Serpent Gorynych?

                "Genghis Khan" originally concealed a real historical figure, whose existence I don't even think of disputing. But his activities were limited to a very specific region (China, the Tangut Kingdom), and he could have been credited with the achievements of others by unscrupulous individuals of European descent, who inflated this image to Homeric proportions to suit their own political ends. I wonder, in the 14th and 15th centuries, how many Mongolians knew about their great Genghis Khan? I suspect not. The eyes of the simple-minded Oirats to their great history were opened by the Jesuit Fathers, who supposedly discovered (or rather, simply composed) the "Secret History," written, for some reason, in Chinese (well, Mongolian, a written language, didn't exist then).
                For Catholic monks, generously funded by their Pope (or Popes), concocting the requisite number of "historical chronicles" was quite feasible. And the motivation was quite worthy: using such fakes to seize and subjugate vast territories inhabited by rebellious "schismatics."
                1. -1
                  24 September 2025 17: 03
                  A serpent possessing magical properties is an archetype in the mythological consciousness of all humanity; even the Mesoamerican Indians have a serpent, Quetzalcoatl. But the dragon, as an exclusively fruitful and positive principle, is a phenomenon of East Asia. Even in India, the image of the naga serpent is ambivalent: initially evil, but capable of turning to the side of good. In Buddhist beliefs, for example, nagas are considered bearers of secret knowledge and patrons of teachings, but they must be constantly appeased, otherwise their harmful nature awakens. It is precisely in this understanding that the dragon myth has not crossed the cultural boundaries of East Asia.
                  1. +1
                    25 September 2025 08: 43
                    A snake is a snake, and a dragon is a dragon. They don't look very similar.
                    And based on your own logic, since "Genghis" is so widespread, this is solid evidence of the "great Mongol conquests", and the presence of "winged serpents" in a wide variety of cultures on different continents can serve as an equally solid argument for the participation of reptilian aliens in human history.

                    It's true that dragons and winged snakes have a positive image among some peoples, while among others they have a very negative one (Russians, Europeans, and others). But perhaps this difference can be explained by past conflicts, which are reflected in the different assessments and images of these mythical creatures?

                    So the dragon myth crossed borders, just as its bearers once did, but beyond cultural boundaries it changed its polarity?
                    1. 0
                      5 December 2025 23: 01
                      The dragon myth is the archetype of the serpent, present in all of humanity. It's just that some cultures of the chthonic cult reinterpret it in a positive light, while others retain the old interpretation.
                2. -1
                  24 September 2025 17: 05
                  The Jesuits are conspiracy theories of the lowest order, a sign of a solipsistic mind. Serious people must practice mental hygiene.
                  1. +1
                    25 September 2025 08: 51
                    Quote: ORINCH
                    The Jesuits are conspiracy theories of the lowest order, a sign of a solipsistic consciousness.


                    All history is a history of conspiracies and counter-conspiracies. And what the majority is fed is what benefits those in power, nothing more.
                  2. 0
                    28 October 2025 09: 15
                    Quote: ORINCH
                    The Jesuits are conspiracy theories of the lowest order, a sign of a solipsistic mind. Serious people must practice mental hygiene.
                    Serious people must have mental hygiene. Constantly writing about some kind of "conspiracy theories, and even low-grade ones at that"—that doesn't require intelligence. What's needed is a solipsistic consciousness. Historians are solipsists who believe that their consciousness, which has constructed an immutable picture of the development of human society on earth, is the only correct and infallible one. Everything else is nonsense.
                    And specifically about the Jesuits.
                    It's foolish to deny the facts. The facts are that the Jesuits' primary mission was missionary work, spreading Christianity throughout the world. But since the entire edifice of Christian history is built on the Bible, wherever the Jesuits went, they spread historical views approved by the Vatican. What's the problem? Is this some kind of conspiracy theory? It's the normal, most ordinary way of things. The same thing was done, for example, by the Comintern's envoys in the first half of the 20th century—they spread the ideas of communism throughout the world.
                    But let's return to the Jesuits. According to the official version of history, the Society of Jesus was founded in 1534, and its Statutes and privileges were approved by the Pope in 1540. And look! Just a few years after Pope Paul III's approval, the Jesuits already had their own Jesuit College of St. Paul in Goa, the capital of Portuguese India, where two Chinese teenagers were enrolled in 1546. One of these two Chinese Christians, known as Antonio, accompanied St. Francis Xavier, one of the founders of the Society of Jesus, when he decided to begin missionary work in China. However, Xavier was unable to reach mainland China and died in 1552 on Shangchuan Island off the coast of Guangdong, the only place in China where Europeans were permitted at the time, albeit only for seasonal trade.
                    Initially, the Jesuits were supported by donations from members of the elite, especially wealthy widows from Europe and Asia. Women such as Isabel Reigota in Macau, Mercia Royce in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Candida Xu in China donated significant sums to establish missions in China, as well as other Asian countries. Eventually, in 1582, the Jesuits began active missionary work in China under the leadership of several individuals, including the Italian Matteo Ricci, and established themselves in the capital of China, at the imperial court. They introduced Western science, mathematics, astronomy, and fine arts to the Chinese imperial court, and also engaged in important cross-cultural and philosophical dialogue with Chinese scholars, particularly Confucianists. At the height of their influence, members of the Jesuit delegation were considered among the emperor's most valued and trusted advisers and occupied prestigious positions in the imperial government. Many Chinese, including former Confucian scholars, converted to Christianity and became priests and members of the Society of Jesus.
                    This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the official version of history.
                    Incidentally, it's worth remembering that the Vatican had at its disposal not only the Jesuits, but also a host of monks from other orders. For example, not only the well-known Dominicans, but also the now little-known Cistercians. In the 13th century, the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order obliged all monastic abbeys with more than 80 monks to establish schools at the monasteries. All abbeys with more than 40 monks were required to send at least two monks to study at the University of Paris. Many Cistercian abbeys had the best libraries of their time—the library of Clairvaux contained 1770 manuscripts in the 15th century, and the library of Himmerod Abbey about 2000.
                    All these fighters of the Vatican’s ideological front understood that it was after the people were indoctrinated with the Vatican’s version of history that it would be easier for them to fulfill the most important mission - to spread Christianity.
                    And those whose minds have been taken over by the Vatican version of history, even if the remains of a monkey are found, will still claim that the "remains of the Mongol-Tatars" have been found.
                    Another point. Christian ideas, and therefore the biblical version of history, were promoted not only by Vatican envoys but also by opponents of the Vatican, declared heretics by it: Nestorians, Jacobites, and others.
                    According to the official version of history, the Nestorian patriarch Yeshuabu (Ishoyab) established metropolitan sees in Samarkand, Herat, India, and China. The presence of Nestorians in China in the 7th century is attested to by a stone with a Sino-Syriac inscription, dating to 781.
                    P.S. Official historians have not yet agreed on which Yeshuyab (Ishoyab) it was—the Second or the Third. But for us, it doesn't matter, since the Second headed the Church of the East from 628 to 645, and the Third from 649 to 660.
                    1. 0
                      5 December 2025 23: 10
                      The role of the Jesuits in Chinese history has been well-studied; there's no room for conspiracy theories. On the contrary, the Jesuits laid the foundation for European Sinology with their work. Their own achievements in introducing European knowledge into Chinese culture, however, were quite limited. They failed to shake the Chinese cultural monolith. This only occurred in the 19th century, with the might of English and French cannons.
                      1. 0
                        6 December 2025 12: 57
                        Your problem is that you're simply fixated on some "conspiracy theory." Meanwhile, the Jesuits, like all other Christian orders, were simply engaged in spreading ideology. And the dissemination of the Vatican version of history was a side effect, or rather, an accompanying element, of spreading ideology. That's all. Moreover, this activity of the Jesuits (and other orders) is acknowledged in the official version of history. The role of the Jesuits in Chinese history It is really well studied and everything is proven. Including what I wrote to you. Do you really want to deny what is acknowledged in the official version of history?
                        On the contrary, it was the Jesuits who laid the foundation for European Sinology with their work. Their own achievements in introducing European knowledge into Chinese culture, however, were quite limited.

                        You decided to argue with the official version of history, right? winked .
                        In fact, the official version of history has long acknowledged that it was the Europeans who first showed the Chinese emperors a map of the world, although they drew it so that China occupied the middle place (appendix).
                        It is acknowledged that it was the Europeans, in the person of the Jesuits, who introduced the Chinese to mechanical watches, which "made a lasting impression on the Chinese."
                        Yes, historians have no logic and in the so-called “historical environment” at the same time there is your confidence that
                        And their own achievements in introducing European knowledge into Chinese culture turned out to be very, very limited.

                        That is, the belief that many scientific achievements were achieved by the Chinese, without the Jesuits, before their arrival. And this belief played a trick on historians. So, about eighty years ago, historians decided to present the world with yet another sensation: they declared that logarithms were invented not by the Scottish mathematician John Napier, who published the first logarithm table in European history in 1614, but by the very ancient Chinese. As proof, they presented a very ancient Chinese manuscript—nothing but logarithms... But when professionals worked on the “ancient” manuscript, an embarrassment occurred: mathematicians quickly determined that they were looking at something copied entirely from Napier's book. And the evidence was ironclad: every single typo present in Napier's book was discovered in the “ancient” manuscript.
                        They did not shake the Chinese cultural monolith.
                        My God, what "monolith"? Where did you get that? After all, the official version of history admits that after the advent of a new dynasty in China, all documents from the previous dynasty were rewritten and destroyed. It is acknowledged that when the Ming Dynasty replaced the Yuan Dynasty, after just ten years, few could "remember the Mongolian language." And by order of the first Ming emperor, it was decided to create a sort of "Mongolian language textbook." And so they created the "Secret History," which is now commonly called the "Secret History." The work was called "secret" because it was discovered in an abandoned room of the palace, which only a few Yuan officials had access to during the reign of the Yuan Dynasty. In this room, Ming officials found scattered sheets of some documents from the previous dynasty. And from these, they created and published the aforementioned "work." This is not my version, but the officially recognized one.
                        So, if we use your terminology, it is you who are captivated by some of your conspiracy theories. fool Although in fact everything is obvious, everything is on the surface, easily explained and recognized in the official version of History. hi
  36. -1
    23 September 2025 13: 24
    Were the Crimean Tatars also Caucasian? After all, they were the ones who carried out raids right up until the capture of Crimea and reached Moscow more than once. Did their genetic material remain in the burial grounds?
    1. +1
      23 September 2025 13: 27
      And what about the fact that the Mongols reached Europe and fought with them there?
      1. +2
        24 September 2025 09: 22
        Quote: Panin (Michman)
        And what about the fact that the Mongols reached Europe and fought with them there?


        But it is quite revealing how these “Mongols” were depicted by European sources.
        The men have quite European faces, with lush beards and outfits that are not very Mongolian.
        Older Mongolians have beards, but they look more like rat tails than real beards.
        By the way, the Scythians also depicted themselves with European-style facial features on their jewelry.

        So it is possible that the "Horde" could well have been both Russians and Turks... why not?
        Well, later the "Horde" became what the Cossacks called them.
        In terms of passion, charisma, energy, and a thirst for adventure, our Cossacks (who also reached the "last sea" and even further... Alaska) are far more similar to the Golden Horde than the Mongol herders, who have been sitting on their asses in Mongolia for 1,500 years and, even today, have no desire to travel. And genetic studies (I know firsthand) demonstrate a striking homogeneity in the Mongols' genetic material, something completely uncharacteristic of former imperial peoples.
        They supposedly conquered numerous peoples and could have taken women from Ryazan to India and Vietnam, but there was no foreign admixture, no crossbreeding. And no arrogance or disdain for other ethnic groups can explain this. Europeans generally considered blacks a type of monkey and kept them in cages, but there are plenty of mulattoes in the world.
        Another argument: if the Mongol Mongols really did ride across most of Eurasia on their horses, then what trace of such a thing would have remained in Mongol folklore, myths, and legends? So where is it? The Scandinavians have tons of similar stories in their epics, more than one. Even Attila is mentioned, although he supposedly died long before the Viking raids. And what about the Mongols? Where are the heroic epics about the capture of Kyiv and Khorezm?
        Another argument. If the Mongols experienced a period of imperial grandeur and great conquests, then the names of Mongol figures from that era should have become legendary and mega-popular among the Mongols, even today. Well, the name Genghis (or rather Tengiz) is common among the Mongols. But, having visited Mongolia many times, I haven't encountered a single Batu, Mamai, or Subedei, which surprised me at the time and gave me pause.

        Speaking of Mamai, the legendary founder of the Zaporizhian Sich was a certain first Cossack named Mamai, according to legend. But he didn't drink kumiss and didn't live in a yurt, which is typical.
        1. +1
          24 September 2025 12: 28
          You have very strange ideas about the Mongols and Mongolian history. Today's Mongols of Russia, Mongolia, and China (imagine, the Mongolian world stretches even today from Kalmykia to the Liaodong and Jilin provinces in northeastern China, and it is linguistically and culturally homogeneous) are the descendants of the Mongols of the Ulus of Tolui, Genghis Khan's youngest son, just one of the four original Uluses. The Mongols of other uluses—the Jochid, Ögedeid, Chagatai, and later the Hulaguid—were largely assimilated, first religiously (converting to Islam), then linguistically (adopting Turkic and Iranian languages), and in the post-imperial era, they became part of new peoples with different identities: the Nogais, Crimean and Astrakhan Tatars, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Hazaras and aimaks of Afghanistan, the Mughals of Pakistan and India, and so on. However, remnants of the Mongol tribal structure persist among these peoples to this day. Until relatively recently, until the early 20th century, the political tradition of legitimizing power through Chinggisid descent also persisted.

          The Tuluids founded the Yuan state in East Asia. In the 14th century, the Mongols were expelled from China following a rebellion by the Han majority (according to legend, only four of the 44 imperial Mongol tumens managed to escape). However, the Mongols were a major thorn in the side of Ming China; it was the Mongols who built the Great Wall of China in its present form—a stone and brick structure with numerous towers. In the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the Mongols experienced a period of cultural revival. Buddhism, with its rich literary culture, became firmly established among them (during these years, the Buddhist canonical collection, the Ganjur, consisting of over 100 volumes, was translated into Mongolian), and the chronicle tradition was restored. Unable to overcome feudal fragmentation, the southern Mongolian aimags, one after another, fell under the ascendant Manchus. The Manchus incorporated the Mongolian aristocracy into their dynasty and bolstered their armies with Mongolian warriors. The Mongols formed their own eight banners within the banner structure of the Manchu state, which, in fact, enabled the Qing Empire's conquest of China.

          During the same post-imperial period (14th-17th centuries), a Mongol faction opposed to the Chinggisids formed the Oirat Confederation, from which the Torghut (Kalmyk), Dzungar (ruling clan – the Choros), and Khoshut Khanates emerged in the 17th century. This was essentially the swan song of the overwhelming power of the steppe warrior tradition, as all post-Horde states suffered equally at the hands of the Oirats (the Kalmyks and Dzungars reduced the Kazakhs and Nogais to tribal status); they fought equally with the Ottoman, Russian, Qing, and Great Mughal Empires, inflicting significant blows on them.

          You're saying funny things about names. To begin with, Chingis isn't a name, it's a title. In Mongolian tradition, its use as a name was taboo. Nevertheless, there are many Chingis names among the Russified Buryats today, but the Mongols themselves adhere to the ancient taboo.
          Bat(a) is perhaps the most popular male name and the basis of a name among all Mongolian peoples. It means "strong, powerful": Ganbat, Batjargal, Batkhuyag, Baterdene, Batzorig, etc. The current head of Kalmykia is named Batu Khasikov, by the way. Batuev, or Batoev, is one of the most common surnames among the Buryats and Kalmyks.
          1. +1
            24 September 2025 13: 15
            There is no "Mongolian world"; there is a Mongoloid race. But the Mongols are actually only a small part of this race, not the most significant.
            In the West, all Europeans are considered representatives of the "Caucasian race." Does this mean that the "Caucasian world" stretches from Toronto to Vladivostok?

            In short, everyone you listed might have had nothing to do with the "Great Mongol Empire." The fact that Africa is predominantly African-American doesn't mean there was once a single African-American empire that controlled the entire continent.

            Tengis (Tengiz) is a name; it means "sea" in Mongolian (!). The word itself is likely borrowed from the Turks. I've met locals with this name in Mongolia.
            The name is more widespread among the Turkic peoples, since it is more Turkic, for some reason it is not taboo at all.
            Let's recall the writer Chingis Aitmatov. For him, Chingis is definitely not a title.

            What about Mamai, Subedei? Well, we can also remember Uzbek, Nevryuy. Are there many of them in Mongolia?
            In short, most of what is attributed to the Mongols is characteristic of the more developed Turks, with whom the Russians had close contact long before the "campaigns of Batu."
            1. +1
              24 September 2025 13: 40
              For you, it doesn't exist, but for me, Buryat by nationality, it absolutely does. Because in Mongolia, China, and Kalmykia, I find people I understand in all aspects of interpersonal and group communication.
              1. 0
                25 September 2025 09: 05
                Are you sure that things were different before the "campaigns of Genghis Khan"?
                I fully admit you could find common ground with the Evenks, Yakuts, and Chukchi, among others. And did they, too, once reach the Adriatic?
                Has the simple thought that ethnic groups can spread not only through “great conquests” never occurred to you?

                At one time, I was amused that Lev Gumilev justified the Mongol conquests by citing local climate change. This did indeed happen more than once. But the local peoples solved the problem simply: they pushed their weaker neighbors into less hospitable areas. It turns out the ancient Mongols weren't strong enough to displace the Buryats from Transbaikalia (where living conditions were, after all, easier than in Mongolia), but they were quite capable of conquering half of Eurasia. Logic, however, rules.
                How did it happen that the direct descendants of the greatest conquerors inhabited the continent's least inhabitable areas, and were even left in chronic poverty and underdevelopment by the early 20th century? "Where's the money, Zin?"
                Supposedly, in the 13th and 14th centuries, the Mongols demonstrated administrative perfection and had an impeccable bureaucratic apparatus. Even from our own experience, it's clear that if bureaucrats are allowed to take root, they can only be removed by thermonuclear means. Since the time of Peter the Great, we've had a crop of homegrown bureaucrats, and they haven't gone away and haven't changed much since Peter's time. Where was the perfect Mongolian bureaucracy in the 19th and 20th centuries? I've personally interacted with Mongols, and I can say that in this regard, they're on par with blacks.
                To so masterfully squander one's supposedly once great imperial heritage - this is something one must be able to do. laughing
                1. 0
                  28 September 2025 11: 58
                  What makes you think living conditions are easier in Transbaikalia? Transbaikalia is predominantly a taiga region; the steppes here are narrow strips along river valleys, and they simply cannot accommodate large numbers of livestock and, consequently, people. The Buryat population, which at the end of the 19th century was 300, speaks volumes. The most favorable areas for nomadic pastoralism are the western and southern spurs of the Greater Khingan Mountains, and the Menen and Shilingol steppes. And these are heavily occupied by Mongols.
                  Furthermore, you have a poor understanding of the structure of the Mongolian peoples. "Mongol" is a general term for Mongolian-speaking peoples, on the same level as such categories as Slavs, Turks, and Germans. Within this cultural and geographic space, Buryat-Mongols, Khalkha-Mongols, Chahar-Mongols, and others are already distinguished. The ethnogenesis of modern Buryats, Khalkha, Chahars, and other groups is linked to the post-imperial political life of the 14th-18th centuries; they consist of fragments of ancient Mongolian and non-Mongol tribes and clans. For example, for the Buryats, the defining factor is their allegiance to the Russian Empire from the turn of the 17th century until 1917; before that, the Buryats were just as much Mongols as anyone else. Among them, for example, were the Chahar and Khalkha rebels of the late 17th century against Manchu rule.
                  Therefore, it is completely wrong to say
                  == The ancient Mongols did not have the strength to push the Buryats out of Transbaikalia (where living conditions are still easier than in Mongolia) ==
                  Simply because the Buryats in their current state are as much the heirs of the ancient Mongols as anyone else. But this also contradicts historical data, because the Buryats of the 13th century chronicles were conquered by Jochi during his campaign against the forest peoples, but their ethnic and linguistic identity is not reliably known.
                  The Mongols had an impeccable bureaucratic apparatus, directly linked to the military-administrative structure of Mongolian society. It also corresponded to the feudal structure established by Genghis Khan and developed by his descendants. This began with a clear hierarchy of ruling noyons (the head/owner of the baga – shuleng, the somon – zaisan, the khoshun – zasak) and ended with officials (dar(u)ga – keeper of the seal, head of the chancery, zarguchi – judge, elchi – ambassador, tugchi – standard-bearer, etc.).
                  Under Manchu rule, ruling princes gradually lost their hereditary rights and became appointed officials. Fortunately, the taiji class, which comprised the descendants of Genghis Khan, his brothers, and the Oirat ruling clans, constituted one-fifth of the entire Mongolian population by the end of the 19th century (most of them, naturally, were poor or even completely destitute, retaining the sole privilege of not paying per capita taxes). There was a large pool of personnel for noble officials.
                  I'm amazed at how, knowing absolutely nothing about the topic or any of the related issues, you can so confidently make judgments and pass judgment. Sorry, but it's a bit early for you to join the Kalashnikov Ryad.
                  1. 0
                    28 September 2025 13: 48
                    Quote: ORINCH
                    What makes you think living conditions are easier in Transbaikalia? Transbaikalia is predominantly a taiga region; the steppes here are narrow strips along river valleys; they simply can't accommodate large numbers of livestock and, consequently, people. The Buryat population, which at the end of the 19th century was 300, speaks volumes.


                    It's better than the Gobi Desert, where no one lives even now. Where winters are as cold as Antarctica, and summers are devoid of water. Mongolia is the least habitable place. Having rivers and lakes is a very good thing; livestock and people need water, and the best grass is along the riverbanks. And modern Buryatia is definitely more developed than Mongolia, which is on par with African countries. If anything is produced, it's thanks to foreigners; there's nothing indigenous.


                    Quote: ORINCH
                    The Mongols had an impeccable bureaucratic apparatus, directly linked to the military-administrative structure of Mongolian society.


                    They had nothing. And what they have even now is a laughing matter.
                    Let me remind you how small detachments of Russian Cossacks (Ermak, Dezhnev, Shelekhov, Khabarov) traveled many thousands of kilometers, some reaching the Pacific Ocean, without encountering much organized resistance—no "Great Tartaries," for some reason. It was a wild land with a poorly developed population. Only the Manchus were anything to write home about, but for some reason they never went on campaigns to the far west. And it was the Russians who gradually brought the locals into the fold of civilization.
                    Unfortunately, even China's achievements are greatly exaggerated, let alone the Mongols'.
                    1. -2
                      28 September 2025 16: 14
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      A wild region with an underdeveloped population

                      Africa and the Middle East had similar populations. Although they fought off the Crusaders and Romans just fine. One can also recall how the Spaniards conquered continents with minimal troops. Or the Crimean Tatars, for example, lost all their advantages with the introduction of firearms.
                      1. 0
                        29 September 2025 13: 28
                        Quote: Panin (Michman)
                        Africa and the Middle East had similar populations. Although they fought off the Crusaders and Romans just fine. One can also recall how the Spaniards conquered continents with a minimum of troops.


                        Seriously? Who was underdeveloped in Africa? The Phoenicians and Carthaginians? They were far more developed than the Romans, and much richer, too. Carthage's army was professional mercenaries, while the Romans were essentially militias.
                        The Egyptians? The ones who built the pyramids? Did they have a small population? During the Middle Kingdom, Egypt had a population of approximately 5 million. For comparison, the population of all of Italy during Caesar's time was no more than 3 million.
                        Was there no one to fight the Crusaders? Well, the Arab population wasn't very numerous, and not very combat-ready. But their technology was high, and their weapons and tactics were adapted to local conditions, while the northern Crusaders weren't exactly comfortable in Palestine. And the Crusaders were mostly fought by Turks; they were quite developed and combat-ready, and they were building great powers. The Seljuk Turks, the Ottoman Turks... the latter still maintain a fairly powerful state, which, by all accounts, beats Mongolia like a bull beats a sheep.
                        The conquistadors were successful precisely because of their technological superiority. Their weapons were far more sophisticated, their horses were available, their cunning, and their ability to exploit local problems... Incidentally, it's far more accurate to compare the Mongols to the Indians, since they are genetically related. Supposedly, the New World was settled by people from our Siberia during the last Ice Age (when the Bering Strait formed an isthmus between Eurasia and North America).
            2. 0
              24 September 2025 14: 15
              The title Chinggis is most likely a phonetic variation of the word "tengis," meaning "ocean" (sea is "dalai," hence the title of the Dalai Lama), but these words are spelled differently in Mongolian script. And neither is included in the traditional Mongolian onomasticon, most likely for the reason mentioned above. Dalai, by the way, is a name.

              The name Chingis is also popular among Dagestanis, but this means that for them this word is just a name, while for the Mongols it has a sacred meaning.

              Nachset Mamaev, Uzbeks—these are names from the Jochi Ulus, a Turkified Mongolian periphery. I can't comment on the lack of popularity of the name Subedei; I know there were two in Mongolian history. The Mongols have a concept called "khunde nere"—a "heavy name" for its bearer due to certain cultural connotations. It's quite possible that this name falls into this category. I know that the name Subedei is currently very popular among Tuvans due to their belief that the Uriankhai Subedei is somehow related to the Tuvans. But that's nonsense; the Uriankhai are an ancient Mongolian tribe, close to Genghis Khan from the very beginning of his rise. And the original territory of his Ulus was located in the Onon River basin on the border of today's Zabaikalsky Krai and Mongolia; from there it's a long way to Tuva. The Uryankhai no longer exist as an obog, aimak, or tumens; they were dispersed due to collaboration with the Ming Empire. However, as a yastan (bone), they are found among all the Mongols and Oirats. Among my Buryat obok, the tsongol, the uryankhad bone is perhaps the most numerous; my great-grandmother was of this bone.
              Incidentally, a fun fact: the fall of the Uryankhai people is directly linked to the rise of the Manchus. The Uryankhai tumen suffered defeat at the hands of the Chinese army and entered the service of the Ming Empire in the 1380s, which established several Uryankhai guard posts in Dongbei, today's Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning provinces. A hundred years later, after the Mongol reinforcements had once again gained strength, the Uryankhai tumen was disbanded, and the Uryankhai people were dispersed among other tumens and aimags. Therefore, the Ming Empire recruited Jurchen tribes to serve in these guard posts. The Manchu ruling dynasty descended from one such clan of guard commanders in Jianzhou.
        2. -2
          28 September 2025 16: 06
          Quote: Illanatol
          Another argument: if the Mongol Mongols really did ride across most of Eurasia on their horses, then what trace of such a thing would have remained in Mongol folklore, myths, and legends? So where is it? The Scandinavians have tons of similar stories in their epics, more than one. Even Attila is mentioned, although he supposedly died long before the Viking raids. And what about the Mongols? Where are the heroic epics about the capture of Kyiv and Khorezm?

          The same place as the heroic epics of Ancient Rus'. Unlike the Romans and Greeks, writing came to Rus' much later. And the Mongols probably didn't have it at all.
          1. 0
            29 September 2025 13: 36
            Quote: Panin (Michman)
            In the same place as the heroic epics of Ancient Rus'.


            The heroic epics of Rus', also known as bylinas, are abundant and plentiful. There's even a bylina in which Russian heroes die fighting the Horde. But nowhere is it said where these supposed invaders came from. Although our ancestors already knew where China was in the 12th century, they called it "Hina" back then.

            Why were the Horde so often and persistently called "filthy pagans"? Was it really so surprising that the invaders, coming from afar, were of a different faith? Or perhaps it was precisely because the "evil Tatars" weren't seen as strangers at all, but as fellow tribesmen who didn't adhere to the "correct" Christianity of the Byzantine model? In other words, they were either pagans or heretics. But at the same time, they were quite Russian in the majority.
  37. +1
    23 September 2025 13: 42
    Quote: BAI
    Are there traditional Mongols in the film The Legend of Kolovrat?


    "Kolovrat" is one of the Russian synonyms for the ancient solar symbol, popular among all Indo-European peoples, that is, the swastika.
    Evpatiy with a swastika on his shield would look quite colorful in the film... laughing
  38. +2
    23 September 2025 13: 56
    The remains of Batu Khan's Mongol warriors were discovered during excavations at the Raikovets fortress (1948). From the report of the UAS USSR: "Hundreds of skeletons of defenders and enemies were discovered where death overtook them."

    In the Voronezh Region, the Olen-Kolodez burial site of a wealthy Mongol was uncovered in 1996. It contained characteristic equipment and artifacts from the late 13th century. The National Museum of the History of Azerbaijan is exhibiting finds from 20 Mongolian burials on the Kura River from Kaziyev's 1946-1953 expedition. The finds date to the late 13th century, and the arrow sets match those found at the Olen-Kolodez burial site and graves discovered in Mongolia and Tuva. Three Mongolian warriors wearing Mongolian equipment were found. A Mongolian iron paiza (sign of authority) discovered indicates that one of them was a tuaji (messenger).

    Total not to list.
  39. +4
    23 September 2025 14: 33
    Quote: Illanatol
    And manuscripts burn beautifully, as do any documents that claim to be "historical."
    Screw them. Individual manuscripts can burn. But books printed in large print runs won't. The Nazis already tried to burn books, but ultimately perished themselves. To erase the Soviet Union from memory, a catastrophe of planetary proportions would be needed, one that would destroy all material storage media and the majority of humanity. All that would remain would be the remote Amazonian Indians, the Bushmen of Africa, and similar tribes, who knew nothing of what was happening in the world beyond their borders. But such a catastrophe would destroy the memory not only of the USSR, but of all civilizations on the planet.
    1. -1
      23 September 2025 15: 28
      Quote: Seal
      To erase the Soviet Union from memory, some kind of catastrophe of planetary scale would be needed that would destroy all material carriers of information and the majority of humanity.

      A generational change is enough to forget history. Yes, references will remain on the internet and in textbooks, but they can be interpreted and edited.
    2. +1
      24 September 2025 09: 01
      Quote: Seal
      Screw them. Individual manuscripts can burn. But books printed in large print runs won't. The Nazis already tried to burn books, but they ultimately perished themselves. To erase the Soviet Union from memory, a catastrophe of planetary proportions would be needed, one that would destroy all material storage media and the majority of humanity.


      It is possible that we are heading towards such a catastrophe; such a scenario cannot be completely ruled out.
      I admit that the modern Western elite really wants to arrange a complete "reboot of the Matrix".
    3. -1
      29 September 2025 11: 27
      Quote: Seal
      Quote: Illanatol
      And manuscripts burn beautifully, as do any documents that claim to be "historical."
      Fuck them. Individual author manuscripts may burn. But books printed in numerous editions won't.

      How many times was the Great Soviet Encyclopedia edited, and how many times were history textbooks changed? And the numerous works of Lenin and Stalin can only be found in libraries, and the new generation won't be reading them anyway.
  40. -2
    23 September 2025 14: 34
    Quote: Panin (Michman)
    And what about the fact that the Mongols reached Europe and fought with them there?
    And you believe in this? Do you also believe in the existence of Father Frost and Baba Yaga?
  41. +5
    23 September 2025 15: 20
    Previously, such articles provoked anger and denial. Now, there's much less emotion; specific questions are being asked and even sometimes discussed. This means commentators have moved on to the next stage: bargaining and depression.
  42. +4
    23 September 2025 15: 28
    As a child, I loved watching historical films. I remember watching one about Peter the Great. The Old Believers fled into the woods, and Peter sent a force to rescue them. But the soldiers didn't have time to save them; they committed self-immolation, which an arriving officer reported to Peter. Peter the Great's verdict: "Scoundrels and scoundrels, they set themselves on fire, but they could have lived."
    And a real hatred for the Old Believers appears. And when I grew up, read the books, and doubt crept in: maybe they didn't burn themselves after all? Maybe such an internecine war was because of faith? But history is written by the victor, so it's impossible to know what happened.
  43. +5
    23 September 2025 15: 38
    How are these inflated sensations created, which are used by many believers in the Great Mongol Invasion to write such "arguments"?
    Quote: Yoon Klob
    The remains of Batu Khan's Mongol warriors were discovered during excavations at the Raikovets fortress (1948). From the report of the UAS USSR: "Hundreds of skeletons of defenders and enemies were discovered where death overtook them."
    This phrase, which Yun Klob cited here, has been circulating all over the Internet for a long time.
    But let's see what the report on the excavations at the Raikovets settlement actually says about the Tatars.
    But nothing concrete is said. The opening section provides a so-called "general historical background," which, incidentally, is where the report ends. Naturally, there's a mention of Karl Marx's words about the "Mongol conquest of half the world." How could 1950 be without Karl Marx?
    You can read the full story here
    https://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/ua/elib.exe?Z21ID=&I21DBN=UKRLIB&P21DBN=UKRLIB&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=online_book&C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=FF=&S21STR=ukr0005837
    Ignore the fact that it starts in Russian. The report itself is in Russian. Here are the scans. These are actually all the references to "Tatars" in the Raikovets settlement excavation report.
  44. +2
    23 September 2025 15: 55
    Quote: glory1974
    The situation right now is exactly as you describe. There are billions of people in Asia, India, and China. But they still keep flocking to Europe, where 500 million people live. And they're building routes under the same names. Customs, security, and distances don't bother them.
    Sorry, but you're comparing the incomparable. And not from the right perspective. Europe (at least Western Europe) is still richer per capita than any country in the world, including China and India. This means that today, the average purchasing power of Western Europeans is still higher than that of Chinese, Indians, and so on. That's why they're pushing. And as they say, "in those days," historians claim, the East was much richer than Europe.
    1. 0
      25 September 2025 17: 10
      The East may still be richer than Europe. And Russia is richer than both the East and Europe.
      But beyond the country's wealth, there's also the wealth of its people. And there are many other factors, such as modern technology. Europeans could make glass beads, but the natives couldn't. They had to exchange goods for gold. And now China has a larger middle class than all of Europe. But when the flow of goods will reverse, and with what products, is a moot point.
      1. 0
        28 September 2025 08: 58
        Quote: glory1974
        But when the flow of goods will reverse, and at the expense of which products, is a debatable question.


        It's already taking off. China's domestic market is one of the most significant in the world. More personal cars are already sold in China than in the US.
        1. 0
          30 September 2025 11: 53
          China's domestic market is one of the most significant in the world.

          That's understandable. The question is who will transport what, and by what route.
          Russia imports oil, gas, and other raw materials. Other countries import some. Electronics, clothing, and manufactured goods come from China. How? By what route?
          China is trying to make "One Belt, One Road".
          Russia has the Northern Sea Route, plus a route to the south, through Iran to India, etc.
  45. +2
    23 September 2025 16: 09
    Quote: Yoon Klob
    In the Voronezh region, the burial site of Olen-Kolodez (1996) of a wealthy Mongol was uncovered, along with characteristic ammunition and artifacts from the late 13th century.
    Wow? A "rich Mongol," exactly? The report on these excavations was compiled by K. Yu. Efimov, "Golden Horde burials from the Olen-Kolodez burial ground" // Donskaya arkheologiya. 1999. No. 3-4. pp. 93-108.
    Please show me the place in this report where you personally saw the expression "rich Mongol"?
  46. +2
    23 September 2025 16: 36
    Oh my... (c)
    At this rate, the next article on VO will be about how there were four Ivan the Terribles, but the inventive historians lumped them together into one, and then we'll get to the buried cities.
  47. -1
    23 September 2025 20: 21
    Yeah. And Batu Khan was a typical Nord. And don't tell me otherwise! I won't believe it!!! And Khorezm was conquered by the Moroccans.
  48. 0
    23 September 2025 20: 40
    So it's clear that Confucius's real name was Kuzma Tsei. Tsei is the one who's somewhere out there.
  49. -1
    24 September 2025 08: 21
    The Germano-Roman historical school, which became “classical” (academic) in the Romanov Empire, became the ultimate truth in Russia.

    In Russia, you can't be a historian without being a traitor. The so-called "scientific community" of historians crushes anyone who dares to question the "classical school." According to this school, Russians are savage barbarians who received their state from drunken bandits called "Vikings." The Vikings themselves hid in fjords, where survival is difficult, unable to seize better lands. Then, suddenly, they seized a monstrously fertile land, instantly disappearing, leaving no memory or trace of themselves except in the texts of the "classical school." And so this "school" goes on to spew out all sorts of nonsense, including anecdotal "yoke" and other insane nonsense...
    It's bad, since your historians are completely controlled by their foreign masters. It's shameful and dangerous...
    1. -2
      24 September 2025 12: 57
      You have gaps in your knowledge of world history. Vikings established their own states in Britain, Ireland, France (Normandy), and even Sicily (and continental Italy). Two of the most important periods in British history—the Danelaw and the Norman Conquest—are directly connected with the Vikings.
      1. +1
        24 September 2025 13: 52
        The Vikings didn't really create states, but simply seized power in existing ones. Or was Normandy a completely wild and unclaimed land before the arrival of Earl Rollo? And before the Battle of Hastings, there was no statehood at all in England? It seems there was even a king already...
        1. 0
          24 September 2025 16: 41
          Similarly, in Rus', according to the PVL, the Varangians were invited to "take possession," that is, they arrived as a foreign dynasty to an existing throne with the consent of the locals. This resembles the Norman model. The Russkaya Pravda and other state-building processes occurred much later. But the Danelaw was a completely new power structure for Britain, and in Sicily, the Vikings wrested power from the Arabs by destroying their emirate.
      2. 0
        24 September 2025 15: 35
        The "knowledge" gained from the works of the classical school is so poisoned by betrayal that from some point on I simply could no longer swallow this... "goodness"). Good luck with your poisoning.
        1. -1
          24 September 2025 16: 44
          Nothing's clear. What's your source of knowledge? Staring at the ceiling or making it up. And the main mystery: who betrayed whom?
          1. +1
            24 September 2025 18: 27
            I don't feel obligated to be clear on personal matters. After all, we're not meeting. We're exchanging texts. Opinions. They're interesting if we manage to make them that way. And they're not interesting if you try to turn them into a personal interrogation. I, like everyone else online, am an academician of all academies.
  50. +2
    24 September 2025 09: 19
    Oh, how we all want to invent "great ancestors" for ourselves.
    Let's not talk about foreigners - it's the same there, it was in Europe and America even earlier, in China and now, allegedly.

    But our boyars and tsars easily traced their lineage back to the Byzantine emperors. And almost half of them were Chingizids...
    And while it's all very well to wipe your neighbors, "the Ukrainians dug the Black Sea," it's all very well to talk about yourself.

    Excavations, facts... no, historians made it all up...
    1. +2
      24 September 2025 12: 11
      Quote: Max1995
      But our boyars and tsars calmly traced their lineage back to the Byzantine emperors.

      Of the tsars, perhaps only Ivan the Terrible, but he is actually a descendant of Vladimir Monomakh, who in turn is related through his mother to the Byzantine emperors of that time.
      Quote: Max1995
      Almost half of them were Chingizids...

      Of the 16 most noble boyar families under Alexei Mikhailovich, not a single one was a Chingizid. Even the purely Tatar Urusov family—descendants of Edigei.
      The Siberian princes (descendants of Kuchum) were Chingizids, but they were not allowed anywhere near the boyar duma.
      1. 0
        24 September 2025 15: 48
        Possibly. I've come across slightly different arguments, with some pedigree evidence to back them up.
  51. +1
    24 September 2025 09: 52
    Quote: Tulus12
    According to modern estimates (e.g. economist Angus Maddison) the population in 1000:
    East Asia - 66 million
    South and Southeast Asia - 80 million
    Central Asia and Eastern Europe - 13 million.
    Middle East and North Africa - 24 million.
    Western Europe - 25 million.
    There is no difference of 50 times, and there couldn’t be.

    The fact is that Madison's estimates aren't based on authentic documents. Therefore, they're far-fetched. There are no population data for Eurasia based on official censuses before the early modern period. Therefore, all estimates of ancient population size are nonsense. For example, according to China's data.
    By the seventh year of Emperor Zhangzong of the Jin Dynasty (1207) during the Taihe Dynasty, the total population of the four states of Song, Jin, Western Xia and Dali was estimated to have reached 140 million.
    I think it's safe to assume (and I'm just making a wild guess) that China's population in the year 1000 was around 100 million. The Japanese believe Japan's population in the year 1000 was 8 million. The Koreans honestly admit they don't know. But I think it's safe to assume it was at least as large as Japan's. That's another 8 million total. Combined, China, Korea, and Japan would total 116 million people in the year 1000.
    Things are even worse with India. According to the World History Site, the population of the Indian subcontinent in 1000 AD was 79,5 million. This estimate is rejected by K.S. Lal, who claims that the country's population in 1000 AD was around 200 million. Speaking of India, historians believe that India is possibly the birthplace of sericulture. Or at least its second birthplace. Because historians claim that
    The Indus Valley Civilization (2450–2000 BCE) practiced sericulture using wild silk threads from local silkworm species. Archaeological discoveries in the cities of Harappa and Chanhudaro attest to this.
    So what ?
    Yes, but what does the year 1000 have to do with it?
    After all, I showed that historians claim that production silk fabrics in Persia It began during the reign of the Sassanid Shah Shapur II (309-379), who attracted skilled weavers from Mesopotamia and Syria for this purpose.
    But if Shampur II attracted skilled weavers from Mesopotamia and Syria, it means that sericulture in Syria and Mesopotamia arose in an even earlier period? 100 years before the birth of Shampur II? In 200 years? For 300 years???
    By the year 1000, silk production was certainly successfully established throughout the Near East, including Byzantium. According to historians, as early as 553–554, by order of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, silkworm eggs were secretly exported from Central Asia, marking the beginning of the Byzantine silk-weaving industry, which became a state monopoly.
    So why would your Samarkand merchants travel to China if silk fabrics were produced in Samarkand itself? Yes, you could claim (unfoundedly, admittedly, but still, you could, right?) that the quality of silk was superior in China. Even so, I suspect only a very small portion of the Samarkand elite was willing to pay a premium for Chinese silk fabrics, which were undoubtedly much more expensive than locally produced ones. This means that to satisfy the demand of the Samarkand elite, two or three camels carrying bales of Chinese silk goods would be sufficient. Per year.
    1. 0
      24 September 2025 13: 25
      Twenty years ago, televisions were still being produced in the US and Europe, but now they're not. Why? Because in the 1960s and 1970s, televisions began being imported en masse from Japan, then Korea, and now from China and other Asian countries. Having a domestic production facility doesn't necessarily mean it has to be competitive. Far from it. And in cotton production, there's a key, very sensitive factor: the availability of mulberry trees, the food source for silkworms. China could have ensured massive mulberry plantings and the mass production of diverse silk varieties because it's endemic to the region. In India, mulberry trees grow and raw silk is produced in the southern Deccan plateau, today's Karnataka. In the early Middle Ages, these areas were too wild for mass production (the technologies are quite complex, requiring division of labor and mass production). The Central Asian oases and Byzantium, with their constantly shifting borders, couldn't reliably supply their own market year after year. It's no wonder that China's silk production volumes still exceed those of all other countries combined by several times. The table shows data for 2023. And silk in China has always been cheap enough to be used as writing material and even, pardon the pun, as a wipe after going to the bathroom.
    2. -1
      24 September 2025 20: 05
      Quote: Seal
      Which means they were sucked out of a finger.


      Where did your "50 times" ratings come from?

      Quote: Seal
      There are no population data for Eurasia based on official censuses before the early modern period.


      In China specifically, regular population censuses have been conducted since the 2nd century BC.
      And there were 100 million there in the 12th century.
      With a sharp decline after the Mongol invasion.

      Quote: Seal
      This estimate is rejected by K.S. Lal, who claims that in 1000 AD the country's population was about 200 million people.


      There were already 200 million in India under the British, around 1830. So K.S. Lal sucked his thumbs.

      Quote: Seal
      But if Shampur II attracted skilled craftsmen-weavers from Mesopotamia and Syria, which means that sericulture in Syria and Mesopotamia arose at an even earlier period?


      You don't even understand the difference between producing fabric and raw silk? Maybe your weavers grow cotton too?

      Quote: Seal
      So why did your merchants from Samarkand go to China if silk fabrics were produced in Samarkand itself?


      To sell further.
      It's completely unclear what you're trying to prove here. Silk was exported from China on East India Company ships from the 16th to the 19th centuries and beyond, while sericulture had long been established in Europe itself.
      1. +1
        24 September 2025 22: 55
        Where did your "50 times" ratings come from?
        Well, I don’t deny that it’s out of thin air.
        In China specifically, regular population censuses have been conducted since the 2nd century BC.
        As usual, the expression "I swear on my mother" is used as evidence.
        There were already 200 million in India under the British, around 1830.
        Was there a census in India in 1830? Can I see the results?
        You don't even understand the difference between producing fabric and raw silk? Maybe your weavers grow cotton too?
        Ah, so that's what you've gotten to the bottom of. laughing I'm still wondering what's so upsetting you. It turns out you're a weaving pro, yet you demand that those who work with silk not be called "weavers." Well, call these craftsmen whatever you like. After all, changing the name doesn't change the essence at all.
        Silk was exported from China on ships of the East India Companies in the 16th to 19th centuries and later, with sericulture having long been established in Europe itself.
        You'll have to excuse me, but according to historians, the East India Company first appeared in China in 1711, when it established its first trading office in the Chinese city of Canton (Guangzhou) to purchase tea. And this was in the 18th century.
        The East India Company had been exporting silk from China since the late 18th century. By then, Britain was already the "workshop of the world" and a very wealthy country. It could afford such a luxury.
        To sell further.
        Can you give me an example of a single Samarkand company or individual merchant who, to your knowledge, was or has been involved in purchasing silk in China for resale? Incidentally, to whom exactly and where, according to your information, did that Samarkand company or individual merchant resell the silk? Please provide evidence. Not the usual "I swear on my mother's word..." approach.
  52. +1
    24 September 2025 10: 01
    Quote: ORINCH
    The goods were usually exported by Central Asian traders.
    Is there even a single authentic document from that time that confirms that everything was exactly as you say? Like, say, a decree from some local sovereign regarding the tax rate for merchants trading with China? Or an order from this local sovereign to build a fortress with barracks to house the soldiers guarding the caravan route? Or an order regarding the number of horsemen that this or that sovereign's subordinate must provide to protect caravans from China? Or an agreement with the Chinese border commander regarding the distance to which merchants would be escorted by Chinese guards? Or at least a deed of sale for the goods?
    Is there even a narrative source? Like a letter from one merchant to another regarding trade with China?
    And if none of this exists, then what are we even talking about?
    1. 0
      24 September 2025 12: 49
      The most famous narrative, recorded in all the written traditions of the cultures adjacent to Central Asia, concerns the pretext for Genghis Khan's Western campaign against Khorezm and its Kipchak-Cumans. The motive was the massacre of a Mongol trade caravan in the city of Otrar, sanctioned by the Kipchak governor.
      In general, Central Asian merchant corporations served as an important personnel reserve for the Mongol Empire until its fall in China, beginning with the well-known (and also recorded in all local written traditions) Mahmud Yalavach.
  53. +2
    24 September 2025 10: 10
    Quote: gsev
    You will discover a method for determining the age of documents based on the laws of language development and change.
    Don't be so overconfident. Read and reread. Nothing will be revealed. For the laws of language development and change can only be deduced from authentic and clearly dated records. Moreover, the records must have been made in the same place. Or at least in the same region.
    For example:
    An inscription from the year 900, written in the city "N", the number of words is such-and-such, the number of letters is such-and-such, the turns of speech that appear repeatedly in the text are as follows (and so on).
    An inscription from the year 950, written in the city "N", the number of words is such-and-such, the number of letters is such-and-such, the turns of speech that appear repeatedly in the text are as follows (and so on).
    An inscription from the year 1000, written in the town of "Nn", which is located next to the town of "N", the number of words is such-and-such, the number of letters is such-and-such, the turns of speech that appear repeatedly in the text are as follows (and so on).
    An inscription from the year 1050, written in the city "N", the number of words is such-and-such, the number of letters is such-and-such, the turns of speech that appear repeatedly in the text are as follows (and so on).
    An inscription from the year 1100, written in the city "N", the number of words is such-and-such, the number of letters is such-and-such, the turns of speech that appear repeatedly in the text are as follows (and so on).
    And so on. Only with such statistics can one begin to deduce the laws of language development and change. But such statistics don't exist. Not even a single one. So, everything Zaliznyak has deduced is empty talk and nonsense. But it's recognized by historians. And therefore, it's presented as fact.
  54. +1
    24 September 2025 10: 18
    Quote: Tulus12
    Tell me, are the Crimean Tatar campaigns against Poland, Lithuania, and Rus' also "official nonsense"?
    A typical demagogic ploy. I first encountered it about 20 years ago, when, in response to my question about evidence for Alexander the Great's campaigns, a guy wrote:
    "If you don't believe in the campaigns of Alexander the Great, then you don't believe in the campaigns of Peter the Great, you don't believe in the campaigns of Napoleon, and that means you are (the word that the site's morality machine removed should be here)"
    To put legendary events and real events on the same level is the essence of primitive demagogy.
    1. -1
      24 September 2025 19: 14
      Quote: Seal
      A typical demagogic technique.


      Typical drain.

      Quote: Seal
      Putting legendary events and real events on the same level


      By what Allah do you personally define something as real and something as legendary?
  55. +1
    24 September 2025 11: 58
    Mongols-shmogols... It's like calling all English-speaking people British today. By the time of the Western Campaign, the purely Mongol core had completely dissolved. And the "Russians" opposing them were already minimally Slavic. The true Eastern Slavs, who constituted only a fraction of today's Russian gene pool, were confined to the Kyiv region at that time. At most, they were confined to the area of ​​the future Tula and Voronezh regions, where they fled from the extortions of the princes of the disintegrating Kievan Rus'. And all the land north and east of the Oka River was the ancestral lands of the Finnic peoples. Where, in turn, the Slavs fled from the extortions of the princes of Murom and Vladimir. Some Finns (Meria, Muroma) had already dissolved by that time. Others, such as the Moksha and Erzya, flourished quite well, although they resisted both pressure from the "Russians" in the west and the Volga Bulgars in the east. When the so-called "Mongols" advanced from the Don to Bulgaria in 1223 after the Battle of Kalka (their first unsuccessful attempt), the only Mongols present were probably Subedei and Jochi and their relatives. The bulk of the army consisted of various nomadic peoples from the Aral and Don regions, many of whom were quite Caucasian. And when Bulgaria (allied with the Erzya and others) fell on its third attempt, these same Uralic peoples, among others, moved further west. As they captured the Ryazan lands, they were joined by the Finno-Uralic Moksha. And what ultimately arrived in Moravia in 1241 was in no way Mongols. Just as today's Russians are Slavs only very loosely, in language, traditions, and gene pool. Although they continue, for the most part, to be Caucasian, or at least Uralian. Therefore, when some not-so-distant southern neighbors call you Mordvins, Tatars, or Udmurts, it's not a reason to be offended, but to say, "So what does that mean?" The aforementioned and once numerous fair-haired Erzya, who were finally absorbed by Russians only in the 19th century, are among the main "Aryans" of Europe (the people of Nizhny Novgorod, though "occupiers," can be proud). The Bulgars (their remnants—today's Chuvash and, to a lesser extent, Tatars) were one of the most culturally and economically advanced civilizations in Europe by the time of Subedei's arrival—thanks to Baghdad. The population of the lands from Veliky Novgorod (part of the European Hanseatic League, by the way) to Kostroma still retains significant linguistic and genetic characteristics of the Merya people, although the ethnic group itself disappeared almost 1000 years ago. The ethnonym "Tatars," incidentally, dates back to the time of Genghis Khan. It refers not to the inhabitants of Tatarstan, but to the Far Eastern "Tatar" tribe, whom the Mongols conquered early on—as a trial run. They initially formed the backbone of the assault force, but quickly disappeared. This is the origin of the term "Tatar-Mongol invasion," as used in Soviet historiography. These are still Tatars, not the inhabitants of Bilyar, Bulgar, and Suvar. They, of course, also periodically fought with the Vladimir-Suzdal people, but suffered even more from the Mongol invasion than the Russians.

    Incidentally, the period immediately before the "Mongols" advanced westward and the thoroughly civilized life of the then non-Slavic population of the Volga (pardon, Itil or Idel) are well described in Abramov's novel "Purgaz." The book is, of course, fictional, with a significant amount of conjecture, and covers only a tiny slice of history, but the author describes the life and traditions of his people in the 12th and 13th centuries in detail.
    1. 0
      28 September 2025 09: 50
      Very sensible speeches. I'll add that there was no Russian nation back then, there was "Rus."
      Rusy means light, Rus' is a bright place in the forests where farmers have plowed clearings. Pol' (field) comes from the word "glade," and "pol'" (polyana) comes from the word "pal" (to fall), "to burn."
      With the invention of slash-and-burn agriculture, sometime around the beginning of our era, tribes of farmers followed the riverbeds.
      The original Slavic agricultural core transformed the forests along the rivers, and local tribes of forest nomads, the Drevlyans, as well as forest-steppe shepherds with the cult of the Mother Cow, the Vyatichi and others, came "to Rus".
      The Slavic core formed the language.
      And the Russian people are the people of an empire, including a wide variety of genetic types.
  56. +1
    24 September 2025 12: 21
    I have no doubt that the Vatican vaults contain many inconvenient secrets, but certainly not the invention of Temujin and the Mongols.
    Hidden there are many facts of European and other Mediterranean history that are unnecessary or inconvenient for the Catholic Church or Western European dynasties.
    Therefore, the "letter of Constantine", written by him many years after his death, will never be presented for examination.
    Just as Muslims will never allow inquisitive scientists to chip away at the sacred stone of the Kaaba for research.
    1. +1
      24 September 2025 20: 16
      Quote: faterdom
      Therefore, the "letter of Constantine", written by him many years after his death, will never be presented for examination.


      Those involved already considered Constantine's gift to be a sham in the 15th century, and the Church itself acknowledged this in the 19th century.
      1. 0
        24 September 2025 22: 08
        Here's how???
        Has the Catholic Church admitted that the main reason for the existence of the post of Pope is a sham, and that all Popes are illegitimate?
        When was this, did I miss something?
        1. +1
          25 September 2025 17: 52
          Quote: faterdom
          That was when

          (in the 15th century)
          Over time, more and more authors doubted the document's authenticity. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa declared it a forgery, dismissing it as an apocryphal work. The fact of the forgery was proven by the Italian humanist Lorenzo della Valla in his work "On the Donation of Constantine" (1440), published in 1517 by Ulrich von Hutten. Independently, Bishop Reginald Peacock of Chichester came to a similar conclusion, given the presence of anachronistic terms like "fief" in the text.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0
          Quote: faterdom
          Has the Catholic Church admitted that the main reason for the existence of the post of Pope is a sham, and that all Popes are illegitimate?

          Pius II acted cunningly. He claimed the document was forged, but all the privileges were legitimate.
        2. 0
          28 September 2025 08: 52
          Quote: faterdom
          Has the Catholic Church admitted that the main reason for the existence of the post of Pope is a sham, and that all Popes are illegitimate?


          But that's not the main reason. The main thing is that all popes are successors of the Apostle Peter, a disciple of Christ himself. Do you know where the famous expression "Quo vadis" comes from?
          1. 0
            28 September 2025 10: 13
            Christ actually had 12 apostles (closest disciples).
            Others even tried to kiss, and then hanged themselves for some reason.
            But there are not eleven Popes, or at least the rest are not Roman.
            Naturally, there are also successors, even Judas, as we see in the example of the OCU.
            So the main reason was the inflated self-importance of a decaying Rome, then the political aims of the Lombard barbarian kings. After defeating the Lombards themselves, a certain Charles, neither a Lombard nor a Roman, declared himself their last king. However, this was only the beginning—he later declared himself Roman Emperor in the West, and it was here that, to avoid being seen as an impostor or a usurper-occupier, a legitimate Voice of God, in the eyes of his contemporaries, was needed.
            And who is this? That's right, the Archbishop of Rome, considered the Chief (among equals, naturally), whose authority and power, including lands and vast sums of money, Charles greatly elevated and strengthened.
            Although, locally, the population had a more "scientific" explanation, at the level of modern DNA or mRNA technologies, supposedly, the grace of God is transmitted in a direct line through Christ's kiss to Peter, and then by inheritance, like, say, the coronavirus, which has no meaning without a living carrier.
            In our Orthodox Church, this kiss was also passed on for centuries by Church leaders (and they didn't give a damn about the Szismatist popes), until, after a series of church reforms by Ivan the Terrible, Alexei Mikhailovich the Quietest, and Peter the Great (who created the state corporation, the Synod), it turned out that Grace is now transmitted by kissing the Tsar's hand, which is less mystical, but more accurately demonstrates who is master of the house and why. However, in the post-imperial era, this sacredness has been violated here too, giving rise to intrigue and democracy. Thus, a certain Denisenko, who was rejected from the rank of patriarch, went into schism with his Ukrainian nationalist followers, but now he, Poroshenko, and a certain Constantinople regional lamplighter priest (Ecumenical by his "authority") have been pushed aside in this field by a certain Thermos. And numerous Greeks and other saccharine Romanians happily agreed with this thermos, at the behest of the current "Emperor of the West".
            This is my point of view on the forms of transmission of the intangible factor "the Grace of God" through 17 centuries from the time of Constantine, who himself was already 300 years later from the time of Christ and Pilate, as we are from Peter the Great's Rus', and who kissed whom there and why - could not know for sure.
            Other faiths also transmit a certain sacredness; in Judaism, it is through motherhood, which is more scientifically justified. A person's mother is usually known with certainty, unlike the father, and one can more or less guarantee descent from legendary ancestors, and some inheritance of their qualities and characteristics.
            But others are more democratic and varied, with reincarnation and "perhaps your soul will enter the Boss." It's completely unscientific, but very appealing and entertaining for the masses: everyone believes they won't be born a "mangy cat" or a "baobab," but will "grow up to become a minister."
            1. 0
              28 September 2025 13: 59
              Quote: faterdom
              Christ actually had 12 apostles (closest disciples).
              Others even tried to kiss, and then hanged themselves for some reason.
              But there are not eleven Popes, or at least the rest are not Roman.


              Peter was simply considered "first among equals," Christ's closest disciple. And yes, he was chosen to preach in the imperial capital.
              Did you not look up the origin of the Latin expression that sounds like "Quo vadeshe" in Church Slavonic? In vain.
              So, Peter set out to spread the word of God to Rome. But a less-than-hospitable reception awaited him there, and Peter, fearing he would become fodder in the Colosseum arena, decided to leave Rome. But upon reaching the city walls, he encountered Jesus Christ himself.
              - Where are you going, Lord?
              - To preach in Rome. Since my beloved disciple was afraid, I'll have to do it myself.
              Shamed by Christ, Peter returned to Rome. Thus, he received, as it were, a posthumous message from the (now resurrected) Christ himself.

              Yes, other disciples preached in other places. For example, Andrew the First-Called, who is especially revered by Russians.
  57. 0
    24 September 2025 15: 35
    Quote: ORINCH
    The most famous narrative, recorded in all written traditions of the cultures adjacent to Central Asia, is associated with the pretext for Genghis Khan's Western campaign against Khorezm and its Kipchak-Polovtsian federations. The massacre of a Mongol-dispatched trade caravan in the city of Otrar, sanctioned by the Kipchak governor, served as the pretext.
    Please be so kind as to show at least one original from what you claim are found in all the written traditions of the cultures adjacent to Central Asia. Only an original, written at that very time by a person whose handwriting is known to humanity.
    1. -1
      24 September 2025 20: 12
      Quote: Seal
      Only the original, written at that very time by a person whose handwriting is known to mankind.


      Atas, were you talking about demagoguery here?
  58. 0
    24 September 2025 15: 56
    Is the author nuts or just working on an order??? It's not spring, I think.
  59. 0
    24 September 2025 18: 54
    Quote: ORINCH
    Twenty years ago, televisions were still being produced in the US and Europe, but now they're not. Why? Because in the 1960s and 1970s, televisions began being imported en masse from Japan, then from Korea, and now from China and other Asian countries.
    Well, yes. And what do you see as the problem? After the collapse of the socialist bloc, the entire world became a single global factory. And global capital is shifting the means of production to wherever labor is cheapest. Modern communications make it possible to regulate production processes from a single point (New York or London, for example) anywhere in the world. And advanced transportation makes it possible to move huge quantities of goods over any distance. And it's not a given that in 20 years, television production won't shift to Africa.
    But none of this could have been imagined in the mid-19th century, let alone in the early days.
    Quote: ORINCH
    China could have supported massive mulberry plantings and the mass production of diverse silk varieties because it is endemic to the region. In India, mulberries grow and raw silk is produced in the southern Deccan plateau, today's Karnataka. In the early Middle Ages, these areas were wild enough to support mass production (the technologies are quite complex, requiring division of labor and mass production).
    Well, official history doesn't agree with these theses of yours. Historians assure us that
    Recent archaeological finds in Harappa and Chanudaro indicate that sericulture using wild silk threads local species of silkworm Silk existed in South Asia during the Indus Valley Civilization, dating from 2450 BCE to 2000 BCE. Silk produced in the Indus Valley was obtained from several species of Antheraea and Philosamia (Eri silk). Antheraea assamensis and A. paphia were widely used. These results were published in the journal Archaeometry by Harvard University archaeologists who examined silk fibers found during excavations at two Indus Valley cities, Harappa and Chamkhudaro. The fibers date to approximately 2450–2000 BCE and were processed using the same degumming and reeling methods used by the Chinese. Scanning electron micrographs of the fibers revealed that some fibers were obtained after silkworms were allowed to emerge from their cocoons, similar to the ahimsa silk advocated by Mahatma Gandhi. Nevasa, which existed in 1500 BCE, also provides evidence of silk weaving. The Arthashastra, written around the fourth century BCE, mentions a silk weavers' guild. Inscriptions from the Gupta era also mention this guild. Most silk was exported via the Indian Ocean, and during the Gupta period, India was a major silk exporter. The Romans imported all their silk from India via Persia, as the Persians had established a monopoly on the Indian silk trade.
    So, you believe that the places in India where the silkworm grew were wild, while historians insist that India supplied silk to the so-called "Roman Empire." What are we to make of this contradiction? Again, note that India has its own indigenous mulberry tree. And you insisted that the mulberry tree is endemic to China. By the way, are you sure you understand the meaning of the term "endemic" correctly?
    In biology, an endemic species is a species of plant, animal, or microorganism that is found only in a specific geographic region and nowhere else.
    If the mulberry tree is found in many regions of Eurasia, how can it be considered endemic? I once cited Mongolian camels and Mongolian horses as examples of endemics. Over millennia of living in Mongolia's unique supercontinental climate, they have become so accustomed to the dry climate and local, albeit sparse, vegetation that when moved to other locations (with higher humidity), despite the fact that these locations offer a much better food supply, they begin to get sick, wither, and eventually many die. Przewalski noted this.
    The Central Asian oases and Byzantium, with their constantly shifting borders, could not reliably supply their own market in full from year to year.
    You seem unfamiliar with the official history of China. Do you really think China has always been a single, monolithic state? Historians even created the Warring States Period for China—a period of Chinese history from the 5th century BCE to 221 BCE. But then, during the Three Kingdoms Period (220–280), the empire disintegrated into several kingdoms: Wei, Shu, and Wu. Historians then proclaim the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period (907–960), when more than 12 independent kingdoms were founded, primarily in the south. However, tradition only names ten state entities. Some historians, such as Bo Yang, count 11 kingdoms, including Yan and Qi, but excluding the Northern Han.
    It is no wonder that the volume of silk production in China is still several times greater than that of all other countries combined.
    Well, let's say not until now, but recently. Your table starts in 2016. And by the way, according to your table, silk production in China is sharply declining. From 158 metric tons in 2016 to 50 metric tons in 2023. And India produced almost 38 metric tons of silk in 2023. So, it's quite possible that India will catch up with China this year. Well, if not this year, then certainly by 2030.
    P.S. Yes, but what's the deeper meaning behind this chart? You yourself wrote at the beginning that China is now the leading television manufacturer. I might add that China is also the world's largest automobile manufacturer. But do these facts mean that China is the birthplace of television and automobile manufacturing?
  60. +1
    24 September 2025 19: 03
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    the abbot of Vladimir Monomakh, who in turn was related through his mother to the Byzantine emperors of that time.
    This is merely a guess. Chronicles refer to Vsevolod's wife (Vladimir's mother) as "the Greek queen," "the monomakh," and "the Greek," but they don't give her name or reveal her origins. Byzantine sources make no mention of her or her marriage.
    By the way, who and when (in what century) first attached the nickname "Monomakh" to the name and patronymic of Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich is also unknown.
    1. 0
      25 September 2025 17: 59
      Quote: Seal
      This is just an assumption.

      Of course. But I wrote to a colleague who claimed that all our tsars traced their ancestry back to the Byzantine emperors.
      Well, of all the tsars, only Ivan the Terrible did this. He had every reason to do so (within the knowledge available at the time, of course).
      The Romanovs had their own quirks.
      And if we're talking about that, you're completely wrong to assume above that production facilities weren't relocated before the 19th century, and that technologies weren't lost at the sites where they once were. This happened all the time.
  61. +2
    24 September 2025 22: 38
    Quote: Tulus12
    By what Allah do you personally define something as real and something as legendary?
    I don't know about Allah. I define it in accordance with the positivist paradigm in source studies. Haven't heard of it?
    1. 0
      25 September 2025 21: 06
      Quote: Seal
      And I define it in accordance with the positivist paradigm in source studies. Haven't heard of it?


      This is a very personal understanding of the positivist paradigm in source studies.

      Let me return to the question about the Crimean campaigns - have you studied them? originals all the chronicles on this issue, have you familiarized yourself with all the documents (in the original, of course) and with the graphological examinations of all the scribes who wrote these documents?
      If not, then these campaigns (and the campaigns of Peter I) are “official nonsense”, according to your powerful paradigm.
  62. +1
    24 September 2025 22: 59
    Quote: Tulus12
    Atas, were you talking about demagoguery here?
    This expression of yours should be understood to mean that you are not going to back up your statement with anything, right?
  63. +1
    25 September 2025 02: 16
    This is my grandfather, an Altai-Telengit, next to his wife is my grandmother, a Komi-Permyak, and in my grandfather’s arms is my father... Does he look very much like a Mongoloid?
    1. +1
      26 September 2025 19: 01
      This one looks more like a Mongoloid. winked
  64. 0
    25 September 2025 02: 20
    Traffic lights, give me a visa
    An ambulance is on its way to a call... laughing
  65. +1
    25 September 2025 09: 21
    Quote: ORINCH
    Similarly, in Rus', according to the PVL, the Varangians were invited to "seize," that is, they arrived as a foreign dynasty to an existing throne with the consent of the locals. This is similar to the Norman model. The Russkaya Pravda and other state-building occurred much later. But the Danelaw was completely new to Britain.


    There was no "throne" back then. Let me remind you that Rurik was initially summoned to Novgorod, and Novgorod, even much later, was closer to a republic than a monarchy. As for "ownership," that's just a myth. Rurik actually owned nothing.
    "Our land is vast and abundant, but there is no ryad." A ryad was an agreement between the summoned prince and the local elite, likely written. It clearly spelled out the rights and responsibilities of the summoned prince. And Rurik was forced to adhere to the terms of this agreement, as were many of his descendants! Rurik couldn't even bring his retinue into Novgorod without special consent. So he and his warriors resided in Staraya Ladoga.
    Rurik and his descendants were forbidden to interfere in the trade affairs of Novgorodians under threat of exile.
    I would like to see how the locals would expel a Scandinavian earl in some Western European country.
    Rurik didn't establish any kind of "statehood"; he played by local rules. The real impetus for changing the foundations of state governance in Rus' would come from his distant descendants: the Vladimir-Suzdal princes Yuri Dolgoruky, Andrei Bogolyubsky, and Vsevolod the Big Nest. They would take steps to abolish the notorious "order" that limited the princes' power and lay the foundations of an autocratic monarchy. But the first two princes would pay for such innovations with their lives (the oligarch-boyars would not relish such a move). Even Vsevolod's grandson, Alexander Nevsky, would still be forced to adhere to the terms of the notorious "order" while serving Novgorod. And autocracy would only be fully consolidated under the last Ivan (the Terrible) across Rus'. It is Ivan the Terrible, not Rurik, who should be considered the founder of Russian statehood.
  66. 0
    26 September 2025 02: 24
    Again you didn't understand
    Quote: glory1974
    But besides the wealth of the country, there is also the wealth of its inhabitants.

    What was I talking about??? Didn't you notice?
    This means that in our time, the average purchasing potential of Western Europeans is still higher than the average purchasing potential of Chinese, Indians, and so on.
    The purchasing power of a country's residents is a reflection of its wealth. Isn't that clear?
  67. +1
    26 September 2025 09: 20
    Quote: Tulus12
    This is a very personal understanding of the positivist paradigm in source studies.
    Let me return to the question about the Crimean campaigns - you have studied the originals of all the chronicles on this issue.
    You apparently haven't understood the meaning of the positivist paradigm. It (the positivist paradigm) states that the basis of History is documents. What do chronicles have to do with this? Chronicles are not documents. Chronicles are narratives.
    Regarding documents. I personally haven't studied or compared the handwriting of the authors of the documents. But I know (or rather, I believe) that if there's a document in an archive, for example, a REPORT about, say, the Crimean Tsar (or his confidant, or some murza) marching on Moscow, if there's an inventory number for the document and a collection number, and the document itself bears the note "Written by such-and-such person"—then such a document really does exist.
    So, there are documents relating to the period of the Crimean campaigns. And if there are two or more reports indicating that they were written by the same person, handwriting comparisons can be made, if desired.

    But regarding the campaigns of the so-called "Tatar-Mongols" or "Mongol-Tatars," there are no reports in the archives. None at all. There's nothing to verify and nothing to compare it with.
    And under Peter the Great the chancery was working at full capacity.
  68. 0
    26 September 2025 09: 28
    Quote: Tulus12
    Which 17th century historians have you read?
    Innocent Gisel; Jean Hardouin; Mauro Orbini, and another one, I don't remember exactly, someone like Lopa de Vega (well, not Lopa, but it sounds like it, but de Vega, definitely), but he described the Incas of South America. This is from memory. In reality, there are probably a few more authors. But I'm not sure that the others can be considered historians. Francis Bacon, for example, was he a historian or not?
    1. 0
      26 September 2025 18: 03
      Quote: Seal
      something like Lopa de Vega (well, not Lopa, but similar, but de Vega for sure

      Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.
  69. +1
    26 September 2025 13: 45
    Quote: shocktrooper
    The geometry of the Middle Ages was replaced by the geometry of Lobachevsky, which absorbed the geometry of the Middle Ages into itself.
    Descending to the level of your conceptual apparatus, I will say this:
    Euclidean geometry (Medieval Geometry) is a geometry for short distances. This was quite sufficient for the Middle Ages. Medieval geometry can be used to design the body of a space rocket. But to calculate the rocket's trajectory in space, medieval geometry is no longer sufficient. Lobachevsky geometry is needed. And not only. Lobachevsky geometry describes hyperbolic space, which Medieval (Euclidean) Geometry has no concept of. But for a more comprehensive study of space, even Lobachevsky geometry is insufficient. There is also a geometry that describes spherical space—Riemannian geometry. It is in this geometry that parallel lines intersect.
    But I fully admit that for even more global cosmic calculations a new, yet another stage of geometry will be required.
    Now about this statement of yours.
    For example, we have learned so much new in the last 30 years about humanity in 5-2 thousand BC; our picture has greatly expanded from just Egypt and the area between the rivers.
    Firstly, you haven't learned anything fundamentally new in terms of history. Everything remains as it was. There have only been some additions, clarifications, and so on.
    Just as history was created on the basis of the Bible, or more precisely, on the basis of Daniel's prophecy included in the Bible about four successive kingdoms and a fifth to come, so history continues to be based on this foundation even today. According to Daniel, the entire course of world history was divided into five kingdoms.
    And no recent research has even changed the order in which these kingdoms change.
    “You (Nebuchadnezzar) are the golden head (the first kingdom)! After you, another kingdom will arise, lower than yours, and another third kingdom, of copper, which will rule over the whole earth. And the fourth kingdom will be strong as iron; for just as iron breaks and crushes everything, so it, like all-crushing iron, will crush and crush... The God of heaven will erect a kingdom (fifth), which will never be destroyed, and this kingdom will not be transferred to another people; it will crush and destroy all kingdoms, and itself will stand forever.”
    Daniel 2.31-46. Daniel 7.1-28
    The four kingdoms were interpreted as: Assyrian-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian and Roman, which corresponded to the level of historical knowledge of that time. A similar interpretation of the four kingdoms is still used in Christian theology. See Law of God. Moscow, 2000, p. 235.
    So, if these four aforementioned kingdoms were included in the Bible, then Vatican historians (and all European historians before the Reformation were Catholic) were simply obliged to find a place in history for all of them (and not only for them, since the Old Testament also mentions the Jewish kingdoms, Egypt, and several others). And since these major kingdoms, legitimized by the Bible, cannot exist, so to speak, in a vacuum, historians introduced other kingdoms and states with which the biblical kingdoms interacted.
  70. 0
    26 September 2025 14: 07
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    And if we're talking about that, you're completely wrong to assume above that production facilities weren't relocated before the 19th century, and that technologies weren't lost at the sites where they once were. This happened all the time.
    Well, if you could give me an example of the transfer of production from one part of the world to another in the 18th century and earlier, I would be very grateful.
    Even in the 19th century, production was not transferred to the American continent, as was done in the world after the Second World War, when transnational corporations closed production (factories and plants) in Europe, moving production capacities to Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., but rather new production facilities were opened on the American continent, as a rule, by new, already American companies.
    Or, for example, even at the very beginning of the 20th century, the Singer company opened a factory in the Russian Empire in 1902, in Podolsk, which it had begun building in 1900. The factory was intended to meet the needs of the markets of Russia, Turkey, the Balkan countries, Persia, Japan, and China. However, this wasn't a relocation of production, as the Singer factory in the United States also remained operational and even expanded.
    1. 0
      26 September 2025 18: 14
      I can't stand those cowardly replies at the end of the feed that don't get notifications.
      Quote: Seal
      the transfer of production from one part of the world to another in the 18th century

      Well, not exactly to another continent, but, for example, mirror glass production moved from Venice to Holland. The Dutch lured craftsmen from the island of Murano, then set up production there, ultimately crushing their Venetian competitors. Later (if I remember correctly, in the late 19th or early 20th centuries), production had to be restarted from scratch.
  71. 0
    26 September 2025 18: 21
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    I can't stand those cowardly replies at the end of the feed that don't get notifications.
    Notifications are coming. If you're not receiving them, it means your notification settings are messed up.
    Therefore, there is no need to shift the blame from the sick to the healthy, and it would be good if you apologized.
    Now, to the point. There's a significant difference, in my opinion, between the concepts of "Poaching some of the artisans and using them to open a production facility in another country" and "Closing down an existing facility and moving its production capacity to another country." hi
    1. 0
      27 September 2025 16: 04
      Quote: Seal
      Notifications are coming.

      For you, yes. Because I reply to the comment, and you write yours at the end of the feed.
  72. 0
    26 September 2025 18: 22
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    Inca Garcilaso de la Vega.
    Thank you, this is the one. drinks
  73. 0
    26 September 2025 22: 31
    Quote: shocktrooper
    So, does it meet the definition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?
    In the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the term "science" is given taking into account the presence of such sciences as "Scientific Communism"; "Atheism"; "Political Economy", "Marxist-Leninist Philosophy", and so on.
    But even the Great Soviet Encyclopedia article "Science" contains everything I've shown. Here's an example.
    In science, empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge research and organization can be distinguished. Elements of empirical knowledge are facts obtained through observation and experimentation, establishing the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of objects and phenomena. Stable repeatability and connections between empirical characteristics are expressed through empirical laws, often probabilistic in nature. The theoretical level of scientific knowledge presupposes the existence of specific abstract objects (constructs) and the theoretical laws linking them, created for the purpose of an idealized description and explanation of empirical situations, i.e., for the purpose of understanding the essence of phenomena. Manipulating objects at the theoretical level, on the one hand, can be accomplished without recourse to empirical data, while on the other, it presupposes the possibility of transitioning to it, realized in the explanation of existing facts and the prediction of new ones. The presence of a theory that uniformly explains the facts under its purview is a necessary condition for the scientific nature of knowledge. The theoretical explanation can be both qualitative and quantitative, making extensive use of mathematical apparatus, which is especially characteristic of the modern stage of development of natural science.

    The development of the theoretical level of N. leads to a qualitative change in the empirical level. While prior to the formation of the theory, the empirical material that served as its premise was derived from everyday experience and natural language, upon reaching the theoretical level, it is "seen" through the prism of the meaning of theoretical concepts, which begin to guide the design of experiments and observations—the primary methods of empirical research.

    However, it is better to take such a concept from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia as “Scientific knowledge”.
    Scientific knowledge is the result of cognition of reality, which includes the explanation of facts and their understanding in the system of concepts of a given science, and is included in the theory.
    The essence of scientific knowledge lies in understanding reality in its past, present and future, in a reliable generalization of facts, is that
    behind the random it finds the necessary, the lawful, behind the singular - the general and on this basis it carries out foresight.
    Scientific knowledge is characterized by logical validity, evidence, and reproducibility of cognitive results. Scientific knowledge is divided into empirical and theoretical.

    In history, there is no such thing as a "fact." This concept has been replaced by the concept of a "historical fact." This "historical fact" isn't a fact per se, but rather an assumption that most historians currently accept. It's a quasi-fact.
    Of course, history doesn't provide any kind of foresight. There's even a saying on the subject: "History never teaches anyone anything."

    You're so stuffy. You spout all sorts of nonsense with such a feeling as if you were carrying the Olympic torch. fool
  74. 0
    27 September 2025 16: 05
    But for this comment, you won't receive a notification.
    Quote: Seal
    Thank you, this is the one.

    Yes, not at all)
  75. 0
    27 September 2025 21: 15
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    For you, yes. Because I reply to the comment, and you write yours at the end of the feed.
    I always write all my comments under the comment of the author I'm commenting on. Why they sometimes (not all) end up at the bottom of the feed is not my question. I don't know how the comment posting system works on this resource.
  76. 0
    27 September 2025 21: 17
    Quote: Senior Sailor
    But for this comment, you won't receive a notification.
    Hmm, it really didn't come. request
  77. +1
    27 September 2025 21: 33
    Hmm, that same frost-like thing was getting stronger.
    Quote: shocktrooper
    Yes, please. Certificate #155. And the "handwriting" part is, of course, a joke. Literally proving that God doesn't exist is a demagogic ploy of the same level.
    What is "Charter No. 155?" You were asked to present what? You were asked to present a contemporary testimony. Here is the text of the charter.
    "From Polchok (or Polochka)... (you) took (perhaps as a wife) a girl from Domaslav, and Domaslav took 12 hryvnia from me. Send the 12 hryvnia. And if you don't send it, then I will stand (implying: with you to trial) before the prince and the bishop; then prepare for great loss..."

    What is the author of this birch bark document contemporary with? What century? The text makes no reference to time. However, in my opinion, none of the nearly 1260 birch bark documents contain any reference to time, even at the century level.
    But it's actually good that you brought up the birch bark letters. In this context, it's impossible not to consider the fact (though historians seem to ignore it) that not a single one of the birch bark letters discovered contains even a hint of a "Mongol-Tatar" invasion. There are no terms like "Mongol," "Baskak," "Batu," and so on and so forth. However, there is an interesting birch bark letter, No. 590, found in Novgorod in 1981. The text reads: "Lithuania rose up against Korela," which means "Lithuania went to war against the Karelians." Of course, Yanin wasn't thrilled with this find, but he had to find a way. He declared that the letter could date back to 1069, when the Polotsk prince Vseslav Bryachislavich undertook a campaign against Novgorod through the Vodian land, where a clash between the Lithuanians accompanying the prince and the Karelians could have occurred.
    But any normal person (not historians) understands that if the prince had launched a campaign against Novgorod, it would have been written, "Lithuania rose against Novgorod." And the very words "Lithuania rose" suggest that the state of Lithuania went to war against someone (in this case, the Korelians). And in 1069, according to the official version of history, there was no trace of any state named "Lithuania."
    At first and originals are found, secondly, even when rewriting, especially if it was not a random peasant from the street who did this, in most cases very little information is lost; thirdly, again, if three sources from different places say approximately the same thing, then the rational conclusion is that this event took place, and not that since I did not see it with my own eyes, I don’t know anything.

    First, show at least one original found that dates back to before the 12th century AD.
    But this
    Secondly, even when rewriting, especially if it wasn't done by a random peasant from the street, in most cases very little information is lost
    Your personal opinion. Far-fetched.
    Here it is
    thirdly, again, if three sources from different places say approximately the same thing
    - Also. If, for example, a pilgrim monk traveled through Europe, and wherever he stopped, he told everyone about his journey, and his story was recorded in three places, would those be three different sources?
    It's getting funnier and funnier. No one forced your hand, go ahead and post a link to this official archaeological scale, preferably not on some shady website, but in a peer-reviewed journal.
    You-know-who finds it funny because their ears are on one side. That's why they say that laughing for no reason is a sign...
    Will Britannica do?
    https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/en-ru.ru.816f0eb1-68d82c5e-cf502518-74722d776562/https/www.britannica.com/science/archaeological-timescale
    A classic demagogic technique is to demand initially absurd demands.
    My demands are perfectly reasonable. It's only those who find it funny that he has his ears out of place that find it ridiculous. And what does my great-grandfather have to do with it? No one has ever built history on my great-grandfather's records, nor will they. Besides, his records are of no interest to anyone. I'm talking about the documents and narrative sources on which the official edifice of world history is built. These are records of global significance. What, you don't understand the difference? Well, then keep laughing. fool
    I'll skip some of the particularly delusional stuff and dedicate a separate answer to the RU analysis.
  78. 0
    27 September 2025 22: 15
    Quote: shocktrooper
    Finally, I advise you to remember Occam's razor
    Oh, look who's talking. I wish I could hear your words. If our cities were successfully burning in fires and being destroyed by their neighbors, then why the hell are they bringing in some Mongols from all the way from Lake Baikal to explain the fires and destruction?
  79. 0
    27 September 2025 23: 20
    It's autumn.
    The sky drives away the clouds,
    Dogs bark louder at the moon.
    The mighty Temujin sleeps on the stove
    And his wives sing ditties.
    1. +1
      30 September 2025 08: 41
      Oleg Goryainov

      Through Greco-Palestine
      Hiding incense in a scimitar
      Had a hajj to Ukraine
      Pope Genghis Khan.

      Carried to Merrida Magdalene
      In Giza, he is in a present;
      At him in his native Berlin
      The whole convention took up arms.

      (Spitting on him in charisma,
      Disliked well done -
      For addiction to Buddhism
      And for the black complexion.)

      He rode short, long
      The river blocked the way!
      Either Valga, or Volga,
      Or simply Oka.

      With the Hunnas of Lacuna
      Rowing along the coast
      And the Punic runes
      Under Ovid sing:

      Quid est veritas, boyars?
      Stultis scriptas manifest!
      Sapiens nil admirare,
      Credo quia absurdum est!

      Our hero opened his throat:
      "Com tsu world! Their bin client!
      Arrendatto vide the boat! .. "
      But - an incident happened.

      Something whistled in the sky
      And sick land - clap!
      Unidentified body
      It hit the guy in the forehead.

      (That under the iron piece
      Granite sprinkled to the sides -
      Moses chopped a chisel
      On the tablets of the alphabet!)

      Fail me in place
      He lay down
      According to Scaliger - two hundred years,
      According to Petavius ​​- a hundred!

      The world is a lot of hemorrhoids
      I raped for this period.
      For example, Achaeans of Troy
      Surrendered to the Germans

      To decorate their Reichstag.
      And then there was a plague,
      And the calling of the Varangians
      From Athens to Belomor,

      On the Moscow River in Constantinople
      Romulus Roman slammed
      And Homer in Tiberias
      He finished his "Carmen".

      And when the sleeping one woke up,
      He began to feel his skeleton:
      It looks like it’s real,
      But actually - no.

      A fly circled in heaven;
      With oak mummy leaves
      Circled. Out of my ear
      The snake crept silently ...
      ____________________

      ... grateful peoples
      There they poured a mound.
      Steamboats sail
      They say: "But pasaran!"

      Pioneers come running,
      They drag eggs and Easter cake.
      And they shout: "Down with the chimeras!
      Sleep well, our Ilyich! "
  80. 0
    28 September 2025 10: 49
    Quote: 3x3zsave
    Did I understand correctly that Genghis Khan and other Batu Khans are just a myth and the machinations of the Vatican?
    In general, you understood correctly.
    Three points came together here.
    There's a, this is when the Poles (Dlugosz, Miechowski and company) decided to present Poland as the last stronghold of civilization in Eastern Europe. Beyond which, further to the east, lay the lands of some schismatics who had just freed themselves from Tatar yoke. Naturally, this interpretation, so pleasing to the ears of the Roman priests, justifying the possibility of campaigning against these schismatics, was fully supported by the Vatican and became official for Catholics in Europe.
    Second moment - This is a misunderstanding by Europeans who have visited Asia of the meaning of the terms Batys (Batu) and Shagys (Genghis). The Turks, let's take the Kazakhs as an example, base their orientation on the directions of sunrise and sunset. In the Kazakh language, sunrise is shygys, sunset is batys. Hence, East is Shygys, and West is Batys. The main sacred direction of the Turks (Kazakhs) was and remains "East." Everything west of the steppe for the Kazakhs had the prefix "batu," and to the east - "shygys." Hence, the ruler of any land west of the Turks (Kazakhs) was called Batu Khan (Batu). And the one who ruled further east - for example, China - was Shygys Khan (in our pronunciation, Genghis Khan). That is, all these Batus, Batuys, Batyses, and Shagyses (Genghisses) could have been the names of both specific individuals and generic names for all the khans ruling these areas and territories. This is another obvious blunder on the part of historians. Those travelers who later conveyed all the information they had gathered to the European courts and court historians while traveling through Turkic lands could have received the following answers from their Turkic-speaking counterparts when asked, "Who carried out this or that destruction?"
    1) This was done by Shagys Khan (Genghis Khan). In the understanding of the storyteller is some kind of famous Khan, whose lands were located east of those who were interviewed.
    2) This was done by Batys-Khan (Batu, Batu). This is any Khan of lands located west of those who were interviewed. Batys - Western.
    Maybe even names were mentioned. But since the last (names proper) components were inconstant, only the first, invariably constant part was remembered - CHINGIS KHAN. Since the main holy direction for the Turks (Kazakhs) was and remains the "East", it goes without saying that now every second person in Asia is a descendant of one or another Chingis Khan (Chingizid). European historians, having collected such a mass of claims to "Chingis Khan" and "Batu Khan" and stupidly not understanding that they (well, those travelers who then brought all this information to the European courts and court historians) were told by locals simply about their local showdowns with some eastern or western neighbors over the course of 300-400 years, and considering that "Chingis Khan" and "Batu Khan" are the names of specific people, decided that only great people could have committed such large-scale deeds. And honestly mistaken, historians began to mold a myth about the "Great Genghis Khan" and his grandson "Batu Khan" (whom historians sent to the very west). And they sent him so firmly that, according to historians, "Batu" himself never went to family gatherings in Mongolia, but sent the newly conquered Russian princes. And the Mongolian relatives of "Batu" allegedly gladly accepted the envoys instead of the original in their narrow family circle.
    Third point - This was apparently already the 18th century, when Europeans stopped fearing the Crimean Tatars and saw other Tatars serving Peter the Great. They decided that Tatars weren't quite what they needed, and that to create fear, they needed to add someone else. And since the Mughal Empire was on everyone's lips, they added the Mughals, who later transformed into the Mongols. The Khalka tribe, who lived in northern China, were appointed to the position of "Mongols." And so Batys and Shagys (and their other "relatives" already ingrained in the public consciousness) began to be considered not Tatars, but Mongols.
    1. 0
      28 September 2025 14: 06
      History works and textbooks are usually written on the basis of written sources (documents), and often these documents are available in the form of copies; naturally, doubts arise about the authenticity of the copies, so it would be logical to describe history on the basis of artifacts.
  81. +1
    28 September 2025 15: 59
    Quote: shocktrooper
    No, it's you, the conspirators.
    What nonsense is this? Who is the "conspirator" here? You (not you personally, but your predecessors), who, in the complete absence of both authentic government documents and genuine narrative sources written by contemporaries of events whose handwriting is known to humanity, erected a massive edifice called the "Official Version of Human History" or people like me, who merely demand proof?
    Take Egyptologists with their "Ancient Egypt".
    The most important source for them is the "Works of the Priest Manetho".
    And what, any of the historians have seen these "works" in the eye, even in a photocopy? Not! There are no originals of the "works of Manetho" in nature.
    But this is not a problem for professional historians. They say that there is a list (copies or excerpts from the works of Manetho), made by a certain "ancient Greek" Eusebius.
    Okay, but maybe some of the qualified historians have held in their hands or seen a photocopy of the original of this very Eusebius?
    No, and Eusebius does not exist in the originals either.
    But for professional historians this is not a problem either. They say there is a list (excerpts from the writings of Eusebius, which contains excerpts from the writings of Manetho), made by a certain ancient Latin, Jerome.
    Of course you will laugh, but the originals of this Jerome are not left either !!!!
    What's there? There's a list (copy) by the medieval Byzantine scholar George Synquelossus, who cites "the works of Jerome," which reference "the works of Eusebius," which in turn mentions a certain "ancient Egyptian Manetho and something he supposedly wrote or said." hi
  82. 0
    28 September 2025 18: 14
    Who conquered China? Russian hordes too?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +1
      28 September 2025 21: 58
      I am horrified by this stream of alternative consciousness.
      "But how did he command the cleanup?"
    3. 0
      29 September 2025 14: 09
      It was conquered by many people: the Khitans, then partly by the Manchus and Jurchens. And Temujin himself was most likely a Manchu, since he initially served in their army.
      Although I personally believe Temujin was ethnically Persian. Persia isn't that far from China; connections existed even in ancient times.
      But neither the Khitans nor the Manchus launched campaigns against Rus' or Europe. There was simply no need. So they attributed to Temujin things he never did, and even labeled him a Mongol. They simply shifted the blame, attributing other people's achievements to it. Especially since the locals didn't even object. Take Genghis Khan away from the Mongols, and what would history leave them with?

      Well, some are even cooler. So what if their ancestors were great conquerors or dragons? There are even descendants of aliens on our planet, and they're even cooler! In Africa, there's a tribe called the Dogon, who believe their ancestors came from the star Sirius B, or "Sigi Tolo" in the local dialect. Yeah, highly evolved aliens came to our Africa in starships so their descendants could live in huts and grow sweet potatoes. laughing What kind of Genghis Khan is there, it will be cooler.
    4. 0
      18 February 2026 18: 13
      And the tens of thousands of mounted archers who marched across Europe in the 13th century, after the devastation of Rus'—it was the Russians who devastated themselves and then went on to devastate Europe. Where do such pseudo-historians come from?
  83. 0
    29 September 2025 17: 28
    Quote: Panin (Michman)
    How many times was the Great Soviet Encyclopedia edited and how many times were history textbooks changed?
    Many times. But these revisions weren't fundamental. They merely changed attitudes toward certain events, removed some people and added others, and changed those referenced in articles. But overall, nothing fundamentally changed regarding Istria. The gradation remained as it had been: "Primitive Communal System," then "Ancient History," which described Egypt, Babylonia, and a little bit of China and India. Then came "Ancient History," with its various "antiquities" (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, etc.)—that's how it remains in all the editions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. And then there was feudalism...
    And the numerous works of Lenin and Stalin can only be found in libraries, and the new generation will not read them.
    Well, you're wrong about that. Not just in libraries. I imagine there are hundreds of thousands of families in the former USSR who still keep these publications in their bookcases. They don't necessarily reread them every day, but they do keep them. In fact, there are people all over the world who keep these works. Especially in China. Of course, in Chinese, but there are tens of millions. And as you yourself noted, these publications are in libraries all over the world. And there are also millions of libraries in the world, including university libraries. I agree that there aren't that many people willing to read them. But how many of us have read the Bible, for example? And how many Jews have read the Torah and Talmud? But does this mean that the Bible, Torah, and Talmud are forgotten and unused?
  84. -1
    30 September 2025 10: 00
    I don't believe in the Tatar-Mongol yoke. There are simply no arguments for it. Someone once came up with this nonsense, and we learn this nonsense in school. And in general, it feels like the history of Europe since the beginning of the new era is nothing but lies and fabrications. As for Russia, we are a collective people. We are a multitude of tribes and nationalities, with their culture, religion, language. All these hordes, khans, princes, kings, etc., fought with each other for hundreds of years. What is now called a state does not at all indicate the spread of an ethnic group in the past or future within today's borders. Who attacked the principalities of Central and Southern Rus', God knows. Most likely, they fought among themselves. That is why there are no traces of great battles: no burials, no weapons, not even real places, for example, the Battle of Kulikovo. It is impossible to imagine The Mongols, traveling 5,000 kilometers with horses, with at least 30,000 warriors, would have devoured everything in their path, and along the way there are not only steppes but also mountains, large rivers, salt marshes, and semi-deserts. And why would they need to do that when rich Chinese principalities are nearby? Even if we accept the possibility of Stone Age tribes (which is complete nonsense) developing a clear hierarchy and a large army, who would feed it, where would it be stationed, and where would they get so many horses and men? Mongolia hasn't become a leader in population, unlike China. And it's somehow strange—they lived in the Stone Age, quickly became a world empire, and just as quickly sank back into the stone age. In short, it's complete nonsense.
    1. 0
      18 February 2026 18: 11
      It's all complete nonsense! We built Rome, and the Battle of Kulikovo never happened (read about the location of that battle in Dvurechinsky's research and expeditions), and Napoleon's invasion never happened. And Hitler... those damned British invented it all!!
  85. 0
    1 October 2025 11: 42
    Quote: ArchiPhil
    The captives were driven away, children born from *filthy* ones were extremely rarely accepted by the community
    Really? And what evidence is there that they were "stolen"? Well, besides paintings by 18th-century artists?
    Born of pagans? Strange. Princes freely took Polovtsian women, no less pagan, as wives. And after the raids of the Pechenegs, Torks, Polovtsians, and so on and so forth, the women also gave birth.
    children. And it seems that not a single historian has written that such children were destroyed at birth.
    Where do you get such fantasies?
  86. 0
    1 October 2025 11: 46
    Quote: bortitrambler.ru
    It is impossible to imagine the Mongols traveling 5 thousand kilometers with horses.

    Without horses. Horses of the traditional Mongolian breed, like Mongolian camels, are strictly endemic. They cannot survive outside their natural supercontinental climate of Mongolia. Przhevalsky noted this.
  87. -1
    26 October 2025 11: 16
    The uncle of Khorezmshah, Kairo Khan, the leader of the Kipchaks (Polovtsians), is to blame for everything. If he had not robbed Genghis Khan’s caravan and killed the ambassadors, the Mongols would have remained within the borders of China; there would have been no invasion!
  88. 0
    28 October 2025 09: 48
    Quote: ORINCH
    Bat(a) is perhaps the most popular male name and the basis of a name among all Mongolian peoples. It means "strong, powerful": Ganbat, Batjargal, Batkhuyag, Baterdene, Batzorig, etc. The current head of Kalmykia is named Batu Khasikov, by the way. Batuev, or Batoev, is one of the most common surnames among the Buryats and Kalmyks.

    Actually, according to the Russian-Mongolian dictionary
    Кремкий - это хүчтэй
    Strong - also хүчтэй
    Reliable - naydvartai
    So, you lied there. But where did the "bat" come from?
    Let's not forget that Mongols (as well as Buryats, Kalmyks, and others) are Buddhists. I suggest we check to see if the term "bat" exists in Buddhism. It turns out it does.
    In Buddhism, there are the terms "bat" (daughter) and "ben" (son). Bat is a need, a state called hisaron. Ben signifies that a person corrects this need and, based on it, comes to revelation. Therefore, ben comes from the word mevin (understanding), reaching the level of Bina. It is said: bnei Bina (sons of Bina). Bat is the previous level, at which ben was. It creates a need, to which ben brings fulfillment, understanding, and feeling. These two states—ben and bat—occur within one person, as their previous and subsequent states.
    Bat (daughter) - previous state.
    According to Buddhism, at any stage of spiritual development a person has bat and ben.
    Moreover, the first state, i.e. bat, is more important.
    Why? Because according to Buddhism, a woman's hisaron is more important than a man's. A woman represents the overall hisaron of reality, while a man is merely a correction of that reality.
    The term "bat" in Buddhism is something like an engine for progress—an engine located within a person who professes Buddhism for their inner progress.
    But according to the official version of history, Buddhism in its current form came to Mongolia in 1578 as a result of a meeting between the third head of the Gelug school of Buddhism, Sonam Jamtso, and the ruler of the Tumets, Altan Khan. It was during this meeting that the title "Dalai Lama" emerged.
    Before this, there were also attempts to introduce Buddhism, but they failed to cover the entire Mongolian society.
    As you can see, it's all simple. And don't let your conspiracy theories force you to lie.
    1. 0
      18 February 2026 18: 08
      What Buddhism? The ancient Mongols were Tengrists—pagans.
      1. 0
        18 February 2026 19: 09
        Quote: Mairos
        The ancient Mongols were Tengrists - pagans.
        Is there documentary evidence of this? Incidentally, Christians also considered Buddhists pagans for quite a long time.
        Quote: Mairos
        Ancient The Mongols were Tengrists - pagans.
        So maybe their antiquity is greatly exaggerated?
  89. 0
    28 October 2025 09: 52
    Quote: agond
    Therefore, it would be logical to describe history based on artifacts.
    I completely agree. But in reality, the opposite happened. History was written first, and only then did archaeology appear. request
  90. 0
    28 October 2025 10: 00
    Quote: glory1974
    The situation right now is exactly as you describe. There are billions of people in Asia, India, and China. But they still keep flocking to Europe, where 500 million people live. And they're building routes under the same names. Customs, security, and distances don't bother them.
    Yes. China is now the workshop of the world. Its goods are cheaper than those in Europe. And Europe, both by plundering the entire world (including China and India) over the past 400 years, and by virtue of the fact that just 50 years ago, Europe and the United States were the world's leading workshops, has accumulated a considerable amount of wealth. This includes the population. The population in Europe and the United States is still solvent. That's all. Historians claim that "during the time of the Great Silk Road, silk was very expensive and therefore accessible only to a very limited number of people in Europe."
  91. 0
    2 December 2025 12: 26
    Ha Ha Ha..!!! Samsonov....
  92. +1
    1 January 2026 15: 30
    From what nothingness did this fall? author? Some kind of crap from an inflamed brain.
    1. 0
      18 February 2026 18: 06
      This is some kind of agenda for reconciling the peoples of Russia with migrants—like, we're all from the Horde. And the Horde became Islamic in the 14th century, so that's all right—friendship of peoples and so on. I see no other meaning in such "creativity."
  93. 0
    18 February 2026 18: 04
    Complete, unequivocal and finished bullshit.
  94. 0
    22 February 2026 05: 21
    Let's start with something more modern. Were there Crimean Tatar invasions? Or were those also Russian? So, by going back in time, we'll discover the truth. What was the territory of Rus' in the 12th century, what was the population, what was the structure, how many warriors were in each principality, what were their weapons? How many warriors could a prince support? Idlers who don't plow or sow. I'm half-Buryt, and my mother is Russian. My son married a Russian, and...? His granddaughter is blonde. Can you imagine? How is that possible? His father is Russian, his mother is Mari, and his children are blonde. Can you imagine?