Military Review

Russia is original. Why do Europeans lie?

334
The war against Russia has been going on for a very long time and very, very successfully. Of course, not on the battlefields, where we have always beaten everyone and it is very painful, but where the West has always won and continues to win - in information wars.


The main goal is to prove to the inhabitants of our country that they are stupid, brainless rednecks, not even second-rate, but somewhere 6-7 discharge, without past and future. And he has practically proved it - even the authors of many patriotic articles agree with this approach entirely. Examples? You are welcome!

Recently, we celebrated the 1000 anniversary of the baptism of Russia. And when did it actually appear?

The first capital (only the capital of a large country!), The city of Slovensk, was founded in 2409 BC (3099 year from the creation of the world); The source of information is the chronicle of the Holy Monastery on the Mologa River, the chronograph of Academician M.H. Tikhomirov, "Notes on Muscovy" by S. Herberstein, "The Tale of Sloven and Ruse", which is widely known and recorded by many ethnographers. It is believed that Novgorod was built on the site of Slovenska, and the leading excavation archaeologists have already dug up the Paleolithic sites.

It is believed that somewhere in the 8 century, wild, brainless and worthless Slavs wandering the woods called Viking Rurik to themselves and said: “Own us, oh great European superman, and we are idiots, nothing can not". (Free textbook presentation on stories).

And no one, or rather, almost no one comes to mind a simple question. How could wild, uncivilized euro-monkeys create for us a state much earlier than ourselves?

Not so it was not at all so.

When the first European monkey, scratching its belly, finally descended from the trees, Russia was already living, homonila with tongues and dialects, praying to the gods and elements, harrowing its borders.

America and Europe are all - a knife in the balls, for how can it be recognized that in those times the steppe people reached democracy with their minds, and then chewed it and spat it out, since the fig is a political system.

At the time of the principalities, the Russian people had a mass written language (they found tablets on the bark with the text about "Vasya would be late to go to kume"), in Russian there was a definition of numbers (and, unlike the Romans, was 0) moreover, there were separate words to express degrees up to and including 49 (a separate word is used for commonly used concepts like a cube square), I have a question about what the Slavs believed, what often used 10 ^ 49, in Russian culture there was a concept of a single law (all physical laws are a manifestation of the general) ...

In fact, Rurik is the grandson of the Prince of Gostomysl of Novgorod, the son of his daughter Umila and one of the neighboring princes of smaller rank. He was called along with his brothers, because all 4 Son Gostomysl died or died in wars. He was accepted by persuasion with the elders, and he worked very hard to earn respect in Russia. Source: Ioakimovskaya chronicle, Russian history by Tatishchev, "Brockhaus and Efron", etc.

The opinion is spread everywhere that the Roman Empire, the model of legality and morality, was almost the only civilization of the past. In general, the gladiatorial battles of Rome, that the modern “flood” by the American and European murderers and marauders of Iraq and Afghanistan are phenomena of the same order.

The morality of the Western world has not changed much, and continues to cause disgust in "savages", like the Russians. The official history: the great beautiful and mighty Roman civilization fell under the blows of smelly, shaggy savages. In fact, those who are fed up with everything (as the Americans are now) have been reorganized by more decent neighbors.

The bare-legged, poorly armed Roman infantry (open a textbook on the history of the ancient world, and admire the legionaries) was worn down in katafractariums clad in steel from the crown of the horse to the horse's hooves. The main source of information is “The cataphracts and their role in the history of military art” A. M. Khazanov. (I don’t remember the rest, but those who wish can search the autosearch themselves. There is a lot of material - they just don’t let him go to school. “Harmful”).

The most interesting thing is where did the Huns come from to “clean up” Rome? Ob, Ugra, Volga, Ural, Priazovye ... Graves with partial armament of catapractaries found in Dagestan. Have you, patriot comrades, looked at the map for a long time? So where did the Huns go to Rome? Why is “wild Russia” in Europe called Gardarika — a country of cities called? Now it does not matter, because we are celebrating 1000 years of Russia with happy faces, we consider Rurik as the host who came from Norway, who founded Russia, and even, it seems, are proud of such a story.

In the 8 century, one of the Russian princes nailed a shield to the gates of Constantinople, and it is difficult to assert that Russia did not exist even then. Therefore, in the coming centuries, long-term slavery was planned for Russia. The existence of the Mongol-Tatars and 3 centuries of submission and humility. What is marked this era in reality? We will not deny the Mongol yoke, but:

As soon as it became known in Russia about the existence of the Golden Horde, the young guys immediately went there to… pillage the Mongols who came from rich China to Russia. The best described are Russian raids of the 14 century (if someone has forgotten, the period from 13 to 15 is considered to be a yoke).

In 1241, the Russian squad together (!) With the “yoke” strolled around Europe from the heart of the soul of the Crusaders. In the Polish chronicles it is well described.

The Poles are vindictive people ... they are remembered now and they will not forget another five centuries. The next year, the Crusaders arrived with a “return visit”. The purpose of the campaign - the seizure and destruction of the Russian lands. But having gotten teethy on Lake Peipsi, the knight dogs for a long time lost their desire to go into Russian possessions.

This battle, together with the victories of Prince Alexander over the Swedes (15 July 1240 on the Neva) and the Lithuanians (in 1245, near Toropets, near the lake of Life and near Usvyat), was of great importance for Pskov and Novgorod, delaying the pressure of three serious enemies with west.

The century passed, and in 1360, Novgorod lads fought along the Volga to the Kama mouth, and then stormed the large Tatar city of Zhukotin (Djuketau near the modern city of Chistopol). Having seized countless riches, the ears went back and began to “drink up zipuns” in the city of Kostroma.

From 1360 to 1375, the Russians made eight large trips to the middle Volga, not counting minor raids. In 1374, the Novgorodians took the city of Bolgar for the third time (near Kazan), then went down and took Sarai himself, the capital of the Great Khan.

In 1375, Smolensk guys on seventy boats under the leadership of the governor Prokop and Smolyanin moved down the Volga. By tradition, they made a “visit” to the cities of Bolgar and Saray. Moreover, the rulers of the Bolgar, taught by bitter experience, paid off a great tribute, but the Khan's capital, Sarai, was taken by storm and plundered.

In 1392, ushkuynik again took Zhukotin and Kazan. In 1409, Governor Anfal led 250 ushkuyev to the Volga and Kama. And in general, to beat the Tatars, in Russia it was considered not a feat, but a craft.

During the Tatar “yoke”, the Russians went to the Tatars every 2-3 of the year, the Shed fired dozens of times, and the Tatar women were sold to Europe by the hundreds.

What did the Tatars do in response? Wrote complaints! In Moscow, in Novgorod. Complaints are preserved. Nothing more "enslavers" could not do. The source of information on the mentioned campaigns - you will laugh, but this is a monograph by the Tatar historian Alfred Khasanovich Khalikov.

And at this time, and much later in the “enlightened” Europe, fires burned, on which tens of thousands of innocent “witches” were burned, the people were dying of starvation and plague.

They still cannot forgive us of these visits! And at school they still tell how the Russian gray-eyed men wept and gave their girls into slavery - because, like humble cattle. And you, their descendants, also penetrate this thought. Do we have any doubts about the reality of the yoke?

In the 16 century, Ivan the Terrible came to power. During his reign in Russia:

- jury trial entered
- free primary education (church schools)
- medical quarantine at borders
- local electoral government, instead of governor
- the regular army first appeared (and the first military uniform in the world was at the archers)
- Tatar raids stopped
- equality was established between all segments of the population (did you know that serfdom at that time did not exist in Russia at all? The peasant was obliged to sit on the land until he paid for its rent, and nothing more. And his children were considered free from birth, in any case!).
- slave labor is forbidden (source - the lawsuit of Ivan the Terrible);
- The state monopoly on the fur trade, introduced by Grozny, was canceled just 10 (ten!) Years ago.
- The territory of the country is increased by 30 times!
- emigration of the population from Europe exceeded 30 000 families (those who settled along Zasechnaya line were paid lifting 5 rubles per family. Expenditure books were preserved).
- The growth of the welfare of the population (and paid taxes) during the reign amounted to several thousand (!) Percent.
- for all the reign there was not a single executed without trial, the total number of "repressed" was from three to four thousand. (And times were dashing - remember St. Bartholomew's night) For stupid ones, let me remind you - this is about “enlightened” France.

By the way, Ivan the Terrible goes to the soap room (bath), the palace is equipped with ... sewage. and the “civilized” European monarchs press lice, go to the pot and pour on themselves liters of spirits to drown the stench of the unwashed body from the months ... What can we say about the common people ...

Now remember what you were told about Grozny at school? That he is a bloody petty tyrant and lost the Livonian war, and Russia was shaking in horror?

Already in the 16 century in Europe, many brochures were published for every brainless man in the street. It was written there that the Russian tsar was a drunkard and a libertine, and all his subjects were also savages. And in the instructions to the ambassadors it was stated that the king was sober, uncomfortably clever, could not stand drunk categorically, and even banned drinking alcohol in Moscow, as a result of which it was possible to “get drunk” outside the city, in the so-called “liqueurs” (the place where they pour) .

Source - study "Ivan the Terrible" Casimir Waliszewski, France. Now guess from three times - which of the two versions is presented in the textbooks?

In general, our textbooks are based on the principle that everything that is said about Russia is vile, this is true. All that is said good or intelligible is a lie.

One example. In 1569, Grozny arrived in Novgorod, which had approximately 40 000 populations. An epidemic was raging there as well, it smelled of rebellion. According to the results of the stay of the sovereign, fully preserved in synodics, the memorial lists mark the 2800 deceased.

But Jerome Horsey in “Notes on Russia” indicates that the henchmen cut 700 000 in Novgorod (seven hundred thousand (?) Forty thousand people and “cut out” seven hundred thousand - even the United Russia men did not learn to lie, and thank God ...) people. Guess which of the two numbers is considered historically accurate?

Almost all historians point their fingers at the dullness, weakness and cowardice of the Russian rulers, who could not even cope with the shabby Crimea. And for some reason they "forget" that there was no Crimean Khanate - there was one of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, in which there were Turkish garrisons and an Ottoman governor sat.

Does anyone have a desire to accuse Castro of not being able to capture the tiny American base on his island? The Ottoman Empire, by this time, was actively expanding in all directions, conquering all the Mediterranean lands, stretching from Iran (Persia) and advancing on Europe, approaching Venice and besieging Vienna.

In 1572, the sultan decided to conquer at the same time wild, as European brochures asserted, Muscovy. 120 of thousands of troops moved from the Crimea to the north, with the support of 20 thousands of janissaries and 200 guns. Near the village of Molodi, the Ottomans encountered the 50-thousandth detachment of voivode Mihail Vorotynsky.

And the Turkish army was ... No, not stopped - completely cut out !!! From this point on, the Ottoman attack on the neighbors stopped - and try to engage in conquest, if you almost halved the army! May God bless the neighbors themselves to fight back. What do you know about this battle? Nothing? That's it! Wait, after 20, about the participation of Russians in World War II will also begin to “forget” in textbooks.

After all, all the "progressive humanity" has long been firmly aware - the Americans defeated Hitler. And it is time to correct the “wrong” Russian textbooks in this field. Information about the battle of Molodyah can be generally classified as closed. God forbid Russian cattle learns that it can also be proud of the acts of ancestors in the Middle Ages! He will develop the wrong self-consciousness, love for the Motherland, for her deeds. And this is wrong.

So, it is difficult to find data about the battle at Molody, but it is possible - in specialized reference books. For example, in the "Encyclopedia of Armaments" KIM three lines written. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi%...%B4%D1%8F%D1%85

Stupid Russian loafers. Remembering the Mongol invasion, I wonder all the time - where did they manage to collect so many sabers?

After all, sabers were forged only starting from the 14 century, and only in Moscow and Dagestan, in Kubachi. Such a strange fork - forever we with Dagestanis unexpectedly get the same. Although, in all textbooks, between us, there are always a pair of hostile states listed. Nowhere else in the world have they learned to forge saber - it is a much more complicated art than it might seem. But progress has come, 17 century. Saber gave way to other weapons.

Before the birth of Peter 1 remained quite a bit. What was Russia? If you believe the textbooks, approximately, such as in Tolstoy’s novel “Peter the First” - patriarchal, ignorant, wild, drunk, inert ...

Do you know that it was Russia that armed all of Europe with advanced weapons? Every year, Russian monasteries and foundry yards sold hundreds of cannons there, thousands of muskets, cold weapon. Source - here's a quote from the "Encyclopedia of weapons":

“It is interesting that in the XVI-XVII centuries manufacturers of artillery guns were not only Pushkarsky sovereigns, but also monasteries. For example, a fairly large production of cannons was carried out in the Solovki monastery and in the Kirillov-Belozersky monastery.

They owned guns and very successfully used them Don and Zaporozhye Cossacks. The first mention of the use of guns Zaporozhye Cossacks refers to the year 1516.

In the XIX-XX centuries in Russia and abroad the opinion was formed that the pre-Peter artillery was technically backward. But, here are the facts: in 1646, the Tula-Kamensk factories supplied Holland with more 600 guns, and in 1647, 360 guns of 4,6 caliber and 8 pounds. In 1675, the Tula-Kamensk factories shipped cast iron cannons, 116 cores, 43892 grenades, 2934 musket trunks, 2356 swords and 2700 iron poods abroad. ”

Here you have a wild backward Russia, about which they say at school.

By the way, from time to time, there are Russophobes who claim that all this cannot be, since even “highly progressive and developed England and France” have learned to cast iron ... only in the 19 century. Yes, but let's go to the Artillery Museum in St. Petersburg. One of the cast-iron cannons, cast by our ancestors in 1600, there is cheekyly lying on a pedestal for everyone to see. People do not believe that Russia, throughout its history and in all respects, has overtaken Europe by approximately two centuries. But ...

The conclusions of the loser. Starting from the school years, we are told that our entire history is like a huge cesspool, in which there is not a single bright spot, not a single decent ruler.

Either there were no military victories at all, or they led to something bad (the victory over the Ottomans is hidden, like nuclear launch codes, and the victory over Napoleon is duplicated by the slogan Alexander — the gendarme of Europe).

Everything that was invented by ancestors is either brought to us from Europe, or simply a baseless myth. The Russian people did not make any discoveries, did not release anyone, and if someone turned to us for help, it was slavery. And the lot of all Russians is to repent, repent and repent.

A little more than a hundred years of information warfare - and we all have already sown a sense of our own inferiority. We are no longer, like ancestors, self-righteous. See what is happening with our politicians: they are constantly justified and repent. Presidents also picked up this bad disease.

Nobody demands that Lord Judah be brought to trial for propaganda of terrorism and cooperation with gangsters - he is persuaded that he is not entirely right.

We threaten Georgia - and do not carry out threats. Denmark spits in our face - and even sanctions are not imposed against it. The Baltic countries have established an apartheid regime - politicians shyly turn away. People need to allow the sale of weapons for self-defense - they are openly called worthless cretins, who, by stupidity, will immediately kill each other.

Why should Russia make excuses? After all, she is always right! Say about this no one else dares. You think - just the current politicians are so indecisive, but instead of them, others are about to come. But this will not happen EVER. Because the feeling of inferiority is laid not in the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. They begin to be systematically raised from childhood, when the child is told: our grandfathers were very stupid, stupid people, incapable of the most elementary solutions.
But the kind and intelligent uncle Rurik came to them from Europe, began to OWN them and teach them. He created for them the state of Russia, in which we live.

Poison, drop by drop, pours into the soul, and when a person leaves school, he is already getting used to looking at the West as a kind owner, more intelligent and developed. And at the words "democracy" begins to rise on the hind legs reflexively.

What the Western world knows best is waging an information war. The blow was dealt to a place that no one had thought to protect - according to the educational program. And the West won. It remains to show a little patience - and our children themselves will crawl on their knees in that direction and will be asked for permission to lick the owners of their shoes. Already crawling - a couple of days ago I managed to see a piece of the transfer “Why does Russia need its own currency?” That's right. Then it will be: "Why do we need an army?". Then: "Why do we need statehood?"

What to do? If you do not want slaves to be made out of children, you need not to shout that we will fight when the time comes, but to save them right now.

The hour has come, the war is almost over for the overwhelming advantage of the enemy. It is urgent to break the course of teaching history, changing the focus of learning on the positive.

Claims for poor teaching are guaranteed. If the historian does not teach children who such an important person in history was as Rurik or does not know about the Molodin battle, then he must pay fines from his own pocket. And even better, file a lawsuit with the Ministry of Education for spreading false information. Hiring a good lawyer and hurting them to hurt them - let it itch. Weakly throw off in the name of saving the honest name of their ancestors?

The second way to strengthen the position on the fronts of the information war is to require the procurators to initiate a criminal case on the fact of inciting ethnic hatred by teaching false historical information.

There are lots of examples. Recall the Tatar yoke. We are told that the Tatars oppressed the Russians, but they do not say that the Russians plundered the Tatars no less famously. As a result, Russians have an insult to their fellow citizens on a racial basis. Moreover, the insult is wrong. We are all good, and behaved exactly the same. Or, for example, last year in Kazan they celebrated (or tried to celebrate) the day of the memory of the Tatars, who defended the city from Russian troops.

There is a clear opposition on a national basis. Although, in fact, the city was taken not by Russians, but by Russian-Tatar (!) Troops. The cover of the Shig-Alei cavalry provided cover for the rifle squads - and if he is German, I am ready to admit myself to be the Pope.

Russian-Tatar troops took Kazan, eliminating the influence of Istanbul on the Volga, and defending civilians from predatory raids, freed tens of thousands of slaves. It is enough to recognize the participation of the Tatars in this noble cause - and the national question loses its urgency.

“Good” teachers diligently sow discord between the largest national groups - Russians and Tatars. The whole course of history is tickled by how the Tatars attacked, how the Russians marched on the Tatars, etc. But nowhere does it indicate that the Tatars are our symbiote, the partner people.

Tatar units ALWAYS were part of the Russian troops, participated in all Russian wars - both internecine and in battles with an external enemy. It can be said that the Tatars are simply Russian light cavalry. Or Russian - Tatar wrought army.

The Tatars fought against Mamai on the Kulikovo Field, together with the Moscow army, the Tatars were the first to attack the enemy in the Swedish and Livonian war; in 1410, the Polish-Russian-Tatar army was crushed by the Crusaders near Grunwald, breaking the back of the Teutonic Order - moreover, it was the Tatars who took the first blow.

Sometimes people ask me why I don’t mention Lithuanians. So I mention - Russian. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Russian state, with the Russian population, who spoke Russian, and even the clerical work was conducted in Russian.

And you thought that a small racist country on the Baltic coast was once a great state?

For four thousand years we lived side by side with the Tatars. They fought, were friends, were related. They smashed the Romans, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the Poles, the French, the Germans ...

And now, our children open a textbook, and they are dripping from every page: enemies, enemies, enemies ... Legally, this is called incitement of national discord. And in fact - the usual information war. The war continues ...
Originator:
http://admin.liga-net.com/
334 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AVV
    AVV 23 July 2013 10: 50 New
    63
    The fact that the textbooks lie is a fact! There are up to 10 or more versions for the same event. And there are more textbooks !!! All this is done so that the truth is not visible !!! Who benefits? Yes to the enemies and detractors of Russia!
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 23 July 2013 15: 32 New
      14
      They lie of course. But they lie any textbooks and any historians. Since they are also people and they also have only their point of view.
      1. fisherman
        fisherman 23 July 2013 16: 56 New
        +5
        "uttered thought is a lie" F. Tyutchev

        everyone is mistaken when they say, and everyone is mistaken when they listen (perceive information from a distorted angle) :)
      2. Skiff-2
        Skiff-2 23 July 2013 17: 45 New
        14
        Quote: il grand casino
        They lie of course. But they lie any textbooks and any historians. Since they are also people and they also have only their point of view.

        And in order not to lie, the author submits a very good idea - lawsuits against the Ministry of Education. There are primary sources denouncing the historical lodges, the spread of deliberate lies is a matter of jurisdiction, so let the courts begin to screen out lies, attract experts from both sides and prohibit the spread of lies by their decision. And let them pay fines and go to jail for inciting ethnic hatred. In the West there is a precedent - the law on the "Holocaust" (with nothing confirmed by the number of victims), so let us also have a law on historical truth, and let at least one teacher dare to break it ... after all, there are so many Soros tribesmen among them. And one more thing: lawsuits against the Ministry of Defense can greatly help V.V. Putin in implementing his order on a unified history textbook (after all, this order is clearly sabotaged by the fifth column of the Medvedev government) - lawsuits, the court and its decisions may become a pretext for the aforementioned bill, unless of course the deputies of the State. Duma will take over the baton and take the initiative.
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 23 July 2013 18: 42 New
          -4
          Quote: Skif-2

          And so as not to lie, the author submits a very good idea - lawsuits against the Ministry of Education.

          And what, do we now have a judicial system with appointed, not elected judges ?!
          1. Skiff-2
            Skiff-2 24 July 2013 09: 26 New
            +5
            Quote: dustycat
            And what, do we now have a judicial system with appointed, not elected judges ?!

            Are judges appointed everywhere, or do you believe in Western democracy? They appoint presidents there (remember the last campaign of the USA), only justices of the peace can be elected to solve everyday conflicts, how do electors assess the competence and responsibility of candidates ?, no, the People have chosen the guarantor, he even appoints, the Duma says before them judge and advice to keep. And the separation of powers is from the evil one, for a house divided in itself cannot stand. Power must be united, strong and independent of external forces. Western-style democracy is a convenient tool for managing from the outside - divide (into parties, branches of power, according to national and territorial grounds) and rule - bribed one branch, financed separatists, introduced agents of influence (and all by law, through elective institutions and freedom of the press) and now the enemy’s state is plunging into anarchy and chaos - less competitor. Modern democracy has gone from England, but is it really there? There MONARCHY !!! For the courts to make fair decisions, they should not be independent (independence is irresponsibility, and the temptation to trade this independence immediately), the courts must comply with the letter of the law and protect the interests of the State and its citizens. And the courts of Russia perform these functions - the case of Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky and others like them. Putin needs help from below to gain full sovereignty by Russia, a people that does not know their past has no future and will be held captive by chimeras invented by enemies. Debunking Western lies about our history during trials (and with proper coverage) will abruptly expose Snowden, gain the force of law, or at least the strength of a court decision, and cleanse our children's textbooks from abominable slander. People will help Power - Power will save People from Iga, slander and complexes. Sincerely .
          2. xoma58
            xoma58 29 July 2013 16: 01 New
            0
            Absolutely the right question.
      3. Cynic
        Cynic 23 July 2013 18: 21 New
        10
        Quote: il grand casino
        They lie of course. But they lie any textbooks and any historians. Since they are also people and they also have only their point of view.

        But why exactly is the blackening Russia lying?
        There is only negative!
        Previously feared, now they are afraid and will always be afraid!
        1. Corsair
          Corsair 29 July 2013 16: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Cynic
          Previously feared, now they are afraid and will always be afraid!

          Clickable Image:
      4. Rink
        Rink 24 July 2013 10: 56 New
        +4
        Quote: il grand casino
        They lie of course. But they lie any textbooks and any historians. Since they are also people and they also have only their point of view.

        "They lie" and "are mistaken because of the development of historical science at the moment" are not the same thing, but with a smart liberal phrase "they are also people and they also have only their point of view"you can justify anyone at all, from any liars, up to and including LGBT.
        1. Rink
          Rink 24 July 2013 12: 33 New
          15
          Motto:
          "Too often, the truth about Russia is spoken with hatred, and the lie with love."
          Andre> | <id


          The author of this article is a fat plus! Maybe it was not written in a completely academic style, and is overly emotional at some points (which is quite understandable!), But the questions raised are absolutely correct.

          I have long been interested in when this information war of Western countries against Russia began.

          If you think a little about the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the formation of the papacy, you can find the following logical series.

          Christianity emerges in Byzantium in a form close to modern Orthodoxy. Later, a religious split arises between Byzantium and Rome, where a separate branch of Christianity, Catholicism, was formed. Byzantium and Rome exchanged mutual anathemas, and in a short time, religious strife grew into ideological, and then into "hot" armed confrontation. The Pope's crusaders, in a crusade, somehow find themselves under the walls of Christian Constantinople.
          I understand that at that time there were no GPS navigators, and it was possible to get a little lost on the way. One or two units. But the whole army of all Europe - is not it strange? Well, they didn’t come to the Muslims in Palestine, but to the Christian city — they saw that they were mistaken. What was supposed to be done by religious Christian crusaders? I think it was logical to turn around and continue on to Jerusalem, having demanded help from the Christians of Constantinople for a holy cause. But the papal crusaders, probably out of frustration at their stupidity, are destroying the capital of the first Christian (Orthodox) state. Some kind of dark place in modern textbooks, but oh well.
          After the fall of Constantinople, Russia picks up the banner of Orthodoxy, becoming now its center. And inherited by the hatred of the popes. They can be understood: they only destroyed Orthodox Constantinople (immediately captured by Muslim enemies), what a surprise you have!

          From that moment on, the attention of the Popes switches to Russia, which has become their ideological enemy. Destroyed Byzantium, do not stop for half a road? The popes organize a crusade to the East, which they do not like to recall now, because in Russia the crusaders suffered a crushing fiasco. There is such a little-cited article by the professor. N. Gratsiansky, published by him in the journal "Questions of history" (1946, no. 2-3), which is not so easy to find even on the internet. Reputable sites do not host it, but you can find it, for example, here http://www.perunica.ru/germany/1732-krestovyj-poxod-1147-g-protiv-slavyan-i-ego.
          html

          Продолжение следует ...
          1. Rink
            Rink 24 July 2013 12: 37 New
            13
            Having received in Russia on the tinsel, Rome harbored hatred. Why, - the popes officially published a bull about their own infallibility, practically equating themselves with God, and here such an embarrassment ... All "successes" ended in the Catholicization of Slavic Poland (which, by the way, from the moment of Catholicization, has turned to this day into an implacable enemy Rus.)

            After that, it seems, the Vatican begins to wage a "quiet" subversive war against Russia. In any case, it seems that the first about intentionally The distortion of the history of the Slavs was said by the Catholic (!) Priest Don Mavro Orbini.
            Historians rarely mention his book "The Slavic Kingdom. The Origin of the Slavs and the Spread of Their Dominance", published by him in Italy in 1601 - it does not at all fit into the picture of the world they created.
            Orbini in the introduction writes:

            "It is not surprising that the Slavic tribe, now erroneously called Sklavonian, does not enjoy the fame that historians should have, and its deeds and glorious campaigns are hidden in a dense fog and are almost buried in an eternal night of oblivion. Having an abundance of warlike men and valiant, he did not find men of scientists and educated, who with their writings would immortalize his name.
            Other tribes, much inferior to him in their greatness, are only so famous now that they had learned men who glorified them with their writings. "


            The publication was immediately entered into the papal "Index of Forbidden Books" (its presence in this "Index ..." confirms that the book is not the latest forgery), and only a few copies of Orbini's book escaped destruction.

            By the way, this destruction in the process of the Reformation of old objectionable books with the simultaneous writing of new, "correct" books in all Catholic monasteries also leads to certain reflections. After all, in fact, all modern history is based on these "correct" books, written under the control of the Vatican! We know practically nothing about what was contained in the libraries, so carefully destroyed at the stake of the Roman Inquisition. And even the names of those scientists to whom Orbini refers in the list of sources partially preserved in his book are already completely unknown to modern historians.

            Wasn't this the first ideological cleansing of history carried out under the control of the Catholic Vatican, which is hostile to Orthodox Russia?

            I have always been amazed at the secrecy with which the popes surrounded and continue to surround their activities today. It would seem that what spiritual mentors and guardians of morality can do in such a way, what do you have to hide from the whole world, and even from your flock? Is it possible to believe those who are engaged in certain dark affairs, which even hundreds of years later are stored in the secret libraries of the Vatican? What could be so terrible that even today it cannot be revealed, after 400, 500, and even more years ?!

            I am sure that traces of stripping the true history of the relationship between Europe and Russia can be found in the libraries of the Vatican. Probably, it is necessary through the UN to ask the Pope not only about the spread of pedophilia among Catholic priests, but also to demand access to the Vatican archives for a certain international commission, which should include historians from different countries.
            (Although, even during the passage of such an initiative through UN bureaucratic institutions, a sweep may be carried out in the Vatican ...)
            1. Rider
              Rider 24 July 2013 16: 26 New
              +2
              SW Igor.
              CRRREEEEPKO shake my hand!
              and I want to add.

              some examples of "alteration" of the past.
              or, "New" history of Europe.

              after "restoration"
              http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/421/qfuf831.jpg

              to

              http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/010/tomq994.jpg

              Read completely:http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/187100-brity-budut-nedovolny-ost
              orozhno-vzryv-mozga.html
              1. Rider
                Rider 24 July 2013 16: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: Rider
                some examples of "alteration" of the past.


                I knew that the photos wouldn’t work.

                all interested, please follow the link.
                clickable photos there

                You will be very surprised.
              2. Rink
                Rink 25 July 2013 00: 51 New
                +1
                Quote: Rider
                some examples of "alteration" of the past.
                or, "New" history of Europe.

                Thanks, damn interesting reference!
                This is very interesting evidence that official history is very difficult to convincingly explain.
                With the development of the Internet and search engines, more and more such puzzles are being brought to light. Historians now have no choice but to restrict access to originals and high-resolution reproductions.

                "What will happen if everyone can analyze the primary sources ?! This will all come out without fail, sooner or later! So, guys, let's go to the archive, and referring to copyright protection (? !!) of none of ours" "Do not let him in again!"
            2. walter_rus
              walter_rus 28 July 2013 03: 08 New
              0
              Quote: Skating rink
              All the "successes" ended in the Catholicization of Slavic Poland (which, by the way, from the very moment of Catholicization, has turned to this day into an implacable enemy of Russia.)
              It is noticed that their own, who have gone over to the strangers, become the most ardent enemies. While still in the Caucasus, I noticed that Russians who converted to Islam are becoming more fanatical than native Muslims, and among them there is a very high percentage of those who have gone to terrorists. Poles have hated us since the partition of Poland in the 18-19th centuries. But remember that Poland was divided between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Those parts that went to the Germans ceased to be Polish land, and the Poles there became a national minority or assimilated. But on the Russian part, Polish autonomy was created - the Kingdom of Poland, where the way of life of the people practically did not change, and perhaps thanks to such an "occupation" the Polish people themselves were preserved. And then the Bolsheviks completely gave Poland independence (by the way, a similar story with Finland - at first it was won back from Sweden, they gave it autonomy as part of the Russian Empire, and after the revolution they gave complete independence, but the Finns turned out to be nobler than the Poles, and despite the war of 1939-40 relations still remained normal). And how many lives of our soldiers were sacrificed for the independence of Poland during the Great Patriotic War, plus we helped to rebuild the country, although it was very difficult ourselves. And the Nazis destroyed 20 percent there. population and half of the economy, but the Poles have no complaints about the Germans !!!! What is the reason for such a strange attitude - maybe in what I wrote about at the very beginning of the comment?
          2. Horde
            Horde 24 July 2013 20: 10 New
            0
            Quote: Skating rink
            I have long been interested in when this information war of Western countries against Russia began.


            here's the latest research, the historian Alexander Kas in his book "The collapse of the empire of the Russian tsars" claims that the falsifications began with Peter, the first of the Romanovs. It was Peter who began the destructive reforms in Russia, it was Peter who opened the window into which a stream of foreigners, mainly Germans, who for a long time seized all responsible posts in the state and in academic science, flowed from smelly Europe in a stormy stream.
            http://istclub.ru/forum/51-%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%

            B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%8

            5-%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9/

            1. Rink
              Rink 24 July 2013 23: 59 New
              +4
              Quote: Horde
              ... fraud began with Peter the first of the Romanovs. It was Peter who began the destructive reforms in Russia, it was Peter who opened that window into which from the stinky Europe a stream of foreigners, mainly Germans, went ...

              Thanks for the reference, read.
              But although I am not a historian, but just a curious dilettante, nevertheless, the version with Peter does not seem to me the beginning of a "special operation" against Russia.

              After all, there was the previous very dark and incomprehensible period of Russian unrest.
              Why and how did this turmoil arise in a state with a strong power of Ivan the Terrible? The identity of Grozny is a separate mystery. But the more information you collect about that period with incomprehensible renunciations and the return of Ivan, the more misunderstandings. The more visible are the gaps and inconsistencies of official history. How many people know that Grozny, who is portrayed as paranoid and murderer, was not only very educated and pious, but also wrote books of theological sense? And such a combination of mutually exclusive qualities looks at least strange.
              Why did the legal dynasty of the Rurikovich interrupt, who prepared the parish brought the Romanovs to power? Young Peter himself could not prepare the coup and his rise to power.

              Saakashvili in Georgia did not arise out of the blue, and the change of dynasty under the succession system is a much more difficult event. This is not a five minute affair: no democracy, no election for you. Moreover, the laws prescribe a very limited circle of potential rulers who have the right to life-long rule, and not for two terms of four years ...

              I agree that Peter I, with his unclear history with the archers, unexpected rise to power and Westernism that arose after many years of training in all kinds of Holland and Denmark, looks somehow ambiguous. And after all, the contemporaries who spoke upon Peter's return to Russia that Peter was "replaced" and that the one who returned is no longer Tsar Peter, probably had some reason for this?

              Only one thing can be said for sure: attempts to advance to the east, Catholicization of the Slavs and their subordination to the Vatican were undertaken long before the arrival of Peter. The popes had a very diverse monastic orders, including those that are quite secret to this day. Now they would say that the Vatican had its own intelligence, and its own army, and even its own special forces for the physical elimination of unwanted ones. There were opportunities for propaganda, and for the most severe censorship and their own "political department" of inquisitors, identifying those who disagree with the "general line of the Vatican party" and had the misfortune to somehow let it slip. Remember, the Vatican contained a whole network of paid provocateurs, and in power, wealth and influence rivaled Western European kings, who were often completely subordinate to the popes.

              In light of all this, Peter I may look like the Gorbachev of his time. But Gorbachev's arrival was not the beginning of an ideological war against the USSR. It was rather a result of many years of subversive efforts carried out by intelligence agencies and "ideologues on assignment."

              The roots, it seems to me, are much deeper.
              And the attempt to close everything to Peter is an attempt to divert attention from the real puppeteers and ideologists of those events.
              1. alexandr00070
                alexandr00070 27 July 2013 21: 10 New
                +1
                Quote: Skating rink
                I agree that Peter I, with his unclear history with the archers, unexpected rise to power and Westernism that arose after many years of training in all kinds of Holland and Denmark, looks somehow ambiguous. And after all, the contemporaries who spoke upon Peter's return to Russia that Peter was "replaced" and that the one who returned is no longer Tsar Peter, probably had some reason for this?

                Peter 1 the Great (1672–1725) is a very controversial historical figure. Many facts speak of the substitution of Peter 1 during the diplomatic mission of Russia to Western Europe (the Great Embassy). At 26, Peter leaves with the Great Embassy. A young man is leaving, his height is above average, tight-fitting, physically healthy, having a mole on his left cheek, wavy hair, educated, loving everything Russian, “Orthodox” Christian, knowing the Bible by heart, etc.

                After 2 years, a man who practically did not speak Russian returned, who hated everything Russian and until the end of his life had never learned to write Russian, having forgotten everything that he knew before leaving, having acquired new skills and abilities. With straight hair, without a mole on his left cheek, painful, looking forty years old. Peter 1 returned from the trip, demonstrating a great experience in boarding combat, which has specific features, you can master them only by participating in many boarding battles. In addition, the "new Peter 1" was sick with fever in a chronic form, with traces of the long-term use of mercury preparations. But the Great Embassy went the northern sea route, and tropical fever can be earned in the southern waters, and only after visiting the jungle. All this suggests that the man who returned with the Great Embassy was an experienced sailor and participated in many naval battles.
                * Before the trip, Peter 1 did not take part in naval battles, during his childhood and youth, Muscovy did not have access to the seas, with the exception of the White Sea, which cannot be called tropical, and Peter did not visit it often.

                He beloved his beloved wife, whom Peter 1 missed and often corresponded, while traveling, after returning from the Great Embassy, ​​without even seeing her, he sent to the convent without explanation. At the same time, almost simultaneously, P. Gordon (former mentor of young Peter) and Lefort (friend of Peter 1) suddenly die. It was from their submission that the young Peter had a desire to incognito to go with the Great Embassy (went Peter 1 under the name Mikhailov). Most likely, the substitution occurred due to the fact that the real Peter was far from being as accommodating as the owners of Gordon and Lefort wanted to see him.
            2. walter_rus
              walter_rus 28 July 2013 03: 24 New
              0
              I am not a historian and I could be wrong, but I think that many of today's problems grow from the times when the kings began to intensively employ foreigners. Many aristocratic families have Tatar, German, Polish, French and other roots. It got to the point that in the 19th century the French language was adopted by the aristocrats - it became "zapadlo" to speak Russian. So to this day, our powers that be continue their traditions - behave like occupiers.
      5. Simon
        Simon 24 July 2013 13: 25 New
        0
        And so that there is no lie, you need to write textbooks on true historical facts, which are confirmed by true historical documents, and not by fabrications because of the cordon. fool
    2. a52333
      a52333 23 July 2013 16: 45 New
      +5
      Yes, there are good studies on this by Fomenko and Nosovsky. They recounted the story, in which there are many inconsistencies, essesno taking into account interests "Taking into account the opinion of our Western" Partners "watch the film [media = http: //chronologia.org]
      1. DEfindER
        DEfindER 24 July 2013 10: 52 New
        +4
        Quote: a52333
        Yes, there are good studies on this by Fomenko and Nosovsky. They recounted the story, in which there are many inconsistencies, essesno taking into account interests "Taking into account the opinion of our Western" Partners "watch the film [media = http: //chronologia.org]

        Yes, a good topic, it becomes a lot to understand, but there are still some points in their studies that are not consistent, for example, they believe that the ancient states of Greece and Rome were in the Middle Ages, but only then how to explain the appearance of pagan states when Christianity was already adopted according to to the whole world .. But basically everything in them really reflects the historical picture ..
        I would like to add to the article why no one is surprised that our official story, where there are such black spots as calling the Vikings to reign and IGO, was written not by Russian historians but by Germans by buyer and Schlozer, and all our historians have already copied their works, and by the way Lomonosov harshly criticized these Germans, because was their contemporary, and all his historical studies strangely burned out after his death ..
        I won’t be surprised that after 50 years, some kind of Solzhenitsyn will be considered the official historian of the Soviet period of Russia ..
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 24 July 2013 14: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: DEfindER
          for example, they believe that the ancient states of Greece and Rome were in the Middle Ages, but only then how to explain the appearance of pagan states when Christianity around the world was already adopted ..

          Paganism - polytheism - an invention of Western propaganda, there was no polytheism. The same Greeks or Slavs had many ethnic groups in the nation (I apologize in advance for the clumsy explanation). Each people in the composition of the Slavs, for example, believed in their ONE god. With the same success, we can say that the whole west is pagans, since they have several religions and several gods.
          1. DEfindER
            DEfindER 24 July 2013 15: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Paganism - polytheism - an invention of Western propaganda, there was no polytheism. The same Greeks or Slavs had many ethnic groups in the nation

            Well, in this case, statues of several gods could be present in one Greek or Roman temple, as different gods were depicted in Egyptian temples .. The problem is that so far there is not a single method that would give 100% accuracy in dating, and we cannot find out the age of a thing and determine the era.
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 24 July 2013 15: 21 New
              0
              100% accuracy (up to a year, day, hour, second) is not needed. The imputed time period is easy. With very few exceptions.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 24 July 2013 15: 51 New
                +1
                Quote: abrakadabre
                100% accuracy (up to a year, day, hour, second) is not needed. The imputed time period is easy. With very few exceptions.

                Modern scientific dating methods do not provide sane accuracy. The scatter is not even at times, but by orders of magnitude.
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 24 July 2013 20: 36 New
                  0
                  Modern scientific dating methods do not provide sane accuracy. The scatter is not even at times, but by orders of magnitude.

                  "If you care about your digestion, my good advice is not to talk about Bolshevism and medicine at dinner. And - God forbid you - don't read Soviet newspapers before dinner." (words by Prof. Preobrazhensky, Heart of a Dog, M. Bulgakov)

                  Do not read Fomenkovschina about history ... And - God bless you - do not watch REN TV ...
                  To make such statements, you must at least understand them.
                  1. Rink
                    Rink 25 July 2013 10: 22 New
                    +1
                    Quote: abrakadabre
                    To make such statements, you must at least understand them.

                    Something reminds me of it ...

                    "To sing like that, you have to study for ten years!"

                    Since the "correct" historians simply have nothing to argue with Fomenko on a number of the questions he raised, the "scientific community" prefers to simply ridicule him with general phrases, without going into details. Because if we talk about specific inaccuracies, then there is the possibility of reasoned responses to criticism.
                    And so, practiced general gearworm, which not based on anything, claims that "Fomenkovism" is nonsense and nonsense. Part of the people, especially those who are not used to reading and thinking for themselves, and in whom the herd feeling is highly developed, also begins to "peck" and ridicule a person who has done a huge and painstaking work, not because "read, but disagree", but simply because the majority does so.

                    You, dear, can you more specifically express what exactly in the "Fomenkovshchina", in your opinion, has no serious scientific grounds?
                    1. abrakadabre
                      abrakadabre 25 July 2013 10: 40 New
                      -2
                      You, dear, can you more specifically express what exactly in the "Fomenkovshchina", in your opinion, has no serious scientific grounds?
                      In half a page it is not possible to exhaustively answer your offer. You offer me a couple of years to quit work and take up your historical education. It is real, but it will be very expensive for you. It will be cheaper for you to do self-education. With a general emphasis on history (including data verification methods). But not forgetting the philosophical disciplines, there is a scientific methodology in general and in the context of historical science in particular, logic and much more.
                      Fomenko A.T. - the magnitude and quite a recognized authority in mathematics. For which honor and praise be given to him and the title of academician. But not in historical science.
                      1. DEfindER
                        DEfindER 25 July 2013 11: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: abrakadabre
                        Fomenko A.T. - the magnitude and quite a recognized authority in mathematics. For which honor and praise be given to him and the title of academician. But not in historical science.

                        I would say so, in official history there are a lot of shoals to which historians cannot give an answer, for example, with Ivan the Terrible, why according to official history when he got sick and abdicated the first time and then got well and returned, the board of trustees created during his illness remained and was not disbanded, the version of Fomenko about 4 different kings looks more believable. But I agree that Fomenko also has a lot of shoals that discredit him, if you carefully double-check his data, then they are also not entirely accurate and often strained. An example about the tomb of Tutankhamun Fomenko writes that the plants found in it did not grow in Egypt, but if you carefully read the annals, it says that they did not grow in Egypt, but were imported from Palestine. So you can find fault with anyone, but still the version of Fomenko is more realistic than the version of Scaliger from which modern historians repel ..
                      2. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 25 July 2013 13: 01 New
                        0
                        Try to be brief:

                        Scientific methodology expressly forbids believing in Scaliger.
                        I have already mentioned it several times. But I see in vain my efforts.
                        The Scaliger version of the TRU, and the Fomenko version of FUUU, is not because science is so bony or that the universal Russophobic conspiracies are ill. But because initially he does not believe either the first or the second. AND CHECKS! The most independent and diverse methods. All available tools: theoretical and applied physics, astronomy, archeology, paleobotany, linguistics, biology, medicine, etc. In each case, all possible methods are involved. Everything is checked and rechecked many times.
                        Any hypothesis in science becomes a recognized theory only after repeated and multilateral testing. And even after that it does not turn into dogma. Just a universally accepted theory based on the amount of knowledge that is currently available. But for it the limits of applicability and possible errors are always indicated.
                        Then facts can accumulate that the current generally accepted theory cannot explain. If the facts are vanishingly small in comparison with those that confirm the theory or can be successfully explained by it, then these facts are verified in depth. If they gradually become larger, then the theory is being finalized. If the number of such facts becomes comparable, the limits of applicability of the theory are checked. The theory becomes obsolete and goes to the archive only when it is proved that the new theory can explain both old known facts and new ones. The new theory is proved in the way described above and in no other way. I specially highlight for you: IN ANY OF SCIENCES.

                        Let's get back to Scaliger and Fomenko. When Fomenko says "the old version of history", it means that "" also all other sciences, whose tools were used to check and clarify certain historical facts. And which, in due time, have also been repeatedly tested.

                        For instance. The official historical chronology is confirmed not only by a comprehensive historical analysis of various sources, but also by methods of archeology, radioisotope analysis, dendrological analysis, linguistics, chemistry, soil science, geology, ethnography, climatology and so on. Their name is Legion.

                        Therefore, when Fomenko claims that all this is complete nonsense, and he, with his historical theory, is a chocolate hare, the scientific world, to put it mildly, is skeptical. To declare for the sake of his theory that the dating of numerous facts by the radiocarbon method is one thing. And to prove it is quite another. But here it is possible to crow the fried facts publicly before the average man - people all shanat. And it is necessary to prove to a narrower circle of far from suckers and with much greater efforts.

                        Okay. I doubt that I have reached you.
                      3. shasherin_pavel
                        shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 19: 06 New
                        +1
                        Ivan the Terrible abdicated the throne as the Grand Duke, put Grishka Otrepiev on his throne, who in fact was from the royal family of the Kazan tsars, and the throne of Ivan the Terrible became from the “throne of the Grand Duke” the “throne of the royal” and John the Terrible, who returned from the “fatal illness” sat on the royal throne and has now become the tsar of Russia for all of Europe, having inherited the tsar's dignity from the tsar's offspring - a temporary worker. Here's a knight's move ...
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 24 July 2013 15: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: DEfindER
            Well, in this case, in one Greek or Roman temple, statues of several gods could be present at once

            This is religious tolerance, not polytheism.
            1. shasherin_pavel
              shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 19: 20 New
              0
              Tolerance! there is no such word in the Church Slavonic dictionary. There is "faith" - truth
              Patience - staying in something, endurance or intercourse.
              There is patience - firmness of spirit in enduring calamity. And there is the patient - the generous. When the Ark of the Covenant passed into the hands of the pagans and was installed in their temple, the pagan idol was torn to pieces and thrown at the threshold. God does not tolerate alien "Bozi" because for Him this is idolatry. and we come up with new excuses for ourselves in a faith that is not true, deviating from faith in the One God.
        2. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 18: 56 New
          0
          The supreme "goddess" of the Slavs was Glory, who gave birth to all the other "gods": Veles, Volos, Perun, Svarog and so on, and if this is not polytheism, then what is it? I understand the Orthodox Church now also resembles the ancient religion of the Slavs, because Slava was also called the "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven", isn't it because now they are stupidly hammered into our heads that the defender of the Russian land is the Mother of God, but who gave birth to only one God: Lord - Jesus Christ, but then other "Bozi" Sergius of Radonezh, John of Kronstadt - by the way the Black Hundreds, Seraphim of Sarov, Matrona of Petersburg, etc. appeared. If you read the Bible carefully, you can see that there are enemies of the One God - these are idols (volumetric images for worship, idols (flat images for worship) and Bozi for which temples were erected on the heights and hills, where the Jews worshiped "Bozi" with incense and sacrifices. In the fight against such worship, God Almighty sends enemies to the Jews, who attacked Judea, made them doubt the power of "Bose", which included: Moloch - one of the genealogy of Jesus Christ who lived under the name Molaach, Balaam - the prophet of the Old Testament, and only o Beelzebub (lord of the flies and protector of the harvest in the bins) from an alien people, but so strong that Jesus Christ was accused of "resurrecting by the power of Beelzebub." So polytheism still exists, and if anyone doubts, then get off at the Taganskaya metro station and after 15 minutes on foot you will find yourself in a temple where the relics of a woman, a saint during her lifetime, but who became a Bozi after death, are worshiped. MANY GOD !!! under the guise of faith in Jesus Christ.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Duelist
    Duelist 23 July 2013 16: 59 New
    11
    They lie, but very persistently and therefore successfully. Education needs to be changed, but certainly not under the false West. Look at our grief-ministers of education, what Fursenko was worth!
    1. Captain Vrungel
      Captain Vrungel 23 July 2013 18: 07 New
      +8
      LORD! What are we striving for. What is the main task. What are we specifically building. What built. Have an answer to these questions? Definitely NOT.
      Tsarist Russia sought to build a strong Empire.
      The Bolsheviks built socialism-built.
      The communists set a goal - communism.
      What happened to us. They randomly destroyed it, plundered everything to the ground, and then ...
      Wild, greedy capitalism and grasping movements of mani, mani, mani spontaneously arose.
      No targets are set, the perspective is vague. The traditional "ABOS", we will rake it somewhere.
      The main motto of today is "COULD BE WORSE".
      1. shasherin_pavel
        shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 19: 22 New
        0
        I agree that this period of our life is "Purposelessness of living in politics."
  4. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 23 July 2013 17: 08 New
    12
    Quote: AVV
    The fact that textbooks lie is a fact

    Well Duc Soros so that to hell with hell he quickly tried to break the split poker into the ass, and the young shit-democrats of the 90s helped to muddle the brains of the population.
    The author is absolutely right that it is necessary to instill pride in the history of our country from a kindergarten.
  5. domokl
    domokl 23 July 2013 20: 23 New
    +2
    Quote: AVV
    ! All this has been done so that truth is not visible !!! Who benefits from this?

    I guess you ... laughing The truth passed through the consciousness of a person turns into the truth. And therefore, how many people, there are so many truths. Any little knowing little wizard will tell you that there are so many witnesses, there are so many versions.
  6. NKVD
    NKVD 23 July 2013 22: 45 New
    +5
    Only cattle can be proved that it would be worthless. A normal person who has his own dignity who treats his Motherland, history, culture with love and understanding ... It is not possible to convince that he would be worthless. hait his country and "sings" the praises of dubious Western values.
  7. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 24 July 2013 00: 49 New
    +3
    Quote: AVV
    Who benefits from this? Yes to the enemies and detractors of Russia!


    Thanks to the author from the bottom of my heart. Dano did not read anything more patriotic.
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 24 July 2013 01: 01 New
      -2
      Quote: Geisenberg
      Thanks to the author from the bottom of my heart. Dano did not read anything more patriotic.

      That yes ... there are always many such "patriots" ... During Lenin's time, they write bad tsarism, during Stalin's time, Lenin's bad, during Khrushchev's time, Stalin's not very ... Even in the USSR there were whole departments of atheism, but it was fashionable to be Orthodox ... Not so long ago they sang odes to "perestroika", to Gorbach and EBN ... They sing to GDP and a strong regime ... 20 years ago they prayed for "democracy", "enlightened West" and the USA ... and alternative pseudo-historians ... in 20 years, mb and even will come up with another
      1. valerii41
        valerii41 27 July 2013 21: 12 New
        0
        Corneli, don’t pay attention to those patriots whom this come and go listed. Under this scum they write a story, with a trembling voice we were presented with the Tatar-Mongol yoke and our impotence, the arrogant Armenians and Georgians defended their freedom. When small countries were eliminated, that patriotism has not changed much from Batu Khan, it must be passed on as a baton and not be exchanged for revolution. The Europeans are furious that we do not bend to us do not care, our children and grandchildren should know
    2. Simon
      Simon 24 July 2013 13: 36 New
      +1
      Really, a good article. He well criticized the false pseudo-historical mistakes. good
  8. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 24 July 2013 12: 04 New
    +2
    Quote: AVV
    The fact that the textbooks lie is a fact! There are up to 10 or more versions for the same event. And there are more textbooks !!! All this is done so that the truth is not visible !!! Who benefits?

    It is not in the textbooks that our history is being twisted or distorted. There is such a concept as SOCIAL ORDER OF THE RULING CLASS. The bourgeoisie in the person of big capital is in power, please, we will write the "RIGHT" textbook for you! Others will come ... we will write an EVEN MORE CORRECT TEXTBOOK THREE TIMES ... FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW. There is such an academician in the RAS - PIVOVAROV (his nephew worked on NTV), who heads the historical direction of our academic scientific school. As an ardent apologist for kapstroy, he said right in the course of the TV program that nothing good could have happened under socialism and the USSR! Kurghonyan then clutched at his heart. Do you think such an academician and his school will write something objective? Three boxes of lies and nonsense will lie to protect the right of the few strong to rip off the absolute majority of their fellow tribesmen ... But the social order will be fulfilled. But he is predicted to be the head of the team of authors on the creation of a single textbook on the history of RUSSIA! So we will see then all our history, "brewery correct".
    Just stock up on validol in advance when you start reading and saying "OH!"
  9. Siberian German
    Siberian German 25 July 2013 07: 03 New
    +3
    you know, my wife is a historian by education - as I wrote when I got my diploma on many things - the discrepancies are agro
  10. Arthur 775
    Arthur 775 26 July 2013 00: 04 New
    +1
    And where is our power ????
    Fuck, but yes it’s a whole epic.
    But in fact, tell the children at home how it was and where it came from.
    And for this, listen, read, think, etc ...!
  11. Gladiatir-zlo
    Gladiatir-zlo 28 July 2013 20: 41 New
    0
    All this only says that it is extremely important for the father and mother to raise their children in honor and a healthy, critical perception of the information they are pouring, so to speak, to install an antivirus.
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 23 July 2013 15: 38 New
    +7
    Unfortunately, the history of the state is often replaced by the "history of the sovereign"! And since there are many "sovereigns", there are also decent historical versions of past events ... But not only in recent years, but also in the Middle Ages, history was created (recorded!) By people engaged by the authorities to one degree or another. There are practically no independent historians, because they also want to live ...
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto 23 July 2013 15: 38 New
    34
    "the steppe people with their minds reached democracy, and then chewed it up and spat it out, because this is a fig state system" - the author five points only for humor, not to mention a super-super article in general !!!
    1. Simon
      Simon 24 July 2013 13: 43 New
      +2
      Yes, what democracy gave to Rome - the collapse of the empire, what democracy gave to Europe and America - same-sex marriages, which will inevitably lead to the collapse or disappearance of these states.
    2. valerii41
      valerii41 27 July 2013 21: 16 New
      0
      I read a very interesting article several times.
  • Gato
    Gato 23 July 2013 15: 41 New
    10
    Quote: il grand casino
    They lie of course. But they lie any textbooks and any historians.

    If a time machine is ever invented, then ALL historical works, history textbooks, etc. will take their rightful place in the sections "Myths of the peoples of the world", "Alternative historical fiction" and shelves of special literature for psychiatrists.
    But until it was invented, the war continues, comrades!
    1. does it
      does it 23 July 2013 16: 08 New
      +4
      Quote: Gato
      Quote: il grand casino
      They lie of course. But they lie any textbooks and any historians.

      If a time machine is ever invented, then ALL historical works, history textbooks, etc. will take their rightful place in the sections "Myths of the peoples of the world", "Alternative historical fiction" and shelves of special literature for psychiatrists.
      But until it was invented, the war continues, comrades!

      Buddhists and yogis have special practices! Entering a trance, they connect to the "Akashic Chronicles", that is, to the memory of the earth. And get answers to all questions.
      1. Gato
        Gato 23 July 2013 16: 37 New
        14
        Quote: kvirit
        entering a trance, they are connected to the "Akashic Chronicles" that is, to the memory of the earth. And they receive answers to all questions

        It seems that some historians use a similar "scientific" method. laughing
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 23 July 2013 18: 51 New
          +4
          No, Gato, that's right.
          I, too .. how many times connected .. and everything is fine.
          True ... I got answers to questions - which I didn’t look at ... in the pipe.
          And for which they are needed - did not receive.
          .
          And so ... a very promising technique.
          1. family tree
            family tree 23 July 2013 19: 05 New
            +6
            Quote: Igarr
            And so ... a very promising technique.

            And popular. What does it work well, both in the past and in the future laughing
            1. does it
              does it 23 July 2013 19: 19 New
              0
              Quote: perepilka
              And popular. What does it work well, both in the past and in the future

              I put a plus for the photo! wink
          2. Gato
            Gato 24 July 2013 10: 20 New
            +4
            Quote: Igarr
            Me too .. how many times connected

            Similarly, colleague!
            If you take a 1.0l pepper, and then carefully polish it with two or even three pints of servise, you can get answers to any questions! fellow Um .. even those that I didn’t ask belay
            And what a revelation! No yogi in any nirvana can not see!
            1. mabuta
              mabuta 24 July 2013 20: 23 New
              +1
              Gato
              You're right. So much information, revelation, ambition, II.I. And where is Friday? drinks wassat
              Many thanks for the article. As for the "lost" - to the point. The Tatars (Volga) are also in the end. And brother and brother poke around, but it is better for the neighbor not to climb.
  • Makarov
    Makarov 23 July 2013 15: 57 New
    11
    Very interesting and "vivid" material is provided, for a long time I have not read anything "historical" with interest))) Thanks to the author!)
    1. soldat1945
      soldat1945 23 July 2013 16: 49 New
      +4
      This is not a story, this is nonsense, with the exception of Ivan the Terrible, I don’t remember that at school one of the teachers would say to me that Grozny was a fool, or that we were greedy or something else, I changed three schools everywhere the teachers were patriots, I myself graduated from history faculty, about Russia before baptism in history as a science, no one spoke about the fact that we were wild, but indicates proto-cities, but for which there is very little historical material, the chronicle which the author cites as an example at the beginning of the text is by the way the only document that he cites in no one saw an example in the original and it surfaced already in the 20th century in the form of supposedly reprints from the original, and then fantasies on a historical theme up to A. Nevsky himself, according to which there are chronicle records stored in the state archive, the authenticity of which was proved about his trips to the horde for the label to reign. The article is complete nonsense by no means should one take seriously such opuses, these hackers need to study the applied science of source studies and then reveal the "truth" to the world! We have little material about ancient Russia, but our whole history is imbued with feats and victories, and I think 99% of those who read the Military Review studied the history of a great state, and this kind of scribblers knock us off the study of documents, work in the archive of the routine of historical science, and throw the bone of a loud sensation at the heart of which is bullshit! If there are historians on the site, write comments, otherwise I read the reviews so much delight, we are already Great and this nonsense is just annoying!
      1. hrych
        hrych 23 July 2013 17: 12 New
        12
        Those. Bayer-Miller-Schletzer-Pyrmont Normanist theory is not bullshit. So believe in it further, and we are closer to Mikhailo Lomonosov, the historical works of koyevo at school did not teach you.
        1. soldat1945
          soldat1945 23 July 2013 17: 21 New
          13
          And here the Norman theory in historical science, the origin of Rurik is not given by a constant, and Mikhailo Lomonosov also said that Rurik could be a Norman, but Russia existed before him as a developed state, did you read Lomonosov's notes on Russian history? If you read why write nonsense, I am not a Normanist if you are hinting at it! I don't know why you were not taught Lomonosov, open the Soviet history textbook and you will always see a link to Lomonosov in the additional literature to the issues studied, and his statements are often cited in the textbook, with the exception of textbooks that Soros produced in the 90s!
          1. hrych
            hrych 23 July 2013 17: 48 New
            10
            Of course, I deigned to read Lomonosov’s book. Link is not a study of works, schoolchildren are not interested in links, what the teacher said to them is remembered, and he continues to grind Bayer, and his follower Karamzin. The story for your information is an exact science and, like all exact sciences, must obey the laws, if neither genetics, nor archeology, nor anthropology confirms the Tatar yoke, it simply did not exist. And there are simply no primary sources. There are a couple of Ryazan chronicles where Batu burned the village of Ryazan and the Kozelsk farm and all. According to the Novgorod annals, Nevsky went to Batu (in the annals to the tsar), but there was no talk about any labels, why the blizzard to drive, there was an embassy of an independent ruler. Further in the annals, we will talk about how Alexander banged and captured the Batyevsky governor Nevruya, his younger brother, who was climbing onto the ground. The Novgorod lands of the Tatars, if they saw it as exotics.
            1. Tverichanka
              Tverichanka 23 July 2013 21: 41 New
              +5
              Quote: hrych
              I, what the teacher told them, I remembered

              I applaud while standing! Bravo! I am glad that there are sane and KNOWLEDGE people. It is a pity that the plus does not reflect my enthusiasm for your comment.
            2. soldat1945
              soldat1945 23 July 2013 23: 02 New
              0
              It means that the teacher said the necessary things to me and all my friends, the textbook doesn’t follow Lomonosov, Karamzin, Bayer, the textbook summarizes all the reliable knowledge about the subject, and its edition may be different, but for this the min.obr recommended a specific textbook before Pupils write essays already from additional literature where the student can more fully study the topic and form their opinion, all who studied well at school, as a rule, wrote essays and therefore knew the subject more deeply. Official history never said that the Novgorod lands fought with the Tatars, they had enough problems from the west!
          2. Papakiko
            Papakiko 23 July 2013 17: 58 New
            +5
            Quote: soldat1945
            I don’t know why you weren’t taught Lomonosov, open the Soviet history textbook and you will always see a link to Lomonosov’s study literature in his additional literature and his statements are often cited in the textbook, with the exception of textbooks which Soros published in the 90s

            Is this in the 80s textbooks about Lomonosov’s statements?
            Quote: soldat1945
            the only document that he cites as an example no one saw in the original and it surfaced already in the 20th century in the form of supposedly reprints from the original, and then fantasies on a historical theme to A. Nevsky himself, according to which there are chronicles stored in the state archive the authenticity of which proved about his trips to the horde for a label on reign.

            And what follows from this? That there are some tsatskas and letters of manufacture of the 18-19th century and dating back to the 12-14th centuries, right?
            Quote: soldat1945
            We have little material about ancient Russia, but our whole history is imbued with feats and victories, and I think 99% of those who read Military Review studied the history of the great state

            And why do we have practically no these materials?
            Is there only what came from the 18-19th centuries?

            In this program one can clearly see the clash between the lobby of the "official" history and those who disagree with it.
            And this is fresh.

            And it’s not from the fingers of the insipid.
            Troy, "Ancient Egypt" and so on.
            1. does it
              does it 23 July 2013 19: 17 New
              +8
              Quote: Papakiko
              And why do we have practically no these materials?

              Because, on the orders of Peter the Great, all manuscripts were brought to the capital under the guise of a census, and were destroyed.
              1. Tverichanka
                Tverichanka 23 July 2013 21: 44 New
                +8
                Quote: kvirit
                because by order of Peter the Great

                Let me correct you. The manuscripts were seized by the patriarch NIKONOM. Just under the pretext of correcting church books.
              2. soldat1945
                soldat1945 23 July 2013 22: 41 New
                +2
                In what year, where are the documents, where are the memories of contemporaries, where are the sources from where did you find this ???????
            2. soldat1945
              soldat1945 23 July 2013 22: 55 New
              +3
              So with regard to textbooks: a history textbook, Grade 6, 1981, edited by Agibalova and Donskoy, documents on Nevsky are not fakes, which is confirmed by experts, one of the samples of the label of Alexander Nevsky is stored in the Vladimir Museum of Local Lore. It seems to me that it’s not entirely clear to you why the artifacts of which are proven to be authentic, you call tsatsk and bring your date, on the basis of what? I saw a program with Zadornov and by the way I respect him very much because due to his fame he raises problematic issues of history, and there the foreheads of not quite classical history but rather people with the surname Gordon I wrote above that history as a science speaks of the time of Rus before baptism as about the time of the proto-cities and that both writing and a civilizational approach to managing these cities were present, but there is very little documentary and archaeological evidence for this. Whose culture inhabited Tavria, this question is studied by historians very seriously. But I don’t even want to comment on Atlantis and the people of the gods!
            3. vladsolo56
              vladsolo56 24 July 2013 06: 19 New
              +1
              I never thought Gordon was like that.
            4. Gur
              Gur 24 July 2013 10: 46 New
              +6
              I watched Zadornov's fight, of course, what he says is not scientific work and research. BUT I didn't like the "official" scientists anymore, (and even more Gordon, who, as he put it, lives in shit, although I would say, he is wandering like shit from Russia to America and does not know which edge to nest) after all, not who even the slightest bit bothered that our history is being taught to our children from the West and in particular Soros, they refer to what needs to be taught and read and what to read, the same as written by the same pro-Westerners, one so generally without a doubt gave out that the Vikings created statehood for us and conquered all of Europe, it is clear that it is more convenient for him, he probably received a scientific degree for this, and he does not need history to suddenly change. Why did these pundits not stand up and disagree with the fact that much in the history of Russia and the earth is generally mysterious and incomprehensible and cannot be analyzed and explained, that history as a science is generally a subjective thing, and we can only create and speculate on those crumbs that we find in excavations and vaults. What to say about the distant past, when the nearest past time remains a mystery to us. Because for some such light of history (revolution, perestroika, and current liberalization) is beneficial to others, and whose source they will find after years is unknown. As in one dispute with a Syrian girl (by the will of fate who lived in the USSR) a national question came up, and so she pushed me that when they already wrote history about them, we were not at all. I had only to agree at that time, since the mention of the Asyrians in the history that I was taught (history of the ancient world) much earlier than about Russia. So what is it that we have then completely got rid of wool, perhaps? (although I somehow lost interest in Darwin's theory) So, drawing the line that there would be no such trawling, from the Mongol yoke, from the absence of the Battle of the Ice, to orgies on Ivan Kupala, scientific men should provide a maximum of facts, and write one history, at least for some period of time (maybe something else will pop up)
              1. Raven1972
                Raven1972 27 July 2013 15: 54 New
                -1
                Quote: GUR
                one so without a doubt betrayed that the Vikings created statehood for us and conquered the whole of Europe, it’s obvious that he’s more comfortable, he probably got a scientific degree for this, and he doesn’t need history to suddenly change.

                And what to take from him if he is from the Institute of America and Canada, the brainchild of the notorious Abalkin, and who rules this institute has long been clear hi
          3. Tverichanka
            Tverichanka 23 July 2013 21: 34 New
            -1
            Quote: soldat1945
            I don’t know why you weren’t taught Lomonosov

            Dear, judging by the level of your literacy, you did not graduate from any faculties, and you studied for all the education behind the Primer Book. A literate person automatically (I repeat, AUTOMATICALLY) writes, observing punctuation, and if he makes mistakes, it is most often from inattention .Your mistakes are fundamentally different. It would be forgivable to the techie, but not the humanities. And therefore, your tirades about the history of Russia are insignificant in reliability. IMHO.
            1. soldat1945
              soldat1945 23 July 2013 22: 39 New
              +5
              Punctuation is wrong when I rush very often and don’t comply, I live in the city of Vladimir, graduated from the Faculty of History of Vladimir Pedagogical University, if you didn’t smoke a primer, I’m not going to prove anything to you.
              1. soldat1945
                soldat1945 23 July 2013 23: 21 New
                +3
                I apologize to you personally, apparently a very literate girl for the fact that in this pedagogical commentary I wrote through the "o" so not attentive!
                1. Evgeniy-111
                  Evgeniy-111 24 July 2013 13: 06 New
                  +1
                  You don't have to jerk!
                  And the article seems to be very hooked if you do not follow the rules.
                  Of course, it is not necessary to fall into "hurray-patriotism", but your comments are clearly from the other side of the barricade!
              2. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 24 July 2013 12: 00 New
                +3
                You graduated from the INSTITUTE and write "comment", "dating" and so on ?! That is, either you are lying about your higher education, or historians have already ceased to be shy at all. And earlier historians had only a self-proclaimed attitude towards scientists, not using either critical thinking or the method of scientific thinking, analysis-synthesis. But then at least they taught their adepts to spell! Apparently, for receiving grants from abroad, the Russian language is not too important ...
              3. Rink
                Rink 25 July 2013 14: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: soldat1945
                ... graduated from the history department of Vladimir Pedagogical University ...

                Yah?!
                However, I often hear recently about a strong decline in the level of modern education. If the humanities graduate pedagogical University, demonstrates a similar level of literacy, it does not honor the university.
                Tverichanka Rights: To teach someone, learn to start by yourself.
            2. Tersky
              Tersky 23 July 2013 23: 05 New
              +5
              Quote: Tverichanka
              .Your mistakes are fundamentally different.

              Nina, love ! Yes, you’ll think of 9 mistakes ... (though for children) laughing
            3. walter_rus
              walter_rus 28 July 2013 03: 47 New
              +1
              Why is it so bad about techies? A good techie is no less literate than a humanist, and most importantly, he is taught to "look at the root", because the technique of demagoguery does not lend itself to.
          4. Evgeniy-111
            Evgeniy-111 24 July 2013 13: 00 New
            0
            Have you been taught the Russian language?
            Write like a modern schoolboy!
          5. Horde
            Horde 24 July 2013 20: 33 New
            +1
            Quote: soldat1945
            You Lomonosov "notes on Russian history and read


            LOMONOSOV'S ARCHIVE WAS IMMEDIATELY CONFISCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH AND PASSED INSANELY. We quote: "THE ARCHIVE OF LOMONOSOV CONFISCED BY KATHERINA II WAS ALWAYS LOST. THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH THE LIBRARY AND ALL THE PAPERS OF LOMONOSOV WERE AT THE ORDER OF KATHERINA II. A letter from Taubert to Miller has survived. In this letter “without hiding his joy, Taubert informs about Lomonosov’s death and adds:“ ON THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office. No doubt it should contain papers that do not want to be released into the wrong hands. > [60], p.20.
            http://www.chronologia.org/xpon4/14_28.html

            Note that the manuscript of "Ancient Russian History", which could prove its authenticity, WAS NOT PRESERVED [493]. Seven years after the death of MV Lomonosov, his work on Russian history was published. However, only the first volume was published. The rest disappeared. Most likely, the publication was carried out under the control of Miller, which raises suspicion of forgery.

            the research of Lomonosov's works was carried out by the parents of Academician Fomenko, they developed the method of "author's invariant" and so the research of the so-called Lomonosov's work is a FORgery, presumably MILLER, this is indicated by the research of Miller's works.
            So, the respected soldier of 1945 lies our story written by the Germans.

            http://www.chronologia.org/xpon4/14_28.html
          6. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 24 July 2013 20: 44 New
            +1
            Do not waste time. If just ignorance can be taught something, then militant ignorance is useless to persuade. After all, it is of the same nature with fanaticism. Just attached a little to another.
            1. Rink
              Rink 25 July 2013 14: 51 New
              +3
              Precisely, dear. Verb correctly.
              Official historical science acquires all the features of religion, where dogmas are not subject to criticism or rechecking. Just as in the Middle Ages religious fanatics demanded blind faith in Scripture declaring doubters heretics, so modern historians try to declare those few scholars who try to understand the reasons for inconsistencies in the official version of history to be "wrong." Only if earlier dissenters were burned, then in our civilized age they are trying to destroy them morally.

              Do not forget: "history" in the understanding of "science" is just a version of the events that actually took place. Reconstruction carried out by scientists of different years, based on different initial information. Moreover, mistakes made by scientists of past years were included as a basis for subsequent work. With the development of mankind, new facts and findings were accumulated, new technologies appeared, the data obtained were generalized. And at the present stage, the amount of accumulated information available to researchers is already significantly higher than what was available to the first generations of scientists.

              The authorities in history, "bronzed" over time, were living people who wrote their works on the basis of the information available to them at that time, and it is simply impossible not to check them critically ... Remember, Herodotus, often called the "father of history", even his contemporaries also called the "father of lies."

              The longer the official history pretends not to notice the issues of alternative science, the later the dialogue between them begins - the worse for science itself, and for us in the end.

              In the meantime, scientists approach unpleasant questions about their "Scriptures ..." not as historians, but as hysterics: you see, they feel that if they start to think about the spirit of history, they will lose faith in their ideals?
      2. Che
        Che 23 July 2013 20: 06 New
        +3
        When the Romanovs ascended, all manuscripts were removed from the monasteries and destroyed. What was there? How to find out? Our enemies have always worked and are working ahead of schedule by cleaning and correcting the story for themselves.
      3. Makarov
        Makarov 23 July 2013 21: 10 New
        +6
        And I generally studied at a Ukrainian school ... what they told us, I don't even want to remember ... Lomonosov was definitely not there. The history of Ukraine as a separate discipline occupied exactly half of the entire history - that is, there was World History and the History of Ukraine ... Everything about which in the article is discussed was taught rather briefly: "the period was called" Ruyina ", the Tatars came - everyone was enslaved, Kiev was burned , and for three hundred years they robbed and killed everyone until they got tired of ... something like this ... so you have to replenish such knowledge now ...
        1. walter_rus
          walter_rus 28 July 2013 03: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Makarov
          And I generally studied at a Ukrainian school ... what they told us, I don't even want to remember ... Lomonosov was definitely not there. The history of Ukraine as a separate discipline occupied exactly half of the entire history - that is, there was World History and the History of Ukraine ... Everything about which in the article is discussed was taught rather briefly: "the period was called" Ruyina ", the Tatars came - everyone was enslaved, Kiev was burned , and for three hundred years they robbed and killed everyone until they got tired of ... something like this ... so you have to replenish such knowledge now ...
          And I won’t be surprised if someone finds archaeological, linguistic, biological, radiocarbon and other data confirming this version of the story. We cannot verify these data (and one historian alone cannot either - he is forced to use the data of other scholars as well), so we have to believe the experts in their word. And since they contradict each other, you have to choose who is closer.
      4. kotvov
        kotvov 24 July 2013 08: 57 New
        +1
        Well, of course, what truth can it be if the ministry did not approve. Yes, can there be Russian city-republics? Where many nations lived and traded peacefully. And in general there are no Russians, and there is a great west with its false history, which claims: they Enlightened, they are good, and we (Russia) we will teach you how it was.
      5. Tver
        Tver 24 July 2013 09: 38 New
        -2
        I support "soldier 1945". Article below the plinth! As an anecdote the author is good, but it's about the history of Russia! History is our bulletproof vest, in it you can find answers to many, many questions. All defeats and victories are paid for with the BLOOD of our FATHERS (grandfathers, forefathers). Every Russian (and Bashkir, and Tatar ... and many others) carries in the genes a memory that must be protected. Protect from idle talk and humorists, from strangers, from evil spirits ...
      6. walter_rus
        walter_rus 28 July 2013 03: 39 New
        0
        Of course, in this article there is a lot of doubtful even for me, not a historian, but I remember how they began to spit on Russian history after the collapse of the USSR until very recently, and I am glad that the tide follows the ebb.
  • Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 23 July 2013 15: 59 New
    +7
    Thanks to the author! It is written in a living language, simple, understandable, accessible and with humor)))
  • PROXOR
    PROXOR 23 July 2013 16: 05 New
    +7
    - the regular army first appeared (and the first military uniform in the world was at the archers)
    Ilya, I’m succumbing to the story or there’s some kind of cant. And the general form of the Roman legionnaires. Enlighten good people.

    According to Sabzh: The fact that in textbooks a lie is understandable. In 1917, a long experiment was launched over our country with the help of a German agent Vladimir Ulyanov, whose dried carcass (a good example for experiments) is stored on the Red Square. And what is most interesting, the TEETH has broken off about us. We don’t know much, so we need to read more respected ones. To bear to their children and grandchildren that the history of Russia did not begin under Peter the 1st and not even under Alexander Nevsky but only once.

    And the fact that Hitler destroyed the Soviet Union will not let us forget. And after 20 years and after 40 years and after 100 years, the feat of Our grandfathers will not be forgotten. They could not shame the glory of their ancestors. Which have beaten tyrants throughout the history of Russia. Well, we will still have a heart-to-heart talk with Geyvropeisky and Mattress Piz # Abols, and we’ll put them into their throats.
    1. Igarr
      Igarr 23 July 2013 19: 02 New
      +6
      Duc ....
      Have you personally seen the general form of the Roman legionnaires?
      And the general form - chained from the head to the tip of the tail - Parthian cataphracts?
      ..
      I remember that at Ramses the Great - not only did the soldiers wear uniform uniforms (though the uniforms were all there - a loincloth - sublegaria), they also had uniform bronze swords.
      And the primitives have single batons.
      ....
      They say it right - the whole story, as taught, is only an approximation to the truth.
      .
      And in Roman legionnaires - I do not believe. Chantrap it was, on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire.
      They later began to tell tales about the greatness of Rome. So, any "inmate" in our zones will tell such fables - you will listen. One to one comparison.
      And they had churches - beggars. Compared to the catholic rite.
      Therefore, this riffraff - Latin - constantly rushed to Byzantium - they wanted money.
      And Russia - so simple - fought. For training. For the idea. And for the shield. On the gates of Constantinople.
      And, since Russia is the successor of Byzantium, well, it is believed so, - so the Latins still rush. But already on us.
      1. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 23 July 2013 21: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: Igarr
        Russia’s heir to Byzantium, well, it’s believed so,

        It is considered ... But the question is very controversial. As the saying goes, "it is better to lose with one than to find with another" (perhaps I quote incorrectly, sorry). You have outlined the problem very schematically. It is, of course, not so simple. And the reasons for constant pressure on us is much more extensive.
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 23 July 2013 22: 14 New
          +4
          Wow, Nina ... you haven’t been seen for a hundred years.
          .
          I don’t know why, but I personally have an extremely pessimistic view of all these historical (hysterical) questions.
          Well, scientists are digging shards. Sometimes ... look ... get hold of a birch bark letter ... which after a week of rubbing in the hands of the cop party becomes unusable. Photos remain.
          "What we want" ... - digging ... what hurts - you don't need it for nothing.
          Yes, this is not a story.
          I think so.
          .
          Already ... drunk ... enough to reverse the story. Enter - other priorities.
          Ha...
          we just have a different view of the problems served as - Universal Crashing, World Collapse ...
          Ah, FiN - something there ... they wrote ...
          Ah, Bushkov Alexander ... was thinking a lot ..
          Ah, Petukhov Yuri ... is being expelled ...
          Ah, Kungurov Alexei is mocking ..
          Ah, Alekseev ... generally writes garbage ...
          Oh-oh-oh, Bobrov Gleb Leonidovich .. really sucks ..
          Oooo ... Jürgen Graf .... under his trial ..
          .
          But the problem is ... Stanislav Lem ... was still studying.
          I studied.
          Pole.
          Pancake.
          Great.
          Does anyone ..use his legacy? In Poland? We have? In the world?
          ..
          NO.
        2. Igarr
          Igarr 23 July 2013 22: 32 New
          +3
          Yes ... I liked the quote ..
          "it is better to lose with a clever than with a fool to find" .....
          let's stay with our ...
          neither did you find ..
          neither have I lost ...
          I can not argue with a woman ... I'm married !!!
      2. Corneli
        Corneli 24 July 2013 06: 51 New
        +1
        Quote: Igarr
        And in Roman legionnaires - I do not believe. Chantrap it was, on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire.
        They later began to tell tales about the greatness of Rome. So, any "inmate" in our zones will tell such fables - you will listen. One to one comparison.
        And they had churches - beggars. Compared to the catholic rite.
        Therefore, this riffraff - Latin - constantly rushed to Byzantium - they wanted money.

        You can look at the "greatness of Rome" by looking at the Flavian Coliseum (height 48 m. Could accommodate 50 thousand people), the Pantheon of Agrippa (with a 43-meter communal dome, which was the largest in the world for more than a thousand years), the arch of Septimius Severus (height 21 meter), Aqueduct, aka the Pont du Gard bridge (Length 275 m, height 47 m), columns of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek (7 m in circumference, 24 heights, the largest in the world) or 300 km sewage system in the colony of Agripina (Cologne) laughing
        P.S. By the way, the dome of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople is much smaller than that of the Pantion, and inside it there are central columns transported from Baalbek. From such a "shantrap"
        P.P.S. And as for the "Roman legionaries" ... then, for example, the names, places of deployment and actions of many of them are known, and the history of some legions goes back several centuries! (Recently, the Jews in Lebanon found camp 6 of the "iron". They searched by the way according to ancient records, and then they found a place from a satellite and dug it out)
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 24 July 2013 14: 42 New
          +2
          Quote: Corneli
          You can look at the "greatness of Rome" by looking at the Flavian Coliseum (height 48 m. Could accommodate 50 thousand people)

          What is majestic in the stadium for 50 thousand people?
          Quote: Corneli
          for example, the names, locations and actions of many of them are known, and the history of some legions lasts several centuries!

          Here the main question is - who counted? I now count you thousands of years of the galactic empire.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 24 July 2013 15: 02 New
            -2
            Troll detected
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 24 July 2013 15: 54 New
              +2
              The "antiquity" of these structures is in doubt, and except for you
              Quote: abrakadabre
              Troll detected

              Nothing to say?
      3. Corneli
        Corneli 24 July 2013 06: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Igarr
        And Russia - so simple - fought. For training. For the idea. And for the shield. On the gates of Constantinople.

        Very beautifully and romantically written, but in reality:
        1. Hike in 860 (in Oleg's theory): "One could see babies being cut off by them from their nipples and milk, and at the same time from life, and their ingenuous coffin - oh woe! - the rocks on which they broke; mothers crying from grief and being stabbed next to newborns, frantically letting out their last breath ... not only human nature was overtaken by their atrocity, but all the dumb animals, bulls, horses, birds and others that got in the way, were pierced by their ferocity; the bull lay next to the man, and the child and the horse had a grave under the same roof, and women and birds were stained with each other's blood. " first homily of Patriarch Photius
        "At this time, stained with murder more than any of the Scythians, the people called Ros, according to the Euxine Pontus, came to Stenon and ravaged all villages, all monasteries, now they raided the islands near Byzantium [Constantinople], plundering everything [ precious] vessels and treasures, and capturing people, he killed them all.In addition, in a barbaric outburst of raids on the patriarchal monasteries, they in anger seized everything that they could find, and seizing there twenty-two noblest inhabitants, on one stern of the ship they cut all axes "Nikita Paphlogonyanin in" Life of Patriarch Ignatius "
        2. But Igor in 941: “Many atrocities were committed by the dew before the arrival of the Roman army: they burnt the coast of the Wall (Bosphorus), and some of the prisoners were crucified on a cross, others were hammered into the ground, others were set as targets and shot from bows. from the priestly class they tied their hands behind their backs and drove iron nails into their heads. sea ​​battles and skillful maneuvers of Patrick Theophanes and therefore decided to return home. " Chronicle of Amartol and the life of Vasily the New
        The contemporaries of those events had their own vision of what was happening, very far from your "ideological romanticism"
        1. Hort
          Hort 24 July 2013 09: 04 New
          +3
          Well, yes, war "in Old Russian" is a cruel thing. And if you consider that Oleg seemed to be a pagan, then the special "love" for monasteries and priests is quite understandable
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 24 July 2013 14: 48 New
            +5
            Quote: hort
            Well, yes, war "in Old Russian" is a cruel thing. And if you consider that Oleg seemed to be a pagan, then the special "love" for monasteries and priests is quite understandable

            I will add that this "love" is reciprocal, first the Greeks to us, then we to them, something like that.
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 24 July 2013 10: 35 New
          11
          Realities? You can also doubt these records ...
          Someone with nothing, just a bunch of people were cut out, and even cattle in addition? No one resisted? There were no warriors?
          And what happened before the "dew" came? Someone's winter dew scared? Can the dew be scared of winter if they came from the server?
          How did they run out of food if they robbed right and left?
          Why did they suddenly get scared of the governor’s troops, if before that, just like that, while walking, they burned a bunch of hillforts, temples. Nobody resisted either? And the troops of the governor of winter were not afraid?
          In general, history is a muddy science, and operates mainly with assumptions. The facts are quite rare and can be doubted at any time.
          1. Corneli
            Corneli 24 July 2013 11: 13 New
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            Realities? You can also doubt these records ...

            One can doubt in principle anything) there would be a desire ...
            Quote: Wedmak
            Someone with nothing, just a bunch of people were cut out, and even cattle in addition?

            Does this surprise you? for the first time you hear about the "non-sporting" behavior of the army in hostile territory (to which they came exclusively to plunder, by the way, and not to seize) And do not forget, the description on behalf of a peaceful monk living in Constantinople.
            Quote: Wedmak
            No one resisted? There were no warriors?

            If I didn’t prove it, I think the consequences would be much better. And yes, at that time there was no normal army. The Byzantines knew mostly fought on the southeast front ... There was something to fight for and there was with whom. The northern front was a light bulb for them, they only fought back.
            Quote: Wedmak
            Were the winter dews frightened? Is the winter to be afraid of rosam, if it came from the server?
            How did they run out of food if they robbed right and left?

            Likely to plunder food so as to stay out of winter enti dew could not) But they were sitting near Constantinople. With which they could not do anything, and wait for the imperial troops, dying of hunger, they apparently did not like it)
            Quote: Wedmak

            Why did they suddenly get scared of the governor’s troops, if before that, just like that, while walking, they burned a bunch of hillforts, temples. Nobody resisted either? And the troops of the governor of winter were not afraid?

            Before the "walk" their fleet was burnt with Greek fire as many as 15 ships left in the port due to dilapidation (and the Byzantine fleet itself fought with the Arabs in the Mediterranean). Somehow, having landed, the guys began to recoup the locals ... there was a continuation in general) I didn't want to write it so as not to injure my soul)
        3. Horde
          Horde 24 July 2013 20: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Corneli
          1. Hike in 860 (in Oleg's theory): "One could see babies being cut off by them from their nipples and milk, and at the same time from life, and their ingenuous coffin - oh woe! - the rocks on which they broke; mothers crying from grief and being stabbed next to newborns, frantically letting out their last breath ... not only human nature was overtaken by their atrocity, but all the dumb animals, bulls, horses, birds and others that got in the way, were pierced by their ferocity; the bull lay next to the man, and the child and the horse had a grave under the same roof, and women and birds were stained with each other's blood. " first homily of Patriarch Photius


          what passions do you tell, did the Russian campaigns not catch the crusaders for an hour?

          let’s already consider links to these works
          1. Corneli
            Corneli 24 July 2013 21: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: Horde
            what passions do you tell, did the Russian campaigns not catch the crusaders for an hour?

            let’s already consider links to these works

            The author and the work are written, look and read) And so ... with what fright the Patriarch of Constantinople who died at the end of the 9th century will write about the crusaders that were 300 years later? Is he a prophet? laughing
        4. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 20: 02 New
          0
          During your life, Russia invaded Georgia and seized Ossetia from it. All of Europe believes that Russia attacked Georgia, and even during the Olympic Games. And regarding the atrocities, Saint Alexander Nevsky was not an Angel: but he never negotiated an exchange of prisoners, but simply, finding out that someone had been captured, attacked and beat off his prisoners, and spread rot on the enemies without pity, but here’s what interesting: on the 12th, he could slaughter enemies without pity, and on the 17th he hosted their ruler or governor and drink with him at the same table, the prince of the voivodship and chose to conquer other people's property for the state. What kind of prince is he if he won no one? - so they said then. But it was not for that that he became a saint that he fought, but for being faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ and God his Father.
        5. zavesa01
          zavesa01 29 July 2013 18: 27 New
          0
          Of course robbed and killed. Did you want their chronicler to write that they came with flowers?
          It is necessary to embellish it. Otherwise, the authorities will not approve, and therefore they were afraid of "reason, ingenuity and skillful maneuvers." Ours are always scouts. Enemies are always spies. laughing
      4. Hort
        Hort 24 July 2013 08: 59 New
        +3
        the shield on the gates of Tsar-grad is not just for beauty. The Greeks received a tribute and an agreement with favorable conditions for themselves and their merchants.
        As for the merchants, I remembered an interesting moment (the teacher on the history of international relations told us): for Russian merchants they bargained for the right to visit the baths at a "preferential price" and hang around there for almost the whole day. And all because many large transactions were concluded in the baths :) In general, little has changed in trade since then))
        1. Corneli
          Corneli 24 July 2013 09: 30 New
          0
          Quote: hort
          the shield on the gates of Tsar-grad is not just for beauty. The Greeks received a tribute and an agreement with favorable conditions for themselves and their merchants.

          Oleg’s campaign in 907 with shields, rooks, a lucrative contract and tribute is described only in the NVD. Actually, historians agreed that the campaign described in the NVP is a raid of 860. In the Byzantine chronicles no battles with Oleg are mentioned, and the contract (though not so profitable) was concluded in 911. Then, by the way, Igor spit on him and arranged his campaign (941), got the lyuley left back. Came again in 943, the Byzantines had no time for fights - they paid off. And in 944, Igor concluded the same contract as Oleg before him. In other matters, how it was actually possible only to guess
          1. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 20: 16 New
            +1
            There is also no historical information about the Battle of the Neva, about the Battle of the Ice, and the fascists at Kursk, in a union near Prokhorovka, generally won, "having lost only three Tigers", but for some reason they rolled back and fled right up to the border, straightening the front line. German "Points" - that is, hits recorded on the enemy's aircraft, were translated into victories, that is, complete destruction, it is interesting that the themes of Luftwaffe victories were raised not by the Germans, but by the Americans. It turns out that America won the Japanese, which in 1943 planned to seize the last islands occupied by Japan as early as 1959, and the war ended for some reason in 1945. You will also ask Japan about the course of the war between the USSR and Japan in 1945. They will tell you: what kind of war? There was no such thing !!!
            1. Corneli
              Corneli 25 July 2013 20: 50 New
              +1
              Quote: shasherin_pavel
              There is also no historical information about the Neva battle, about the Battle of the Ice

              At least: 1.Novgorod first annals and the Tale of the Life of Alexander Nevsky from the Slavs.
              2. The Livonian rhymed chronicle and the Chronicle of grandmasters from the Teutons (Swedish records not found).
              The crusaders admit that they were defeated, the difference between the sources is only in the number of participants and losses.
              As for the Germans, Japanese, Americans and the USSR, there is no sense even in writing, there are works on this topic above the roof.
              As for the campaigns against Byzantium, the campaign 866g (Askold) and 941g (Igor) are described in the NVP and they intersect with Byzantine (and not only) chronicles. The only leader of the first campaign was not named by the Byzantines. Therefore, it is doubt whether it was Askold or Oleg. And for Oleg’s trip in 907 (with the shield being beaten up and so on) for some reason, the entry is only in the NVD, I don’t think that the Byzantines would have forgotten about this, all the more so after 4 years a military-trade agreement was concluded with him (this is confirmed by various sources) and who Oleg they were in the know.
      5. Setrac
        Setrac 24 July 2013 14: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Igarr
        And, since Russia is the successor of Byzantium, well, it is believed so

        This is a moot point - who whose heir is, I consider the Russian Orthodox Church - primary in relation to Byzantium. Why should I believe in the primacy of the Catholic Church, because the Pope so wanted!
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 24 July 2013 21: 01 New
      0
      Ilya, I’m succumbing to the story or there’s some kind of cant. And the general form of the Roman legionnaires. Enlighten good people.

      I don’t remember how before, but after the reforms of Guy Maria, we can and should talk about the form. The weapons were standardized, professional soldiers were equipped with ammunition centrally. Consequently, its manufacture was ordered in large batches at the expense of the state. Each legion had its own colors, emblem, standard (or whatever its analogue was called there). But the equipment was the same.
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 24 July 2013 21: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: abrakadabre
        Ilya, I’m succumbing to the story or there’s some kind of cant. And the general form of the Roman legionnaires. Enlighten good people.

        I don’t remember how before, but after the reforms of Guy Maria, we can and should talk about the form. The weapons were standardized, professional soldiers were equipped with ammunition centrally. Consequently, its manufacture was ordered in large batches at the expense of the state. Each legion had its own colors, emblem, standard (or whatever its analogue was called there). But the equipment was the same.

        You yourself wrote everything) Or do you need a complete list of ammunition and weapons?
        P.S. As for the standards: Aquila is a legion eagle. Signum - a sign of a cohort, centuria, turma. The imago is the emperor’s shiandart (if he was in the army, as a rule with his physiognomy). Veksillum is the standard of auxiliary and special units (not legions). Dragon - since the 2nd century it was used in cavalry (supposedly of Sarmatian origin, it was started to be used by their units in the imperial army)
    3. shasherin_pavel
      shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 19: 46 New
      0
      The Roman legionnaires did not have a uniform, but a half-armor, since only partially protected the warrior. Dictionary: Format - form, size, size. So the form indicates the military size of the carrier, but is not a defense. Moreover, the Roman legionnaires had a reservation example, but each one won money for the armor either before joining the army or earned money in battles. The form of archers was made on sovereign money according to the army charter.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 26 July 2013 12: 46 New
        +1
        1. There is no such term as "semi-armor" in weapon science. And it never did. What you mean by this is not clear.
        2. The essence of your phrases about the form is incomprehensible. There are many words, little meaning. Speak more clearly, in the public domain.
        3. Explain what kind of booking the legionnaires had for an analogue of which legionnaires, according to your version, should have won finances? Additionally explain how all this was won by the recruits of those legions who did not directly participate in the current military campaigns and who at that time served in other parts of the empire according to the peacetime option.
        From your entire post, without additional questions, it is immediately clear only that the archers were sewn uniforms on sovereign money.
  • Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 23 July 2013 16: 06 New
    +7
    Good article! Thanks to the author! Mikhail Zadorny also has a lot of interesting things on this subject! Who wants it, but I personally partially believe in the foregoing. The most annoying - we will never know the truth ...
    1. Grenz
      Grenz 23 July 2013 17: 07 New
      +2
      Dazdranagon
      Yes you are right.
      We all know a little the history of Russia, but do we even know how much of the heritage of our ancestors from the time of ancient Russia? They threw away a whole layer of history when the laws of the existence of Russia itself were developed. Rurik and everyone else then still did not climb the branches.
      Slavic Vedas - a set of rules and laws. They are the sacred basis and essence of the Slavic tribal worldview. They explain the main, vital laws of the Divine World of people, reveal the rules of spiritual growth and understanding of the world from the point of view of Orthodox Rodnover.
      In addition to the film Zadornov recently released a film: "Holy Russia." The refrain of this film is the thought: "The future of the Vedic civilization (SLAVIC) can be destroyed only by discrediting its past and present."
      That’s the whole story about the damaging factors of information wars. They are worse than WMD because, as I have already noted, the nationally oriented gene pool of the state is striking.
  • volcano
    volcano 23 July 2013 16: 09 New
    +9
    A good cry of the soul turned out.
    Except for some points I support.
    And with the basic idea that Russia-Russia was not at all a wild country inhabited by barbarians, it was completely and completely agreed upon.
    I personally wonder how people owning information (at least at the level of the school course and official history) do not think for themselves.
    That is, there are facts, but they are interpreted through the prism of the superiority of the West and our savagery.
    But here you do not even need to own an alternative history. Even official science allows us to conclude our moral, spiritual and physical superiority over the West.
    Here is such an interesting thing. There are facts. There is knowledge. Conclusions (for some reason) absolutely from the ceiling.

    Perhaps the blame for the unbridled worship of the West, which Peter planted. I do not know.
    1. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 06 New
      +5
      Quote: volkan
      all the blame for the unbridled worship of the west that Peter planted

      Alas, not only Peter. Actually, with the advent of the Romanov dynasty, an unbridled distortion of our history began. What is more interesting, why have there never been any attempts to correct these distortions? Yes, individual scientists tried, but at the STATE level, no! If you look at the history textbook Of the Ancient World of the 60s, you will see that the territory of today's Russia is simply shaded, with the exception of some areas ....... So, questions ... questions ... questions ....
  • alex-cn
    alex-cn 23 July 2013 16: 10 New
    +1
    set + and still a couple, if given ...
  • vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 23 July 2013 16: 13 New
    13
    The fact that Russia had a calendar, at the time of baptism, Russia totaled five thousand years of history. The savages could not come up with a calendar. A calendar is a sign of culture and statehood.
    1. tixon444
      tixon444 23 July 2013 18: 05 New
      +6
      Quote: vladsolo56
      A calendar is a sign of culture and statehood.


      I would also say in addition: a calendar is material evidence. Evidence that Russia was long before.
      Now in the yard 7521 summer from the creation of the world. Peter, who roamed to Europe through a window, abolished the Great Russian-Slavic calendar.
      1. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 13 New
        +5
        Quote: tixon444
        Now in the yard 7521 summer from the creation of the world.

        Not only abolished, but also took five and a half thousand years of history from us.
        1. svp67
          svp67 24 July 2013 11: 31 New
          +3
          Quote: Tverichanka
          Not only abolished, but also took five and a half thousand years of history from us.
          And perhaps even more, since some historians consider the concept of "creation of the world" as the date of the end of a very difficult, bloody, but victorious war "against the dragon" ...
      2. Basileus
        Basileus 24 July 2013 11: 27 New
        +1
        Actually, it was a Byzantine calendar. But what difference does it make to us, we believe such articles without requiring evidence.
    2. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: vladsolo56
      , at the time of baptism, Russia was already five thousand years old and

      I often argue with you. But in this case, a plus is enormous to you. And personal thanks!
  • Alexandr0id
    Alexandr0id 23 July 2013 16: 16 New
    -30
    another pseudo-patriotic nonsense. the city of Slovensk was founded in 2400 BC? as it turns out, not the Sumerians with Akkadians, but the Slavs at the origins of civilization. these are complexes, gentlemen, one continuous complex. Slavs, Balts, Ugro-Finns were far from the centers of civilization and joined it only when it got to them by itself - in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. why the Germans do not have a complex on the fact that they are "younger" than the Greeks and Romans and even the Celts? why don't the Turks and the Mongols come up with the idea that they were long before the Chinese?
    Why should a Scandinavian Rurik be made a Slav? Why invent fables about the battle of the young and deny the Tatar-Mongol yoke? Russia has enough glorious moments in history and its place in world culture and no postscript is required.
    modern journalism is mired in the unscientific writings of fake historians, proving with foam at the mouth that the Etruscans are Russians and the Khitan are Macedonians. all this heresy easily lays on the unprepared mind of an uneducated reader and forms in it some alternative picture of the world, in the center of which are the great, ingenious, invincible ancestors who took all the aliens from the trees and taught the mind, and the multimillion hordes of unreasonable aggressors pounded easily and unconstrainedly . Of course it’s nice to think that it was so, but still it’s not worth it to wishful thinking.
    1. Sergey_K
      Sergey_K 23 July 2013 16: 22 New
      -13
      I will support. In addition, if gentlemen want to normalize relations with their neighbors, it is not necessary to privatize Russia as such. Russia is not equal to Russia. Russia is the cradle of nations and should be used as a unifying factor.
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 23 July 2013 19: 21 New
        0
        Quote: Sergey_K
        if gentlemen want to normalize relations with neighbors

        For example ?
      2. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 22 New
        +5
        Quote: Sergey_K
        Russia is the cradle of nations

        Once the nations are deigned to shit in their cradle, we have the right, but right there, they are simply obligated to send them by the forest. And let them suffer with a bunt, as if to establish relations with us.
    2. Goblin2013
      Goblin2013 23 July 2013 16: 33 New
      +9
      Alexandr0id read history not in textbooks and not in articles by foreign authors and their hangers-on from among the Russian pseudo-academics and you will find there a lot that raises a lot of questions about the misalignment of historical facts with the "scientific" works of these authors and others like them. Look at the engravings about the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols and try to explain how the Mongols had Russians for 300 years, and among the Russians there is something not particularly observed of Mongolian blood. But in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where it is generally one people, which was previously of the European type, now the Mongoloid appearance prevails.
      The author of the article is well done, honor and praise to him. Our leaders from education and science will have to redraw more history and textbooks and, at the same time, finally take up the ideology and education of the younger generation in the spirit of love for their homeland. Russia was, is and will be !!!
      1. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 23 July 2013 17: 12 New
        +3
        I’m interested in history (world) for about twenty years, I have read dozens of books and an unimaginable number of articles. history as a science is inconceivable without linguistics and anthropology, and therefore had to delve into many aspects of these related sciences. however, I am not a professional historian, but just an interested reader with my head. I have no prejudice towards foreign or domestic authors, I equally respect both Droizen and Karamzin.
        Quote: Goblin2013
        Look at the engravings about the invasion of the Tatar-Mongol and try to explain how the Mongols had Russians for 300 years, and among the Russians something Mongolian blood is not particularly observed. But in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, where it is generally the same people that were previously of the European type, the Mongoloid appearance now prevails.

        I won’t explain the engravings because they were not created by eyewitnesses or even contemporaries of events.
        and I'll try the rest, at the time of the establishment of the Horde power over the Russian principalities, the population of Russia (estimated) is 6 million people, the Horde of the Juchi ulus (from the Danube to the Altai) - 200-300 thousand Mongoloid-Caucasian Kypchaks and several tens of thousands of "Mongols" ( This number also includes the Mongol-speaking clans proper and the Turks of Karluk and Uighur origin, from which the civil administration of the ulus was formed).
        there was no mass mixing of the conquerors with the conquered, the Mongol troops were not in the occupied territory, but only periodically came "on call." rape that happened during military operations does not always give offspring, you probably should not go deeper into the topic of menstruation and ovulation.
        Kazakhs are a people of mixed Turkic-Mongolian origin with a predominance of the Turkic (Kypchak in the broad sense) element (Turanian, also known as the South Siberian racial type, formed in the Early Hunnic era). Kirghiz are the result of almost equal mixing of the Yenisei Kirghiz (Caucasoid-Mongoloid already in Siberia) with the same Kypchaks. mixing with the Mongols is minimal, the Kyrgyz are not Genghisides, in contrast to their neighbors - Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Uighurs.
        1. Tverichanka
          Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexandr0id
          to doyzen and to karamzin.

          Proper names, comrade with a head, are capitalized. For example, Karamzin. Feel the difference, how it is heated ...
          1. shasherin_pavel
            shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 20: 23 New
            +1
            Proper names, comrade with a head, are written with a capital letter, for example: Karamzin. "Feel the difference!" , - as the people say.
    3. volcano
      volcano 23 July 2013 16: 36 New
      +5
      Slovensk city was founded in 2400 BC.


      Here I may agree with this. And this is just one of the points that makes me doubt (to put it mildly) BUT if we remember about Arkaim (at least) then is it not so crazy? is not it?

      yes there is no evidence of this. But if you think that some piece of paper found in Prussia and given to Peter, which was allegedly written off from the original, you need to give the status of Truth in the final instance ..... then .... optimist ... optimist

      Z.Y. I meant the main Russian annals of Nestor (if that).

      And also, the fact of writing the history of Russia by the Germans, which does not cause any doubt among any of the scientists, does not bother you?
      And also the loss of all the chronicles on which Tatishchev and Lomonosov relied in their works, which differed greatly from the "German version", does not bother you?
      And also the presence of the Slavic (Russian) calendar, and under Peter it was already 6 thousand years some year (I don’t remember exactly), provided the length of the Slavic year is HOW does it not surprise everyone?
      And the fact that Ivan the Terrible attributed himself to the descendants of the Roman emperors (Augustus in my opinion) despite the fact that Ivan was a very enlightened king does not make you think, but actually why did he get this into his head?
      And the fact that even in the annals of Nestor it is clearly written that the Varangians are called the Varangians as well as others are called sves, angles, etc. that is, even it explicitly says that the Varangians are other people, but for some reason did Karamzin decide that it was the Scandinavians who didn’t touch you?

      With this approach (swallowing everything that they give without chewing) you will not go far.
      1. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 33 New
        +4
        Quote: volkan
        For some reason, Karamzin decided

        Karamzin didn’t solve anything. He was a courtier historian and carried out the order. Everything is simple, like a rake. Today we are not observing the same thing? .. Karamzin wanted to eat. And it’s good to eat, so that the children are left. required it.
    4. hrych
      hrych 23 July 2013 16: 56 New
      +8
      Etruscan - the name used by the Romans, the self-name of Rasena or Roseni. The fact that the Russian kindred peoples are Serbs and Croats, who, on the contrary, live from the Italians through the Adriatic and are close neighbors for those lands, then why should you refuse proto-relatives in kinship with races? Like, we are all white relatives, and descended from common ancestors, both Latins, and Saxons, and Slavs, outwardly differ little, they speak the languages ​​of one Indo-Aryan branch. What is the problem? In general, the concept of a young people is in fact a stupid statement, everyone has an ancestor before the mother and forefather, not from heaven the Slavs fell 1000 years ago. Or type crawled out of the genetic laboratory? I can still understand when individuals are very similar to ape-like monkeys, that they recently acquired a human image. The Slavs and Russ in their predominance are typical blondes with white skin and blue eyes, the language is undeniably the most difficult even among relatives, and this is an ancient excuse.
      1. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 23 July 2013 17: 39 New
        -3
        young people in the sense of their confirmed, written history. and so we are all of the same age, and our great-great-great-great-ancestors of Africa are common to all.
        about the Etruscans - the self-name "rasenna" (the Egyptians called it "tursha"), the name "rusena" did not meet. apparently one of the "peoples of the sea", their resettlement to the Apennines was presumably from Asia Minor, and there were Phrygians, Hittites, Pelasgians, but no Slavs. or they are local pre-Indo-Europeans (like the Basques in the Pyrenees)
        Serbs and Croats appeared in the Balkans only in the middle of the 1st millennium AD, there is even no doubt about it, since this region was at the center of the Roman world. The autochthonous population - the Illyrians and Thracians (and the Greeks) - was largely destroyed thanks to the Gothic and then Hunnic invasions, which turned these once populous lands into a wasteland, into which the Slavic tribes "poured" after the collapse of the Hunnic state.
        and neither the Slavs nor the Germans have any relation to the Indo-Aryan branch. Indo-Aryans - Iranians and Indians with dards.
        1. hrych
          hrych 23 July 2013 18: 11 New
          +7
          If you know, then the bulk of the languages ​​of the Caucasians is called Indo-European, from which the Romano-Germanic, Slavic-Lithuanian and so on were spun off. branches. Croats appeared there as Croats, and as they were called earlier, Dacians, Thracians, etc. history is silent. Most importantly, they did not collapse from the oak tree, which means that they somehow called themselves, but not the Croats. Here the Byzantine chronicler Leo Diacon did not just call Slavs, but called Svyatoslav Russes Scythians, and believe him then it was more visible than you poisoned by Norman theory, moreover, this chronicler was a representative of the historical school and the continuation of Herodotus, who glorified Scythians in his works. The Leo Deacon, however, does not call African Scythians Negroes, Arabs, Saxons, but Slavs of the Rus. But you can’t prove anything to you, you have already refused to participate in the cradle of the civilized world.
          1. Alexandr0id
            Alexandr0id 23 July 2013 18: 36 New
            -2
            everything has its time. the Sumerians and Egyptians gave us civilization and left the arena. pre-Indo-European Pelasgians were swept away by the Indo-Europeans, the Celts spread throughout Europe, built cities, but were later assimilated by the Romans and Germans. the fact that the french invented the internal combustion engine, and the Russians sent a rocket into space does not make them the founders of civilization.
            the Thracian language is more or less studied by linguists and its relationship with the Slavic is not traced, with the exception of a few words of possibly unclear Thracian origin, inherited by the southern Slavs from the previous population of the Balkans.
            Caucasians (race) speak the languages ​​of the Indo-European, Semitic, Hamitic, Uralic, Altai, Kartvelian and other language families.
            and Late Greek historians called Scythians all in a row who came from the Scythians (northern Black Sea) to the Greeks. and this was already after the disappearance of the Scythians themselves. among the pseudo-Scythians included the Goths and Slavs and Pechenegs.
            1. hrych
              hrych 24 July 2013 08: 41 New
              +3
              If you refuse the Russian language in its Indo-European origin, then what to talk about because even the foul-smelling official science recognizes this. That in the Semitic-Hamitic language, i.e. Europeans speak the language of blacks and Semites - this is generally something new, I even know what Europeans you are talking about, namely those who speak Hebrew. But another question, if for example a black man came to France, did he become a European?
              1. Alexandr0id
                Alexandr0id 24 July 2013 10: 50 New
                +1
                do not ascribe to me what I did not say
                you should deal with races and language groups somehow or more clearly
                Quote: hrych
                we are all white relatives and descended from common ancestors, and Latins, and Saxons, and Slavs are not very different in appearance, they speak the languages ​​of one Indo-Aryan branch.

                and so, the Indo-Aryans are the eastern branch of the Indo-Europeans, and it is precisely the Iranians, Indians and Dards, and certainly not the Germans with the Slavs.
                Quote: hrych
                If you know, then the bulk of the languages ​​of the Caucasians is called Indo-European, from which the Romano-Germanic, Slavic-Lithuanian and so on were spun off. branches.

                As far as I know, the Caucasian is anthropological, and the Indo-European is linguistic. and they are not identical.
                We have Caucasians, for example, Germans and Ukrainians (Indo-Europeans), Arabs and Berbers (Semito-Hamites), Azerbaijanis (Altai), Mingrelians (Kartvels). about the Europeans in my comments not a word at all.
                1. hrych
                  hrych 24 July 2013 12: 20 New
                  +4
                  According to the modern concept of "Caucasian", of course I cannot argue. That the Goths, Slavs and Pechenegs are nicknamed Scythians by ancient authors can only say that they knew better, these are their concepts and it is not worth considering them more stupid than us, confusing peoples. Herodotus perfectly described the Scythians, their differences in way of life, etc., but most importantly, he described their antiquity, the development of culture and military affairs, and most importantly, the unity of the language spoken by the Scythians and royal Scythians. The way of life of the Pechenegs and Polyans, if different, was the same as Herodotus described the difference with the royal Scythians. The fact that the Pechenegs spoke with the Russians in the same language perfectly orients the PVL about the feat of the Otrak and the cunning of the governor Pretich, where the boy made his way through the Pechenezh siege, there were no problems with the language, and for some reason he did not differ from the Pechenegs for some reason, although they tell us that the Pechenegs should be like the Azerbaijani Turks. During the time of Marcus Aurelius, the Romans fought with the Sarmatians more than half a thousand years after Herodotus described the Sarmatians as a Scythian branch and called them exactly the Sarmatians, although they fought with the Jews, the Parthians, and the Germans, but they called a particular tribe Sarmatians and never confused them. The ancient authors had no problems with the identification of tribes. Our problems started now. Especially bad are your arrogant statements that the fathers of modern history - ancient authors began to mistakenly call everyone in a row by territoriality. We owe the whole history to them and they are worthy of respect and should be protected from accusations of stupidity and ignorance of their business. Especially curious is the cavering of words, when the Scythian Rosolans began to be called not in Greek, as in the primary sources, but in the Latinized Roxolana. So less for official science from time immemorial, the cutting ear with the Russian root, the word sneaks. I know one thing - our people did not leave the genetic laboratory overnight and did not fall off the moon in the 10th century. He lived where he lives now, according to his fighting qualities that characterize him for the last thousand years, I know that he did not give his land to anyone. The Russian people periodically created powerful empires that collapsed, but from Novgorod to Kiev and the Golden Ring, where the cradle of our people did not surrender to the enemy, this was the case before Herodotus. Ancient authors up to Kievan Rus called a specific people Scythians, although the Black Sea region itself, where Scythia was geographically located by that time, did not belong to the Rus, and identification on a territorial basis is untenable.
                  Now, especially the entire historical heresy to smithereens was destroyed by the genetic map of the world, which confirmed the anthropological and archaeological research and the blood of the highest caste of the Indians, despite four thousand years and thousands of kilometers away, it turned out to be one with the Russians and Poles.
                2. Setrac
                  Setrac 24 July 2013 15: 14 New
                  +2
                  Caucasians, the gray race - arose at the junction of the white and black races in Europe. The Indo-Aryans (not Indo-Europeans, as if the Europeans did not want to cling) are the white race, its representatives are Slavs and Germans (Latinized Slavs).
              2. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 24 July 2013 15: 33 New
                -3
                1. The Negroid race has no relation to the Semitic-Hamitic language group
                2. Official science that smells bad has given you everything that is made by man and surrounds you throughout your life. But the "alternative" science is NOTHING ...
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 24 July 2013 16: 28 New
                  +3
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  1. The Negroid race has no relation to the Semitic-Hamitic language group

                  What does genetics and language groups have to do with it?
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  2. Official science that smells bad has given you everything that is made by man and surrounds you throughout your life. But the "alternative" science is NOTHING ...

                  No need to distort, the conversation is not about the whole science, but about the history that history has given us, please specify!
            2. Setrac
              Setrac 24 July 2013 15: 06 New
              +4
              Quote: Alexandr0id
              everything has its time. the Sumerians and Egyptians gave us civilization and left the arena.

              They gave you the West, and not us Russians, the Russians have their own civilization.
              Russophobe Alexandr0id, I’ll pay attention that your Russophobic comments do not even comment, they just put cons.
          2. Tverichanka
            Tverichanka 23 July 2013 23: 01 New
            +7
            Quote: hrych
            But you can’t prove anything

            Oh, yes! But with what pleasure these "comrades" will accept any evidence of our worthlessness, stupidity, stupidity ... And slave psychology. Aha. Where can we do without her, dear? ... So leave them the right to have slaves and fools as their ancestors And you and I will KNOW that our ancestors were great warriors and wise rulers, talented builders and fair judges. What they knew about space and the world order. They lived in, protected and left us, descendants, a huge country, which we will also protect and let's leave our grandchildren .... I apologize in advance for too high "calm", but in other words it turns out somehow shallow.
        2. Cynic
          Cynic 23 July 2013 18: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: Alexandr0id
          our great-great-great-ancestors are African in common.

          You may be, I’m somehow more in spirit
        3. Tverichanka
          Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexandr0id
          and, and there Phrygians, Hittites, Pelasgians,

          I'll dream up ...... There was a cataclysm on our planet. 5 thousand years have passed. And now archaeologists find a fragment of a wall, and on it is written "churk-out of Vologda". And no more data. Can you imagine what historical versions, and then "accurate scientific data" will arise? ... But what can we say about such a distant future? Do you know how the Germans call Germany? And in our sources everywhere there will be "Germany" and "Germans" ...... So let's leave in peace of the names of peoples. This does not prove anything, much less refutes. Sorry, but minus. For the unreliability of the arguments.
      2. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 38 New
        +2
        Quote: hrych
        . What is the problem?

        This is precisely the problem. Let's get to the mother and what will be revealed? That the Slavs are one of the most ancient peoples! I am sure that you personally (as well as me) will be pleased with this. And "civilized" peoples? And they will be a pichalka ... ..
        1. shasherin_pavel
          shasherin_pavel 25 July 2013 20: 35 New
          -1
          Dear Tverichanka: The most ancient peoples perished during the Flood. One of the representatives of one of the ancient peoples was Noah and his sons. From his sons the ancient Egyptians descended from Canaan, and therefore the Bible says that Moses brought the people of Israel out of the land of Canaan, Mamon was the leader of the Scythians, and the ancestors of the Rosiches were called Scythians. You say: where is Palestine, and where is Scythia? But then we recall that one of the 70 disciples participating in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ became the bishop of Vritania - Britain, and the other bishop of Finland.
    5. tixon444
      tixon444 23 July 2013 17: 46 New
      +8
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      why scandinavian Rurik do Slav


      Your untruth. Rurik was a Varangian, and the Varangians were Slavic tribes who owned the eastern and southern Baltic states up to the island of Rugen. And do not confuse them with the Vikings, who really were the Scandinavians.
      And read less "pseudo-historians", who wrote the history of the Russian state that was advantageous to Europe, to which the court historian Karamzin was also led.

      Starting from the 1725 year, when the Russian Academy was created and until the 1841 year, the foundation of Russian history was redone by the poor Russian speakers who arrived from Europe, but quickly became experts in Russian history, following the “benefactors” of the Russian people, who filled the historical branch of the Russian Academy:
      Kohl Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Ebergard (1732), Kramer Adolf Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brem Johann Friedrich (1737), Merge George (1738), Brem Johann Friedrich (1740) Gaspard (1749), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1779), Moderah Karl Friedrich (1782), Stritter Johann Gotgilf (1795), Gakman Johann Friedrich (1798), Busse Johann Heinrich (1804), in a non-rescuer, in a non-secured, non-financial, non-financial, non-financial, and Johann Heinrich X. Julius (1805), Carl Herman Gottlob Melchior (1805), Johan Philippe circle (1807), Lerberg August Christian (1817), Heinrich Karl Ernst Keller (1818), Fresnes Christian Martin (1820), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1829) , Schmidt Issac Jakob (1829), Shengren, Johann Andreas (1832), Finnish Bernard (1835), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Hristianovich (1837), Brosay Marie-Felisite (NNXX), HE Lense Robert Xris (1839), Brosse Marie-Felisite (NNXX), the LNC Robert Hristianovic (XNUMX), Brosse Marie-Felisite (LN) XNUMX). The brackets indicate the year of entry of the named foreigner into the Russian Academy.
      As you can see, over a hundred and ten years of the existence of the “Russian Academy” of its 28 members, the “creators” of Russian history, not a single Russian surname.
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 23 July 2013 18: 33 New
        +5
        Quote: tixon444
        Not yours.

        Do you think that the newly made forum member Alexandr0id doesn't know that?
        Even an attempt sharpen in the history of Europe threatens such shocks ...
        Lied, lied and will lie!
        drinks
        1. Igarr
          Igarr 23 July 2013 19: 16 New
          +3
          No guys listen, listen.
          The words are so beautiful - Pelasgians, autochthons, Indoarians.
          ....
          Take just read the Mavro of Orbini, Bishop of Ragusz.
          And there will be no need to compose anything.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 23 July 2013 19: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: Igarr
            Take just read the Mavro of Orbini, Bishop of Ragusz.

            still do not forget to study Machiavelli.
          2. Tersky
            Tersky 23 July 2013 23: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: Igarr
            The words are so beautiful - Pelasgians, autochthons, Indoarians.

            Igor, hi ! Probably a classmate of DAM ..., a master class and a virtuoso in terms of the unpronounceable and badly perceived ...
      2. Nordwest
        Nordwest 23 July 2013 23: 39 New
        -5
        These names are proof that the science of Russia was not developed, and foreigners were engaged in its development in all areas. but it turns out, if they themselves are smart and businesslike, why did you need to invite stupid and deceitful strangers.
      3. Hort
        Hort 24 July 2013 09: 14 New
        +3
        everything is correct, only not tribes (!), but, figuratively speaking, a kind of activity. Both Viking and Varangian are the names of one "profession".
        And the tribes are Danes, sveis (who had Vikings) and are encouraged with rugs / Rus - Varangians from Ryugen, Arkona and Radigosh
    6. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 23 July 2013 20: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      Why should a Scandinavian Rurik be made a Slav? Why invent fables about the battle of the young and deny the Tatar-Mongol yoke? Russia has enough glorious moments in history and its place in world culture and no postscript is required.

      And why should a Russian Rurik be made a Scandinavian, why deny the battle of Molody, why invent a non-existent Mongol-Tatar yoke?
      In Russian culture, customs, language, there is nothing Scandinavian. Russian statehood existed on 500 years earlier than among Scandinavians, their kongs owned lands not exceeding the backyard of the Russian boyar and 2-3 boats with 30-40 rowers each. There were dozens of these kungs.
      The Battle of Molodi was in 1572, a lot of information has been preserved about it in Russian chronicles, and it is impossible to refute it.
      From the "Mongol-Tatar yoke" no material traces remained either on the territory of Russia or in Mongolia. The Mongols learned about the existence of the yoke and Genghis Khan only in the 17th century from the Russians, the secret legend of the Mongols is a translation from Russian.
      1. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 24 July 2013 11: 41 New
        -1
        Is there anything Scandinavian in the language? Well, at least the names - Oleg, Igor and Gleb.
        the battle of the young was, of course, but far from on the scale described in the article. the mere participation in the battle of 20 thousand janissaries out of 12 thousand actually existing in the entire Ottoman Empire, moreover, during the much more important war with the Holy League, speaks to put it mildly exaggeration. and all these 100 thousandth Crimean hordes, regularly invading and equally regularly completely destroyed, I am personally perplexed. it’s very difficult for me to imagine the 300-400 thousandth Crimean Tatar people annually losing tens of thousands killed, if only the Bakhchisarai scientists were not engaged in industrial cloning))
        and the sacred legend of the Mongols was preserved in Chinese and translated into Russian already in the 20th (or at the end of the 19th) century
    7. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 23 July 2013 22: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      why the Germans do not have a complex on the fact that they are "younger" than the Greeks and Romans

      And why should they complex, if they are really younger? And they keep quiet, by the way, precisely because if they try to open their mouths and prove the opposite, they will have to pull out light sources. But what is contained in these sources is in no way favorable to them. ..... And what do you have docks that the author of the article is wrong? Well, so please, announce it! (Vicki will not roll).
      1. Alexandr0id
        Alexandr0id 24 July 2013 10: 58 New
        0
        and what docks should I have about the city of Slovenian, founded in 2400 BC? unless a certificate from a psychiatric clinic.
    8. Corneli
      Corneli 24 July 2013 07: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      why the Germans do not have a complex on the fact that they are "younger" than the Greeks and Romans

      Complicated and not weak ... about 100 years ago. Read Delbrück's "A General History of Military Art within Political History." There, the story is presented very similar to the spirit of this article. But why, think for yourself ...
    9. Setrac
      Setrac 24 July 2013 14: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Alexandr0id
      why the Germans do not have a complex on the fact that they are "younger" than the Greeks and Romans and even the Celts?

      Deutsch is an occupied nation, and the Americans have written the story they use. Moreover, attempts to double the history of Germany run into the fact that the history of Germany is Slavic.
  • does it
    does it 23 July 2013 16: 18 New
    0
    In general, the gladiatorial battles of Rome, the modern "flood" of American and European killers and marauders of Iraq and Afghanistan are phenomena of the same order.
    Allow me! I don’t agree, Where in history did you read how the legionnaires of Rome fought in the arena of the Colosseum? there were gladiators-pros. also prisoners of war, attackers .And in Iraq and Afghanistan, mercenaries and the regular army of the USA fight.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 23 July 2013 19: 28 New
      0
      Quote: kvirit
      And in Iraq, Afghanistan, mercenaries and the regular army of the United States are fighting.

      But in fact?
      Panem et circenses Bread and circuses
  • Hemi cuda
    Hemi cuda 23 July 2013 16: 19 New
    +3
    Thanks to the author! I am amused! Madly and fiercely plus.
  • SvetoRus
    SvetoRus 23 July 2013 16: 20 New
    +4
    This article is a cry from the soul of a true patriot! I fully support the author in that the history of our country should be taught in school in such a way that it causes pride for the victories of our ancestors, pain for their defeats and awareness of the magnitude of their contribution to world culture.
  • seller trucks
    seller trucks 23 July 2013 16: 22 New
    +5
    Recall the Tatar yoke.


    Well, actually, the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" is also questionable, was there a boy? in any case, the Mongols do not know this
    1. s1н7т
      s1н7т 23 July 2013 17: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: seller trucks
      Was there a boy?

      In the presence of a complete lack of material evidence - neither written nor archaeological. I support the question!
  • hrych
    hrych 23 July 2013 16: 37 New
    12
    We owe the heresy about Russia to a greater extent to the first Romanovs and the smelly Nikon, when, under the guise of disputes about two and triplets, historical documents were completely burned, and with them algebra with geometry, etc. So it turned out that earlier guns were bought from us, and then Demidov and the Stroganovs had to recreate the foundry from scratch and invite Western specialists. For 00 years, the Romanovs sucked this bullshit, well, the last hundred years, as the author of those whom she suited noted. It is sad that the Patriarch and others like them continue to gundos about wild barbarians, maybe sincerely, because same zombie product. The article is wonderful, it pleases not with unsubstantiated statements, but with reinforcement of links to the source. I wanted to see the works of this author in the future.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 24 July 2013 15: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: hrych
      So it turned out that earlier guns were bought from us, and then Demidov and the Stroganovs had to recreate the foundry from scratch and invite Western specialists.

      About guns is a separate issue. The guns were produced and their production did not stop, but these were copper guns. Those guns, the production of which was mastered during the time of Peter the Great - iron (cast-iron) guns, for their production it was necessary to master the extraction and smelting of iron from high-quality ores in the Urals. It was iron cannons that were the basis of Sweden’s military power at that time, and Russia defeated Sweden by establishing the production of iron cannons at home.
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 23 July 2013 16: 40 New
    +3
    Yes, we have always lost the information war. Maybe because we didn't have that worm that makes us cheat, betray, pretend. Was it in vain, all the heroes, all the heroes of the epics were kind, honest, and they were so easily deceived by Baba Yaga and other evil spirits? Yes, only then this deception came out sideways ... on which Russian fairy tales and legends are held. And it will be the same with these "democrats" and "liberals".
  • Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 23 July 2013 16: 40 New
    +6
    I have the official version of the Mongol-Tatar yoke always raised a lot of questions, which have no clear answers.
    I am more and more inclined to believe that the MONGOLO-TATAR IGO is a myth invented by Russophobes.
    For 300 years of this yoke, the Russian population was supposed to decrease to the level of the Papuans, but this is not.
    In addition, there is no convincing evidence of major battles with hordes of Mongols and Tatars - sources are mainly
    from fiction hehe beautiful tales for young children.
    In general, this time slice has not been explored in a truly unplowed field for scientists.
    1. seller trucks
      seller trucks 23 July 2013 16: 54 New
      +5
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      I am more and more inclined to believe that the MONGOLO-TATAR IGO is a myth invented by Russophobes.


      oh, this story goes back to the time of Mikhailo Lomonosov
      Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer - a newcomer to the German service, Mercenary, put forward the Norman theory of the formation of the Russian state.

      In May 1743, academicians Germans Miller, Schletser and Bayer achieved not just the arrest of Lomonosov, but also punishment for him in the form of DEATH PENALTY.
      The Commission, composed of an overwhelming majority of Germans, who examined the case of Mikhail Lomonosov, decided:
      "For repeated disrespectful, dishonest and disgusting acts both in relation to the academy and to the commission, AND TO GERMAN LAND, IS SUBJECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY, or, in extreme cases, PUNISHMENT BY WHIPPING AND DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS AND STATE.

      Starting from the 1725 year, when the Russian Academy was created and until the 1841 year, the foundation of Russian history was redone by the poor Russian speakers who arrived from Europe, but quickly became experts in Russian history, following the “benefactors” of the Russian people, who filled the historical branch of the Russian Academy:
      Kohl Peter (1725), Fischer Johann Ebergard (1732), Kramer Adolf Bernhard (1732), Lotter Johann Georg (1733), Leroy Pierre-Louis (1735), Merling Georg (1736), Brem Johann Friedrich (1737), Merge George (1738), Brem Johann Friedrich (1740) Gaspard (1749), Crusius Christian Gottfried (1779), Moderah Karl Friedrich (1782), Stritter Johann Gotgilf (1795), Gakman Johann Friedrich (1798), Busse Johann Heinrich (1804), in a non-rescuer, in a non-secured, non-financial, non-financial, non-financial, and Johann Heinrich X. Julius (1805), Carl Herman Gottlob Melchior (1805), Johan Philippe circle (1807), Lerberg August Christian (1817), Heinrich Karl Ernst Keller (1818), Fresnes Christian Martin (1820), Graefe Christian Friedrich (1829) , Schmidt Issac Jakob (1829), Shengren, Johann Andreas (1832), Finnish Bernard (1835), Fleischer Heinrich Leberecht (1835), Lenz Robert Hristianovich (1837), Brosay Marie-Felisite (NNXX), HE Lense Robert Xris (1839), Brosse Marie-Felisite (NNXX), the LNC Robert Hristianovic (XNUMX), Brosse Marie-Felisite (LN) XNUMX). The brackets indicate the year of entry of the named foreigner into the Russian Academy.

      “What vile dirty tricks does not stir up in Russian antiquities such a cattle admitted to them!” The phrase was addressed to Schletser.

      http://bio-lnter.net/index.php?q=node/1911&s=5547a845a441794d0d7885fe0e468ab5

      By the way, this scene was shot in the film of the same name 1986, if anyone remembers
      1. seller trucks
        seller trucks 23 July 2013 17: 10 New
        +4
        The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious, and rumors circulated about his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could not be done in public, his numerous enemies completed it secretly and secretly.
        Thus, the "creators of Russian history" - Miller and Schlozer - got to the Lomonosov archive. After that, these archives naturally disappeared. But then, after the seven-year-old wire was finally published — and it is absolutely clear that under the full control of Miller and Schlozer — Lomonosov's work on Russian history. And then only the first volume. Most likely, rewritten by Miller in the right way. And the rest of the volume simply "disappeared." So it turned out that the “Lomonosov's work on history” that we have at our disposal today is strangely and surprisingly consistent with Miller's point of view on history. It is even incomprehensible - why then did Lomonosov argue so furiously and for so many years with Miller? Why blamed Miller for falsifying Russian history, [215], s.62, when he himself, in his published History, was obediently AGREING with Miller on all counts? Comfortably assures him in each of his lines.
        The history of Russia, published by Miller on “Lomonosov drafts”, can be said to be written as a carbon copy, and practically does not differ from the Milerovsky variant of Russian history. The same applies to another Russian historian - Tatishchev, again published by Miller only after the death of Tatishchev! Karamzin, almost literally rewrote Miller, although the texts of Karamzin after his death were repeatedly edited and altered. One of the last such alterations occurred after 1917, when all information about the Varangian yoke was removed from its texts. Obviously, in this way, the new political power tried to smooth out the discontent of the people, from the dominance of foreigners in the Bolshevik government.

        http://famclub.forum2x2.ru/t113-topic
        1. tixon444
          tixon444 23 July 2013 18: 26 New
          +3
          Quote: seller trucks
          The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious,


          Yes, not by washing, so by skating. It was not possible for him to condemn Lomonosov to death, Elizabeth did not allow it, so they could completely get rid of him from the light.
        2. Tverichanka
          Tverichanka 23 July 2013 23: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: seller trucks
          only after the death of Tatishchev!

          I will add. Chernovikov Lomonosov and Tatishchev could not be found. Funny, is not it?
    2. Alexandr0id
      Alexandr0id 23 July 2013 17: 45 New
      -1
      it is strange that the Persians, Chinese, Koreans, Afghans, Uzbeks, etc. do not deny the Mongol period in their history. after all, this myth was invented by Persophobes, Chinese-Phobes, Korea-phobians, Afghan-phobes and Uzbekophobes.
      1. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 23 July 2013 23: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexandr0id
        then the Persians, Chinese, Koreans, Afghans, Uzbeks

        We look at the cutaway. What do we see? .... And now show me the same in Ryazan.
        1. Corneli
          Corneli 24 July 2013 07: 20 New
          -1
          Quote: Tverichanka
          We look at the cutaway. What do we see? .... And now show me the same in Ryazan.

          An awesome argument! wassat... The fact that "Chinese, Koreans, Afghans, Uzbeks, etc." and without the Tatar-Mongols, "narrow-eyed" certainly does not bother you) And the Persians and Arabs have eyes, by the way, everything is normal)))) Although they were also conquered by the "mythical" Mongols)
          P.S. I won’t show in Ryazan, but please in Moscow laughing
    3. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 23 July 2013 23: 13 New
      +6
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      For 300 years of this yoke, the Russian population was supposed to decrease

      And the rest will become narrow-eyed and yellow-skinned. There is such a concept as a dominant gene. If a white woman gives birth to a child from a Mongolian, 99,99% of 100 will have Mongoloid features. If a white man makes a child to a Mongolian, then the child will still be Mongoloid. Such a perdimonocle turns out ....... Well, where are the "Russian" Mongoloids? .... There is no answer .... And there will not be .... And it is clear why .......
      1. Ulan
        Ulan 26 July 2013 19: 39 New
        0
        Really understandable. The Mongols did not occupy Russia and after the pogrom they left for the steppes. Including the South Russians. So the Mongoloids in Russia have nowhere to come from.
        So there is nothing surprising in this.
    4. VasDA
      VasDA 24 July 2013 03: 09 New
      +3
      I agree with you. Of all the comments, only one saw a mention of the work of Nosovsky and Fomenko. Yes, a lot of them are controversial, a lot is fantastic. But ... The authors themselves say that this is only a hypothesis. But here I fully accept their view of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Based on their explanation of the available data, there was NOT this yoke. DID NOT HAVE.
      -----
      Off-top ... The timeline should be returned to mathematicians. Definitely
    5. Ulan
      Ulan 26 July 2013 19: 48 New
      0
      How is it not? How can you write that? Read Chivilikhin "Memory", not to mention scientific works.
      What about the devastation of Ryazan, Vladimir, the battle on the River Sit, the all-Russian army with the Mongols. And the destruction of Kiev? You did not know about this?
      Well, if fairy tales, then the battle at Molody Tales and the Kulikovskaya fairy tale and at Grunwald and Cressy and Poitiers and the battle of Vorskla, all fairy tales.
      And why should the population have been so reduced? For example, before the Battle of Kulikovo, for almost a hundred years there was a lull and several generations grew up, who did not know the fear of the Mongols, they went to Kulikovo Field and won.
      Well, you still need to be more serious about the subject and not to declare everything a blast - fairy tales.
      And I don’t want something to consider Evpatiy Kolovrat a fairy tale. Or Peresvet with Oslyaby and Alexander Nevsky.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 23 July 2013 16: 48 New
    -3
    The story is such that whoever first began to study it, that opinion will prevail. What could European chroniclers know about the ancient world? Only what they got from the Romans, and those from the Greeks. Those. really someone’s gossip, speculation, stories. We only know very little about the great civilizations that existed before BC, but we have no idea how many there were at all ... We found Arkaim as an example, they suggest that his age is about 6 thousand years, i.e. . the same age as ancient Egypt. But surely Arkaim was not the only city in the South Urals ... The author is trying to convince that European historians deliberately make Russians stupid bygone, but damn, let's give details in this place, who exactly and in whose works the author read it?
    1. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 23 July 2013 23: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      that one. But surely Arkaim was not the only city in the South Urals.

      A nice man, at least google something ...... Gorodische, such as Arkaim, about a hundred and a half were discovered. Yeah, in the southern Urals. The degree of preservation is different. There is no money for excavation and study. Even for the simplest conservation .... ... Draw conclusions.
  • washi
    washi 23 July 2013 16: 55 New
    0
    A. Bushkov has several books - studies on the history of "Russia - which did not exist"
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 23 July 2013 21: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Vasya
      A. Bushkov has several books - studies on the history of "Russia - which did not exist"

      And he also has a cycle "Svarog" about a fall into a fantastic, parallel world with devils, undead and starships ... and what?
  • vvkroxa
    vvkroxa 23 July 2013 17: 12 New
    +3
    I don’t remember who said of the famous people, it sounds something like this: "History is politics overturned into the past." In principle, everything is simple - a dumb monkey is easier to control. Why fight a serious adversary if he can be deceived, corrupted, etc., and at his own expense? Modern Jesuits don't sleep.
  • Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 23 July 2013 17: 34 New
    +4
    It is with such stupid and inadequate articles that the information war against Russia is waged. It’s not necessary to suck out a finger, but to dig Ladoga, Staraya Russa, Starigard in Germany, and so on, and then everything will become clear to everyone.
    1. Pelican
      Pelican 23 July 2013 18: 03 New
      +2
      I support you completely. Half of those present here crap their own thousand-year-old history without blinking an eye ... Defenders!
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 24 July 2013 21: 53 New
        0
        Take it higher, not half, but two-thirds. With the spontaneity and faith of that famous old woman. It remains only to exclaim: "O holy simplicity!"
        You plus
    2. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 23 July 2013 23: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Jurkovs
      It’s not necessary to suck out a finger, but to dig it out

      Do not throw money to archaeologists? Pleasure is not cheap. And the state does not give ......
  • chauvinist
    chauvinist 23 July 2013 17: 51 New
    -6
    The author went to his guardhouse!
  • gura
    gura 23 July 2013 17: 55 New
    -8
    From Minsk. It's not even nonsense! And the cry from the punishment cell of the mental hospital! How can this be published ?! Or maybe this is a collective coven of psychos? The author is anonymous, anything is possible. Another hysterical rehash of "Old songs about us, the best, the smartest, the purest, the most moral, etc."! And, almost universal "approval" !? It doesn't fit in my head. Are there really so many ignoramuses in the Russian provinces? Or few books? Or schools?
    Even writing off to the army - "how I put on the harness ..." Although, how many soldiers on this site - this is unknown. All the same, the best pages on the site are equipment and weapons. My opinion.
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 23 July 2013 23: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: gura
      From Minsk. It's not even nonsense! And the cry from the punishment cell of the mental hospital! How can this be published ?! Or maybe this is a collective coven of psychos? The author is anonymous, anything is possible. Another hysterical rehash of "Old songs about us, the best, the smartest, the purest, the most moral, etc."! And, almost universal "approval" !? It doesn't fit in my head. Are there really so many ignoramuses in the Russian provinces? Or few books? Or schools?

      The author of this opus is a certain Alexander Prozorov, at least I saw him on the site http://www.peshera.org/khrono/khrono-03_6.html "Ra food(site name says a lot repeat )
      The ancient civilization of the Slavic Aryans - a return from oblivion
    2. SergBrNord
      SergBrNord 27 July 2013 19: 52 New
      0
      And they didn’t see the point ... ©
    3. Cynic
      Cynic 28 July 2013 15: 27 New
      0
      Quote: gura
      From Minsk. This is not even nonsense! A scream from a punishment cell in a mental hospital!

      Oh, how he smoothes and wrinkles!
      Quote: gura
      Is there really so much ignoramus in the Russian province?

      Muscovites and Petersburgers are your like-minded people? Sure ?
      Quote: gura
      Although, how many warriors on this site are unknown.

      Sometimes the same suspicions arise for me, for example, after reading your post.
      hi
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 23 July 2013 17: 57 New
    +2
    Dear friends, all Russian great rulers, by their actions, not only strengthened the power of the country, and increased the well-being of the people, but also made it clear that, NEVER FORGET THE FORCE OF THE ENEMY! For the enemy always seeks to destroy the memory of the enemy. For rootless have nothing to protect. Present time clearly proves all this. And yet, truth is not truth, truth is such an arch-powerful weapon that should be controlled by only one structure in the country - the supreme power.
  • s1н7т
    s1н7т 23 July 2013 17: 59 New
    11
    Much raises questions, of course, but: in the FRG there is a museum "Slavic Germany", where half of the country is Slavic tribal states, developed more abruptly than neighboring Germans, with capital cities, with all the attributes of statehood. So who are the wild tribes here ?! laughing Second - in Europe there is a museum of iron weapons, where 80% are of Slavic origin, because others did not. So who was backward here ?! laughing Right now - yes, we are in .opa thoroughly. But the government will change, all sorts of Putin will go away, the Yeltsin "family" will die out - you look, we will rise as before. True, the integration of our fucking oligarchs into world capital is a dangerous thing, well - let's see! drinks Yes, and this religion being imposed again, where - "turn the other cheek", which burned at the stake (not only hung, but also burned!) More than one thousand Russians, which destroyed documentary evidence of Russian history - it's not just that. I will note - before the arrival of Orthodoxy, Russia moved forward, was a "country of villages", and then - "unwashed Russia" and a country of poor villages, without medicine, without education, even writing, like, priests brought to Russia! am In a word, everything is true, but not deep enough. However, this claim is not to the author, probably, but to those who so diligently destroyed our history and its testimonies (I recall, the State Department has not yet been! laughing ) He spoke correctly about Lithuania, albeit a little. My ancestors lived in Lithuanian Russia. But the truth is, these are the details. Article bold plus!
  • artem772
    artem772 23 July 2013 18: 20 New
    -18
    "... Russian-Tatar troops took Kazan ..."
    Not Russian-Tatar, but Moscow-Tatar
    "... The Tatar units were ALWAYS part of the Russian troops ..."
    Not Russian, but Muscovite

    "... Sometimes I am asked why I do not mention the Lithuanians. I do mention the Russians. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Russian state, with a Russian population that spoke Russian, and even office work was conducted in Russian ..."

    But this is true. Conclusion: European Slavic Russia and Asian Ugro-Finnish Muscovy have always been antagonists and enemies throughout their history.
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 23 July 2013 20: 31 New
      +4
      Quote: artem772
      European Slavic Russia and Asian Ugro-Finnish Muscovy have always been antagonists and enemies throughout their history.

      The nonsense of "xoxlyatskih" fake gayropeans, composed for them by foreigners, enemies of the Russian people.
      There was no Ugro-Finnish Muscovy; there were original northern Russian lands of which in the 3 millennium BC. there was a settlement of southern lands. Kiev was built by the Russians who came from the north and there was never any antagonism.
      Ugrofins and Tatars (Türks) came to the eastern and northern outskirts of Russia no earlier than the 7-9 century A.D.
      The Russian language has nothing to do with the Ugric and Turkic languages, even the borrowed words are 100 times less than in the "Ukrainian" Polanisms.
    2. s1н7т
      s1н7т 23 July 2013 20: 39 New
      +1
      Quote: artem772
      European Slavic Russia and Asian Ugro-Finnish Muscovy have always been antagonists and enemies throughout their history.

      Yeah, it's like the Russian Federation-the successor to the USSR laughing
    3. Che
      Che 23 July 2013 23: 14 New
      +2
      Quote: artem772
      But this is true. Conclusion: European Slavic Russia and Asian Ugro-Finnish Muscovy have always been antagonists and enemies throughout their history.


      A blatant lie to please the Poles or something.
    4. Tersky
      Tersky 23 July 2013 23: 27 New
      +5
      Quote: artem772
      Not Russian, but Muscovite
      Themselves whose will you be, the Pluavstrovengerskolyakhsky ..
      Quote: artem772
      Conclusion: European Slavic Russia and Asian Ugro-Finnish Muscovy have always been antagonists and enemies throughout their history.
      In your case, there is only one conclusion - Kashchenko clinic, and as soon as possible.
    5. Ulan
      Ulan 26 July 2013 19: 35 New
      +2
      Indeed, Russia ... and what does Ukraine have to do with this? Russia-Ukraine is something solid, salty.
      But Russia-Russia-Russia, just in the bull's-eye, especially since never in the history of the state called "Muscovy" did not exist.
      However, like "Kievan Rus". This name was invented by historians for the convenience of designating the medieval Russian state with its capital in Kiev.
      By the way, this state was made one by Prince Novgorod of Novgorod, expelling the Khazars from Kiev and making it the capital of a united state.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Valery-SPB
    Valery-SPB 23 July 2013 18: 41 New
    +1
    It is generally accepted that somewhere in the 8th century, wild, brainless and worthless Slavs wandering in the herds in the woods called the Viking Rurik to themselves and said: “We are our master, O great European superman, otherwise we ourselves are nothing we can. " (Free presentation of a textbook on history).


    I will refute. From the annals "In the summer of 6370. Banished the Varangians over the sea .... And went over the sea to the Vikings, to Russia"
    The main time. I don’t argue about calling or not, but a year ...? This is 862 R.H. Where did the author take the 8th century?

    The bare-legged, poorly armed Roman infantry (open a textbook on the history of the ancient world, and admire the legionaries) was worn down in katafractariums clad in steel from the crown of the horse to the horse's hooves. The main source of information is “The cataphracts and their role in the history of military art” A. M. Khazanov. (I don’t remember the rest, but those who wish can search the autosearch themselves. There is a lot of material - they just don’t let him go to school. “Harmful”).


    I dare to assume that the bare-footed Roman infantry was "soaked" not by bare-footed cataphracts and bucellarii from the same Roman armies.

    Quote: "Each turma consisted of 32 horsemen. The one who commanded it was called the decurion ... who ... could teach ... them often to clean and keep their shells (loriki) or armor (cataphracts) in order ... ". (Flavius ​​Vegetius Renatus." A summary of military affairs ". IV century AD).

    If in detail the article "comb" of absurdities you can "dig up" a lot.
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 23 July 2013 23: 21 New
      -1
      Quote: Valery-SPB
      I dare to assume that the bare-footed Roman infantry was "soaked" not by bare-footed cataphracts and bucellarii from the same Roman armies.

      You can and even funnier:
      "Tacitus," History ", 1.79
      All thoughts were occupied by the civil war and the borders were less carefully guarded. The Sarmatian tribe of the Roxolans, who had destroyed two cohorts the previous winter and inspired by success, invaded Moesia. Their cavalry detachment consisted of nine thousand people, intoxicated by the recent victory, thinking more about robbery than about battle. They therefore moved without a definite plan, without taking any precautions, until they unexpectedly encountered the auxiliary forces of the Third Legion. The Romans were advancing in full battle formation, while among the Sarmatians by this time some had scattered around in search of prey, others were dragging bales of looted goods; their horses walked uncertainly, and they, as if tied hand and foot, fell under the swords of the soldiers. Oddly enough, the strength and valor of the Sarmatians are not contained in themselves: there is no one worse and weaker than them in a foot battle, but there is hardly an army that can withstand the onslaught of their horse hordes. On that day, however, it was raining, the ice was melting, and they could not use either their pikes or their longest swords, which the Sarmatians hold with both (???) hands; their horses glided through the mud, and their heavy shells prevented them from fighting. These shells, which all leaders and nobles wear with them, are made of iron plates fitted together or of the hardest leather; they are really impenetrable for arrows and stones, but if the enemies manage to knock a person in such a shell to the ground, then he himself can no longer rise. On top of that, their horses got stuck in deep and loose snow, and this took away their last strength. Roman soldiers, moving freely in their light leather shells, bombarded them with javelins and spears, and if the course of the battle required it, they switched to hand-to-hand combat and pierced the unprotected Sarmatians with their short swords, among whom it was not even customary to use shields. The few who managed to escape fled to the swamp, where they died from cold and wounds ... "
      The "barefoot" Romans gave a star to the "advanced" Sarmatian cataphracts (eg Slavic-Dagestanis type) ... And in the best traditions of the Battle of the Ice)
      P.S. generally quite funny, the Old Russian warriors were described rather as foot uncles with axes, swords, spears ... and here the Sarmatians (well, they are like Slavs) are purely horsemen request
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 23 July 2013 18: 43 New
    +1
    what is interesting is the content of the history textbook, which is now actively promoting GDP. It seems that the publication is ready and will be published soon. let’s take a look at what the story contains in itself). But it seems to me that Putin understands the meaning reflected in this article and now there will be no crap in this matter.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 23 July 2013 18: 57 New
      -2
      Quote: silver_roman
      the contents of the history textbook, which is now so actively promoted by GDP

      If you collect everything that is charged with GDP, then clearly _
      The monster is shabby, mischievous, enormous, hankering and barking
      Interestingly, they are all afraid of everyone, but no one is afraid.
    2. sashka
      sashka 24 July 2013 01: 25 New
      +3
      Quote: silver_roman
      But it seems to me that Putin understands the meaning reflected in this article and now there will be no crap in this matter.

      I wonder how "svobod" and who turned Russia into Orthodox, too, will reflect ??. And that before that Russia was not there ???
  • s1н7т
    s1н7т 23 July 2013 20: 56 New
    +1
    The title of the article begs the question: Why do Europeans lie? To compensate for the inferiority complex. Fact. They (FRG) do not like Russian Germans - because they will "eat" others in the workplace. Because we were individually stronger. It's another matter now. I don’t know, alas. Want a joke? Familiar early. At the beginning of the 90s, the PUG went to clean the pigsties in the Western State Group (then already) to the Germans. So this "office hamster" became a competitor for all "colleagues"!
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 23 July 2013 21: 31 New
      +1
      Europeans, to hell with them, they always strove to grab someone else's, and if they could not, they started to lie.
      But why Ukrainians lie, for whom the only way to remain a full-fledged people is to unite with Russia?
  • Crocodile
    Crocodile 23 July 2013 21: 08 New
    0
    You might think that the author outlined in this article the plot of his next novel in the genre of alternative history. Each of us, across the country and the world, even yesterday will receive a completely different assessment! Can history be called science at all? Is alternative or real history being taught at schools and universities? Or maybe each has its own story, depending on the goals set? Or what is really happening in the world, we are just starting to find out? What story is being broadcast on zombies today?
  • Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 23 July 2013 21: 26 New
    +1
    The history of Russia was written in the 17 century by the Germans, invited by the paranormal half-educated and half-witted Russophobe Peter 1. The Germans not only did not use Russian written sources, they destroyed them, because they contradicted the European version of history.
    It was the same as instructing the Germans to write the history of the Second World War according to memoirs of only German, English and American generals (however, they do this in the West now).
    The Mongol yoke and the Mongols look ridiculous and stupid, and now there are about 2 million people, and in the 12 century there were hardly more than 200 thousand people.
    They were nomads who did not know metallurgy, and did not know how to produce weapons and armor. And they conquered Russia, technologically superior, whose population exceeded 7 of millions of people? The Mongols who lived in the huts allegedly took prisoners of masons, architects, carpenters, etc.
    For what? Huts to build?
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 23 July 2013 23: 29 New
      0
      Quote: Corsair5912
      The Mongol yoke and the Mongols look ridiculous and stupid, and now there are about 2 million people, and in the 12 century there were hardly more than 200 thousand people.
      They were nomads who did not know metallurgy, and did not know how to produce weapons and armor. And they conquered Russia, technologically superior, whose population exceeded 7 of millions of people? The Mongols who lived in the huts allegedly took prisoners of masons, architects, carpenters, etc.
      For what? Huts to build?

      The primitive Mongolian vagabonds, who didn’t know how, crawled out of their huts and gave luli to the "advanced" Chinese, Polovtsians, Arabs ... Epts, even reached Egypt and gave them soup to the Mamelukes (for which the Crusaders who suffered from the Mamelukes were very grateful to them) )). Moreover, the "homeless" raids of these mythical Tatar-Mongols were described by both the "gayropeans" and the Chinese and the Arabs ... Well, they are stupid ... they have not read modern "truthful" Russian historians. They did not know that there were no "Tatar-Mongols" in nature! laughing
      1. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 24 July 2013 20: 00 New
        +1
        The Mongols never reached any Egypt and were not given any lyuli to anyone.
        Under the name of the Mongols, the Turks fumbled (the ancestors of the Kazakhs, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Turks), who had a highly developed civilization already at the time of Sashka of Macedon and in number of times superior to the Mongols in 100.
        Nobody wrote anything about them until the 15-16 century, until they really reached Egypt and beyond.
  • Inspector
    Inspector 23 July 2013 21: 42 New
    0
    What did the Tatars do in response? Wrote complaints! To Moscow, to Novgorod. Complaints preserved. The "enslavers" could not do anything else.

    In the 16 century, Ivan the Terrible came to power. During his reign in Russia:

    - Tatar raids stopped


    What is that supposed to mean? winked
    1. family tree
      family tree 23 July 2013 22: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: Inspector
      How shoud I understand this? winked

      Yes, who then just did not visit the Tatars:
      Highland Tatars (Karachais and Balkars)
      Nogai Tatars (Nogai)
      Abakan Tatars (Khakass)
      Kuznetsk Tatars (Shors)
      Kundra Tatars (Karagash)
      Kazan Tatars (Mishars, Volga Bulgarians, Teppari)
      Crimean Tatars (Crimeans)
      black Tatars (tubalars)
      Chulym Tatars (Chulym)
      Altai Tatars (Altai)
      Siberian Tatars, etc.
      In general, Barbosha will have fewer fleas. laughing
      With the Germans, almost the same crap.
      1. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 31 July 2013 01: 47 New
        +2
        add)
        Kazakhs were called "Horde Tatars", "Cossack Tatars", "Cossack Tatars", and only then they began to call them Kirghiz-Kaisaks, then they were reduced to "Kirghiz". In the first decades of Soviet power, the Kazakhs began to correctly use "Cossack" (this is our self-name), but then they decided to change one letter in the Russian spelling and it turned out "Kazak".
        in short, we were also called "Tatars" in Russian sources, until they called us Kyrgyz-Kaisaks)
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 31 July 2013 12: 36 New
          +2
          and I also remembered - "Tatar Cossacks" - this formulation is also found in Russian descriptions of Kazakhs of the 16-17th century.
  • Corneli
    Corneli 23 July 2013 22: 14 New
    +5
    I read the article for a quarter and stopped ... the author is a drug addict! I will explain the conclusion (:
    1. "The first capital (only the capital of a large country!), The city of Slovensk, was founded in 2409 BC (3099 after the creation of the world); the source of information is the chronicle of the Servant Monastery on the Mologa River, the chronograph of Academician M. H. Tikhomirov, "Notes on Muscovy" by S. Herberstein, "The Legend of Slovenia and Ruse", which has a wide circulation and was recorded by many ethnographers. It is believed that Novgorod was built on the site of Slovensk, and the leading archaeologists have already dug up to the Paleolithic sites. "
    Many "ancient Roman" contemporaries (Tacitus, Flavius ​​...) are considered (greetings Fomenko) untrue, because their copies of the current were found in the 9-13th century (by the way, the Bible is not a fig, because before 3 centuries the norms of copies are dumb ). So WHAT THE FUCK? HERE is a reference to the "chronicle of the Servant Monastery on the Mologa River" or above the "ancient writers of the type" M. H. Tikhomirova ",". Herberstein "? Fuck what authorities!
    2. "When the first European monkey, scratching its belly, finally descended from the trees, Russia was already living, buzzing with tongues and dialects, praying to the gods and elements, pounding its borders."
    the author was there, drinking honey beer ... where did the data on "hubbub" come from? Did you smoke a shoal?
    3. "All this to America and Europe is a knife in the balls, because how can it be admitted that during these times the steppe people reached democracy with their minds, and then chewed it up and spat it out, because this is a fig state system."
    Likely he got high! (For in "steppe Russia" !!! belay It turns out that there was also "democracy"! request And this is a "knife in the balls" America (What is it to them? Their country is not even a thousand years old, but only 300 years old? Although yes ... it was necessary to remember the "enemies" ... the magic word))
    4. "The opinion is widely spread that the Roman Empire was almost the only civilization of the past, a model of legality and morality. In general, that the gladiatorial battles of Rome, that the modern" flood "of American and European murderers and marauders of Iraq, Afghanistan are order.
    From the "cigarette" we smoothly move on to the glue "Moment" ... the gladiatorial battles of Rome are more likely boxing Klitschko against Povetkin, and not aggressive wars for the resources of the United States and co (well, the author is just a junkie with experience ... PPC, I stuck it into an analogy!)
    5. "The morality of the Western world has not changed much, and still causes disgust among" savages "like the Russians. Official history: the great, beautiful and mighty Roman civilization fell under the blows of stinking shaggy savages. In fact, all sick of them (as now Americans) have been sanitized by more decent neighbors. "
    And the glue continues its victorious effect !!! "Reorganization from more decent neighbors" is, my dear members of the forum, especially advanced tribes of GERMANS! (All these Vandals, goths, ENGLISH, SAXES...) - they were decent neighbors, of course!
    6. "Bare-legged, poorly armed Roman infantry (open the textbook on the history of the ancient world, and admire the legionnaires)"
    And really ... admire it! They had to climb in fur coats in the heat ... they are cold! And the fact that until now the LEGIONAL SYSTEM IS CONSIDERED AN ADVANCED, thousands of years ahead! subsequent medieval! (And do not confuse "bare-legged" legionnaires with iron discipline and advanced (at that time) weapons with federates (consisting of "decent neighbors") of the late empire!
    It will be further)
    1. family tree
      family tree 24 July 2013 00: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: Corneli
      I read the article for a quarter and stopped ... the author is a drug addict! I will explain the conclusion (:

      Prozorov? Yes, hell knows. A writer, actually. Fiction, alternative, fantasy. And how he composes, under the substance, or without it, this is unknown to us request
      http://flibusta.net/a/10019
    2. Prometey
      Prometey 24 July 2013 09: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Corneli
      And really ... admire it! They had to climb in fur coats in the heat ... they are cold! And the fact that until now the LEGIONAL SYSTEM IS CONSIDERED AN ADVANCED, thousands of years ahead! subsequent medieval! (And do not confuse "barefoot" legionnaires with iron discipline and advanced (at that time) weapons

      And where was this legion system used, if it was so advanced? Even during the Renaissance and worship of antiquity in military affairs, the evolution of medieval military doctrine continued. The traditional scheme for building troops in the Russian army is a large regiment (center), a regiment of the right hand, a regiment of the left hand, an ambush regiment (reserve) - in short - the center, flanks, reserve. Nothing more rational has been invented. And it would be interesting to see the clash of the Roman legionnaires armed with their notorious penknives - gladiuses with medieval foot soldiers armed with a longer sword or ax - could they go the distance of the strike before they were gutted?
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 24 July 2013 09: 47 New
        -1
        Quote: Prometey
        And where was this legion system used, if it was so advanced? Even during the Renaissance and worship of antiquity in military affairs, the evolution of medieval military doctrine continued.

        In the German troops and was not used, they only dreamed about it) But in the 15-16 century, the best infantry of the time the Spanish were aligned with the Roman. The Legion is not just a type of cohort construction, it is training, discipline, mobility, unification of weapons, versatility, and much more.
        Quote: Prometey
        The traditional scheme for building troops in the Russian army is a large regiment (center), a regiment of the right hand, a regiment of the left hand, an ambush regiment (reserve) - in short - the center, flanks, reserve. Nothing more rational has been invented.

        You confuse the general tactics and actions of the unit (legion) with the battle formations of the troops. You will not be very surprised that the Romans also basically built armies in battle like that?)
        Quote: Prometey
        And it would be interesting to see the clash of the Roman legionnaires armed with their notorious penknives - gladiuses with medieval foot soldiers armed with a longer sword or ax - could they go the distance of the strike before they were gutted?

        Until the 15th century and the advent of the Swiss infantry, ANY European Legion of the 1st-2nd centuries would be torn apart like toads! And not even out of breath). Actually, the Celts had meter swords (the dimensions are similar to medieval one-handed ones) and did they and the Germans have enough axes and sho? Helped a lot?
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 24 July 2013 10: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Corneli
          But in the 15-16 century, the best infantry of the time, the Spanish lined up with the Roman

          More details here. Best is a very relative concept. And the training and discipline of troops is the foundation of the military theory of all times and peoples.

          Quote: Corneli
          In the German forces and was not used, they only dreamed about it

          Yeah. The brightest dreamer was the German Arminius, who flattened the Romans in the Teutoburg forest - hello, by the way, to the legionnaires of the 1-2 centuries who would have torn everyone like toads laughing

          Quote: Corneli
          You confuse the general tactics and actions of the unit (legion) with the battle formations of the troops. You will not be very surprised that the Romans also basically built armies in battle like that?)


          It amazes me that fans of antiquity present medieval armies as a bunch of uncouth blockheads who have no idea about tactics on the battlefield. Whether it is the orderly ranks of the Romans and the chess orders of the cohorts.

          Quote: Corneli
          Until the 15th century and the advent of the Swiss infantry, ANY European Legion of the 1st-2nd centuries would be torn apart like toads! And not even out of breath). Actually, the Celts had meter swords (the dimensions are similar to medieval one-handed ones) and did they and the Germans have enough axes and sho? Helped a lot?

          Didn't it help? The transfer was just not so long ago on Discovery. There historians and archaeologists argued which weapon was better. Gali swords were better recognized in quality and practicality. One specialist admitted that he would not have dared to go into battle with the Roman gladius - it's like in boxing - it is much easier for a boxer with long arms to fight. But this is a subjective opinion. Although they did not return to the design of the Roman sword in the Middle Ages and later, despite the "perfection of Roman weapons".
          1. Corneli
            Corneli 24 July 2013 11: 39 New
            -1
            Quote: Prometey
            More details here. Best is a very relative concept. And the training and discipline of troops is the foundation of the military theory of all times and peoples.

            Google about the Spanish infantry yourself, I'm too lazy (and I wrote a couple of times on the forum about it). Actually training and discipline of the medieval infantry approx. until the 14th century it was not, it was just poorly trained, something like dressed meat.
            Quote: Prometey
            Yeah. The brightest dreamer was the German Arminius, who flattened the Romans in the Teutoburg forest - hello, by the way, to the 1-2 century legionnaires who would tear everyone like toads laughing

            I actually talked about the "late" Germans) And about Arminius, yes, the guy was not bad. True, he was with the same Romans, before that he was the head of the auxiliy detachment for 4 years, so I think he learned something (he generally earned Roman citizenship). In general, it is even believed that he stopped the conquest of Germany before the Elbe. But I don’t say that this happiness brought him personally, Tiberius and Germanicus after that for several years walked with fire and sword through the lands of the participants in the battle (which lasted 3 days! It was ambushed), in one of such campaigns even his pregnant wife was captured ...
            Quote: Prometey
            It amazes me that fans of antiquity present medieval armies as a bunch of uncouth blockheads who have no idea about tactics on the battlefield. Whether it is the orderly ranks of the Romans and the chess orders of the cohorts.

            Mostly it was. The normal infantry can be called the Late English, Swiss, Czechs, Landsknechts, Flemings and Spaniards. But apart from the British, the rest appeared already at the time of firearms, which increased their chances against the knights.
            Quote: Prometey
            But didn’t it help? The transfer just recently went on Discovery. There, historians and archaeologists argued which weapons were better. Gali swords were recognized better in quality and practicality. One specialist admitted that he would not have dared to go into battle with the Roman gladius - it's like in boxing - it is much easier for a boxer with long arms to fight.

            Result The FULL conquest of Gaul in 8 years by Caesar, I think, speaks for itself. Moreover, the Romans still managed to swim to Britain, to give the Lyuli to the Germans who invaded Galia and to visit them through the Rhine.
            1. Prometey
              Prometey 24 July 2013 12: 20 New
              0
              Quote: Corneli
              Result The FULL conquest of Gaul in 8 years by Caesar, I think, speaks for itself. Moreover, the Romans still managed to swim to Britain, to give the Lyuli to the Germans who invaded Galia and to visit them through the Rhine.

              All this is smooth according to a certain source of "Notes on the Gali War" attributed to Julius, who is Caesar, where he writes about himself for some reason in the third person. Although it all ended with a kind of political compromise. In Britain, the Romans failed to gain a foothold. With the Germans, the confrontation went on increasing and subsequently the border legions adopted the weapons and tactics of the barbarian Germans.
              1. Corneli
                Corneli 24 July 2013 20: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Prometey
                All this is smooth according to a certain source of "Notes on the Gali War" attributed to Julius, who is Caesar, where he writes about himself for some reason in the third person. Although it all ended with a kind of political compromise. In Britain, the Romans failed to gain a foothold. With the Germans, the confrontation went on increasing and subsequently the border legions adopted the weapons and tactics of the barbarian Germans.

                From what you are quarrelsome:
                "25. This is what he did for nine years his command. Whole galliathat lies between the Pyrenees ridge, the Alps, the Cevennes and the rivers Rodan and the Rhine, more than 3200 miles in range, he is whole, with the exception of only allied or rendered tribal services to Rome, drew to the province and imposed 40 million in annual tax on it. (2) He was the first of the Romans to attack the Trans-Rhine Germans and, by building a bridge, inflicted heavy defeats on them. He also attacked the British, hitherto unknown, defeated them and demanded ransom and hostages from them. Among so many successes, he only failed three times: in Britain his fleet was almost destroyed by a storm, in Gaul one of his legions was utterly defeated at Gergovia, in German soil the legates Titurius and Avrunculus were ambushed and killed [64]. "Suetonius: "The Life of the Twelve Caesars"
                You do not like the notes ... here is another author. Now discard your sources in which it is written that Caesar did not conquer gallium, "everything ended with a kind of political compromise." Do mercy
                P.S. Campaigns to Britain and to the Germans beyond the Rhine, I mentioned not as conquests, but as actions that take time and resources. That is, he did not ONLY conquer Gaul, but also was engaged in other matters ...
              2. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 24 July 2013 23: 24 New
                0
                All this is smooth not only in the "Notes on the Gali War", but also in the long-term results of this war: during the Middle Ages, the international language was Latin, not the Gali dialects. If you were right, the result would be for the Romans to speak Gali. As the saying goes: "Woe to the vanquished!"
        2. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 24 July 2013 23: 15 New
          0
          It is worth adding that no matter how the giant knight armies wrote in the Middle Ages, in reality this is not so. It was too expensive to equip and maintain during the campaign. Due to feudal fragmentation. Only with the return of centralization to real (rather than nominal) royal power did it become possible to set up contingents of comparable numbers to the Romans. And even then, not on the scale of the entire Roman Empire (~ 30 legions of 6000 people each), but on the scale of the combined Roman armies of the invasion (3-6) of legions. Just because the economy is not comparable.
          Even one legion of its heyday could grind a huge number of well-equipped, individually trained, but relatively small and completely uncontrollable feudal armies
          1. Prometey
            Prometey 25 July 2013 07: 41 New
            0
            Quote: abrakadabre
            It is worth adding that no matter how the giant knight armies wrote in the Middle Ages, in reality this is not so.

            Nowhere have I met figures about the gigantic medieval armies. Europe could scratch at the strength of 30 thousand more or less equipped equestrian fighters. BUT the numbers about 300 thousand Roman armies are complete nonsense, as well as about the ancient battles in which hundreds of thousands of armies converged. Until the 19th century and the corresponding industrial and economic development, the ancient economy could not contain and equip such a number of soldiers (artisanal workshops were not capable of competing in production speed with manufactories even of the 17th century). And prove that the Roman bipartite system was more effective than the medieval tri-field.
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 25 July 2013 10: 04 New
              +2
              Nowhere have I met figures about the gigantic medieval armies.
              Do not write such words. This is a public intellectual suicide.
              If you are too lazy to go to the libraries, then use at least the Internet. In almost all medieval chronicles and chronicles, fantastic numbers are given when describing the number of warring parties. As usual in style: you and my friend fell asleep a million. The chronicler of the opposite side, usually wrote the same in reverse.
              300 thousand Roman army, 30 legions - a normal reality, confirmed by cross-validation of data. From archeology, through historical sources of various origins to toponymy.
              If you do not know this, then this is your problem.
              From your words it is clear that for some reason in your understanding 30 legions, i.e. all 100% of the empire’s army is a huge crowd of military men gathered on one field.
              What a fright? Your option is just fantastic. For the reasons you have indicated, supply. Legions stood across all the provinces of the empire. A very large area, if you bother to look at the map.
              30 legions never gathered and did not go into battle on the same day on the same battlefield. To understand this, you do not have to be seven spans in the forehead. The need to put together three, six or seven legions for a military campaign did not eliminate the need to protect the rest of the territory from possible intrusions or internal unrest in another part of the country. If such an evidence of the organization of the army is not clear to you, then what do you do on a military-themed website? Well, God bless that.

              Offhand, without raising sources, I can only remember a couple of times when up to nine legions were combined into one army: the first, 54 BC the invasion of Mark Crassus to Parthia (in the second year at the Battle of Carrh 7 legions were defeated, Crassus was executed); and the second time - the invasion of Emperor Trajan in Daccia. Such a concentration of forces, even for a large and rich empire, was a very rare and great event.
              Economy: the empire just could afford and even had to support such a considerable army. The size, level of centralization and economic development allowed. Europe of the Middle Ages was able to afford this only after the elimination of fragmentation. That is, when the state became comparable in size with the attached economy, a unified power and tax base.
              Also, if you do not know that Europe has reached the level of development of productive forces as in the Roman Empire, the heyday of just the same by the 16-17th century, then this is also your problem. Historical science has nothing to do with it.

              Further...
              1. Prometey
                Prometey 26 July 2013 07: 47 New
                0
                Quote: abrakadabre
                Do not write such words. This is a public intellectual suicide.

                laughing Got upset
                Quote: abrakadabre
                From your words it is clear that for some reason in your understanding 30 legions, i.e. all 100% of the empire’s army is a huge crowd of military men gathered on one field.

                It’s just not in mine, but in your understanding, show me where I wrote this. You did not understand the essence - I questioned the very economic possibility of equipping and maintaining such an army without a developed industrial and agricultural base, which became possible only in the 18-19 centuries, when only some states could afford the maintenance of the army and navy over 200-300 thousand . person.
                Quote: abrakadabre
                Economy: the empire just could afford and even had to support such a considerable army. The size, level of centralization and economic development allowed. Europe of the Middle Ages was able to afford this only after the elimination of fragmentation. That is, when the state became comparable in size with the attached economy, a unified power and tax base.
                Also, if you do not know that Europe has reached the level of development of productive forces as in the Roman Empire, the heyday of just the same by the 16-17th century, then this is also your problem. Historical science has nothing to do with it.

                All this is speculation. To prove all this, statistics on the economy of Ancient Rome are needed - there are none, but without this, all the dispersal of dust. Once again I ask the Roman bipartite system was more effective than the medieval three-field? Did the Romans use a division of labor, a steam hammer? If not - is it worth it to fantasize?
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 26 July 2013 13: 15 New
                  +1
                  got upset
                  I'm sorry.
                  I questioned the very economic possibility of equipping and maintaining such an army without a developed industrial and agricultural base
                  The economy of the Roman Empire is quite enough literature. Even Google gives out one or two. Not to mention the libraries. It is also easy to find studies on the military Roman economy. Not delightfully complete, but quite extensively documented sources and on the supply of Roman legions.
                  You underestimate the ancients. Analogues of manufactories of the New Age were in the Roman Empire (in various industries), and in Ancient Greece (the production of ceramics, for example), even in Carthage (shipbuilding).
                  All this is speculation.
                  From this position, in general, everything in our life is speculation. And the war in Syria, and the penguins in Antarctica - neither there nor there you were. Even my existence too. After all, we did not shake hands with each other.
                  smile
                  1. abrakadabre
                    abrakadabre 26 July 2013 13: 44 New
                    0
                    Caton can help you with crop rotation, agronomy and agriculture in general. Add to this sources for climate reconstruction from the end of the Ice Age to the present. Pay special attention to the Mediterranean climate at the turn of the eras and Western Europe in the 10-17 centuries. Compare, think about yields. Also remember the number of large landowners in ancient Rome (if anything, google it) and the cheapness of slave labor.
            2. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 25 July 2013 10: 14 New
              +1
              continued ...

              Europe could scratch at the strength of 30 thousand more or less equipped equestrian fighters.
              When voicing a similar thought, be careful. Indicate the time.
              Also, the figure you indicated is true firstly for the knights themselves and only for them, and secondly for the 10-14 centuries, that is, the time of the greatest fragmentation. However, the knight - a noble lord and ruler went to war with an armed and quite professional retinue - a spear. Knights were never counted by head. Only by spears. And the number of spears depended solely on the financial capabilities of its owner-leader - the lord-knight and could range from 2-3 to 20-30 people. Including in one measure or another equipped equestrian. Large feudal lords exhibited more than one spear. As including in his squad spears of his vassals, and directly due to the large number of his personal contingents. For example, the sergeant of the Templars on the battlefield was not inferior in equipment to the average poor knight.
              So the total number of professional military personnel with quite adequate equipment in medieval Europe was significantly higher than 30 thousand knights proper and was comparable (only in Europe as a whole, and not separately taken kingdom, duchy, etc.) with the Roman one. But unlike the latter, it was politically fragmented. Therefore, the battles of the Middle Ages were much more modest in the number of participants.
              I see you know quite superficially about the principles of manning the armies of Rome and the Middle Ages. If so freely and generally set out the subject.
              1. Prometey
                Prometey 26 July 2013 08: 09 New
                0
                Quote: abrakadabre
                When voicing a similar thought, be careful. Indicate the time.

                Well, yes, the Middle Ages - a long era. I roughly meant the time of the 3-4 Crusades. And he focused precisely on chivalry, as the bearer of professional military traditions (are we talking about professional warriors?) The fact that the feudal knight (incidentally, knightly orders is another topic) led his retinue and not all of its representatives were professionals in military affairs This is a known fact. It is possible that more people could participate in ancient battles than in the Middle Ages, but this is also due to another factor - the costumes of a medieval warrior were much more expensive, which I believe is beyond doubt. But the numbers about the army of hundreds of thousands (or so) that were chopped in antiquity are considered fantasies.
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 26 July 2013 14: 05 New
                  0
                  That's the point. In the Middle Ages, there were no less professional wars (all, not just knights proper) throughout Europe. Most likely even more. After all, each lord tried not only to arm himself, but also to get the maximum possible number of armed retinue under his command under his income. In order to keep the peasants in obedience and rob the neighbor, and not to protect him from the same neighbor. Anyway, this amuses a hypertrophied sense of knightly dignity.
                  Who should be put on the castle walls in case of a siege? Peasants cannot be accustomed to weapons. Must be afraid of the lord. And then they dare and then they will slaughter you. For example, when you demand the right of the first night.
                  All this armed servants also hold weapons more than once in their lives.

                  Another thing is that the empire could afford to collect 9 legions from several provinces, that is, 50-60 thousand soldiers for the conquest of Daccia. And leave the rest to guard and prevent riots. A medieval king or duke couldn't. In a piece of Europe under his control, there were simply not so many. Yes, and those that were, you will not collect all. And whom you collect, you will torture to direct discipline. Especially in battle. And after 40 days of service, any of your vassal legally could say: "Sir / Emperor, go to jo ... with your war. I need to keep an eye on the estate."

                  In armament: having a village with subsistence farming, without developed crafts, acquiring a complete set was sooo expensive.
                  And in Rome, the imperial chancellery will say to buy 1000 sets for legionnaires, large craft centers (consider manufactories with slave labor) themselves will come running and will vyingly offer. Just pay.
                  In addition, the lorica of the segment is very technological in production. Solid rectangular plates with simple cylindrical bends - trifling matter and quick. And loriki hamats (chain mail) weave of course for a long time (if alone), but in complexity ... even a child can handle. Plant 1000 slaves and they will give you 10-20 pieces a day ... for food.
                2. Corneli
                  Corneli 26 July 2013 16: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: Prometey
                  Well, yes, the Middle Ages - a long era. I roughly meant the time of the 3-4 Crusades.

                  Hmm ... As an option, 3 crusade: 3 sovereigns (Barbarossa, Richard and Philip2). Friedrich (Germans) has an army of about 30 thousand. The French and British, after their srach with the Normans (in Sicily) and each other with a friend up to 50 thousand people. (These are those who went specifically with Richard after all the events and the Germans were not there) And these are the armies of only the 3 largest states of Europe (of course there were volunteers, but apparently not so many if they are not remembered much), and it’s a no brainer that Germany, France, and England left something inside the state!). Total modestly we have 80 thousand prof. warriors who participated in the 3rd cross. And how many of them remained at home, and how many other European states could exhibit ... think for yourself)
                  1. abrakadabre
                    abrakadabre 26 July 2013 18: 34 New
                    0
                    I agree. Despite the fact that the level of production during the Crusades in Europe was much lower than during the heyday of the Roman Empire.
                    It remains only to clarify that the number of armies of the Crusades is somewhat distinguished from the general Central European background of those centuries by the degree of mobilization to solve the general problem. This is comparable to the Romans.
                    Intra-European showdowns were much more modest up to the Renaissance.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 24 July 2013 23: 00 New
        +2
        And it would be interesting to see the clash of the Roman legionnaires armed with their notorious penknives - gladiuses with medieval foot soldiers armed with a longer sword or ax - could they go the distance of the strike before they were gutted?
        Have you tried to put on armor and test this theory? No? And I tried.
        In martial arts, a swordsman or a poleaxe can still compete with an infantryman in the uniform of a legionnaire from the reforms of Gaius Maria to Trajan-Adrian. But only due to the availability of room for maneuver and at the cost of a significant loss of strength for constant movements and sweeping movements. Believe me, this is very tiring. The legionnaire has enough short skutum movements to fend off the blows and wait for the moment for a short piercing lunge. In this case, the spear is neutralized by an assertive reduction in distance.
        You are ironic in vain. To open the legionnaire with a scootum-armored door oh how troublesome. And sooo tiring.
        In addition, we should not forget that the key to the success of the legions in battle (excluding the supply logistics for the time being) is not in revolutionary better armaments in comparison with opponents. The same Celts-Gauls, etc. were often armed no worse. In another way, at times more mottled, but no worse. And not even in the personal stamina of the fighter in front of the enemy. Motivation in the battle among the Germans, Iberians, Gauls was abundant. And in the iron discipline of all soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder in the ranks and the highest level of interaction between all soldiers of the unit (for example, maniples) in various combat situations. Plus, there is a very flexible control of the legion and its parts on the battlefield. When the legion acts as a single mechanism, like a watch.
        The situation was repeated in the Middle Ages among the Swiss, then Ladsknechts, then the Spaniards with their infantry battles - they beat the army of knights mercilessly. Despite the fact that the knights, as individual fighters, were just shine and had the best equipment. But ambition over the edge and minimal controllability across the entire battlefield.
        At the end of the Empire, Rome lost this quality of legions. They themselves began to resemble more and more the semi-organized hordes of "barbarian" peoples of the era of the Great Migration.
        Your opponent spoke about this.
    3. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 24 July 2013 22: 23 New
      0
      Bravo!!! Common sense in discussing this topic today is in the minority. Not to mention education, horizons and elements of critical thinking ...
      But we will break through. ¡No pasarán! denseness.

      I suggest completing your post with the following words:
      Author! Tell the drugs - NO !!!
      hi
      1. Ulan
        Ulan 27 July 2013 09: 25 New
        0
        However, I read all your posts with pleasure. A solid baggage of knowledge is felt. In the military history of antiquity and the Middle Ages, too.
        With pleasure I plus.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 29 July 2013 12: 10 New
          0
          It’s just really interesting. If you study history, not similar articles. True, it is much longer. But can we talk about the time spent, if the lesson is fun?
          The author’s theories are closer to such sections of human knowledge as psychiatry (to be sharp) or applied psychology. The second is more true. But not in terms of establishing historical truth, but in terms of studying the reaction of the experimental audience to delusional, but caressing self-conceit theories.
          laughing
      2. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 31 July 2013 11: 39 New
        0
        Corneli and Abracadabre, my respect and respect to you.
  • Corneli
    Corneli 23 July 2013 22: 32 New
    +1
    7. "was trampled by cataphractarii chained in steel from tops to horse hooves. The main source of information is" Cataphracts and their role in the history of military art "A. M. Khazanov. (I don’t remember the rest, but those who wish can rummage around by autosearch themselves. a lot - they just don't let him into schools. "Harmful"). "
    The key word here is "I do not remember" (to it I still need to add "I don’t know" and "I don’t know") German "cataphracts" - this is very strong!
    Short fairy: "Cataphractary (from ancient Greek. Κατάφρακτος - covered with armor) is a heavy cavalryman. The name" cataphractary "comes from the Greek definition of the armor of a heavily armed horseman -" cataphract. " it denoted the armor of a warrior of heavy cavalry. Titus Livy (this is a type of Roman scribbler) called the heavily armed horsemen of Antiochus III as cataphracts ... "
    Where did the author come up with the German-Hunsko-Slavic cataphracts? I personally xs ... Apparently the "moment" was well, very nuclear!
    8. “The most interesting thing is where did the Huns come from to 'cleanse' Rome? ? "
    Just the answer - from Hungary !!! Because it’s like a steppe) But if the author believes that it was easier to attack Rome from the Urals or from Dagestan, then the flag in one hand, a jamb or a tube of glue) in the other) And yeah, look at the map ... measure the distance (at the same time estimate what a horse-drawn campaign of the army of many thousands means)
    9. "In the 8th century, one of the Russian princes nailed a shield to the gates of Constantinople, and it is difficult to assert that Russia did not exist even then ..."
    And the name of this prince Oleg, and for some reason here the author recalls the "Tale of Bygone Years" (thrown by the vile Germans), and there was also written (in PVL) sho Oleg-VARYAG !!! (but the author does not remember this for some reason). And yes ..of Russia DO NOT EXIST THEN!
    In general ... I have not put everything on the shelves ... there is a lot of things you can write ... and so waved (But then, excuse me, I don't even want to read (If there is such a wild amount of delirium and lies at once, it's stupid in every sentence. ..that somehow broke to continue "reading"
    1. Prometey
      Prometey 24 July 2013 08: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Corneli
      Just the answer - from Hungary !!! Because it’s like a steppe)

      They used the Pannonian plain as a springboard for their onslaught. Until the 4th century AD there were no Huns there.
      All heavily armed horsemen were called cataphracts, and the East did not have any monopoly on its production. But the fact remains - in Europe, they got acquainted with cataphracts during the Hunnic invasion. The effectiveness of heavy cavalry against barefoot infantry (including against the vaunted Roman legionnaires) on the battlefield was overwhelming and gradually this kind of troops began to be adopted by European "barbarians", including the Germans.
      1. Corneli
        Corneli 24 July 2013 10: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: Prometey
        They used the Pannonian plain as a springboard for their onslaught. Until the 4th century AD there were no Huns there.

        From 1 to 3, the Roxolans lived there (with which the Romans periodically encountered), from 3 to 4, the Alans, who later dumped the Vandals in Spain and Africa, fleeing the Huns.
        Quote: Prometey
        All heavy-armed horsemen were called cataphracts and the East did not have any monopoly on its production.

        Oh well?) The German cavalry was considered heavy, but no one called it cataphracts.
        Quote: Prometey
        But the fact remains - in Europe they met cataphracts during the Hunnic invasion.

        What you have written has nothing to do with the "fact". Cataphract is an ancient Greek word, and with the very type of this cavalry, both the Greeks and the Romans were familiar even before Christ, then there was no smell of the Huns)
        Quote: Prometey
        The effectiveness of heavy cavalry against barefoot infantry (including against the vaunted Roman legionnaires) on the battlefield was overwhelming and gradually this kind of troops began to be adopted by European "barbarians", including the Germans.

        The effectiveness of any cavalry was known to the Romans from battles with Hannibal, Numidians, Macedonians, Syrians and Parthians, again long before the Huns and Germans. As for the actual decline of the infantry, since the 3rd century, the Empire actually completely went on the defensive, legions (offensive troops) were no longer needed. Instead of them came the system of "limitans": small (mainly infantry) detachments were kept on the borders, and in the depths of the empire elite cavalry units were kept in case of major breakthroughs in the defense. The best Roman infantry of the 4th-5th centuries are the so-called palatines. Thousand-man heavy infantry squads with under-phalanx-style weapons and tactics. The Huns and Germans actually did not fight with the legions in the 4th-5th century (those were gone for a long time)
        P.S. Cataphracts and Klibanarii were in the Roman army. For example, mentioned in the campaigns of Julian. But since there were still no stirrups, their effectiveness was not very good.
        1. Prometey
          Prometey 24 July 2013 12: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Corneli
          What you have written has nothing to do with the "fact". Cataphract is an ancient Greek word, and with the very type of this cavalry, both the Greeks and the Romans were familiar even before Christ, then there was no smell of the Huns)


          I read the other origin of this word, as it were, to recall more precisely, it seems to mean in translation from Persian - unstoppable. I wrote about Europe, why can only the Romans and Greeks be tied to it?
          1. Corneli
            Corneli 24 July 2013 20: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Prometey
            I read the other origin of this word, as it were, to recall more precisely, it seems to mean in translation from Persian - unstoppable. I wrote about Europe, why can only the Romans and Greeks be tied to it?

            I wrote a literal translation above). And as for only the Romans and Greeks in Europe, why did you get this? The Phoenicians, Iberians, Celts, Germans (if ONLY Western Europe were counted) are not so well known about them, and they had a healthy impact on the world (the tribes, including the New German ones, who came with the resettlement of peoples did not mention. ..that is a separate topic). And the fact that in our textbooks they write only about Rome, the Greeks and the Macedonians ... well, they are conquerors, they wrote their story about their peoples (they pass it in schools). On the other hand, what do YOU ​​know about the peoples of Russia? Reading an article or many comments, I personally conclude that there is NOTHING! Russia is a multinational state, but they write EXCLUSIVELY about the antiquity and advancement of Russians, the rest simply does not exist. And this is not 2-1.5 thousand years ago (as in the case of Rome or Greece), but right now!
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 24 July 2013 14: 21 New
        0
        The Europeans met the cataphracts in the person of Mark Crassus and his comrades (7 legions). But the first acquaintance was not impressed. Probably because to ride a horse without stirrups to the dense Roman formation of hardened warriors is dry and ineffective. Even despite the armor. In the Battle of Carrhae, the Romans were certainly defeated. But mostly not thanks to the "bronedzhigits". And it was not up to the generalization of experience. Caesar and Pompey found out whose ... authority is thicker. After them, Octavian and Anthony danced around the empire.
        While the empire was on top and the legions were highly professional, motivated, Rome laid on the Parthians with their heavy cavalry. We read about Trajan’s trip to Parthia.
        As the army rotted (relief of legions, the unpopularity of army service among Roman citizens with the replacement of foreigners, etc.), so immediately the furry animal came to visit the Romans and gathered up. In general, we read a story about the development of military affairs in ancient Rome.
        Incidentally, the situation repeated itself in the Middle Ages. When the highly motivated and well-trained Swiss infantry arranged for executions to the knights - the direct development of the heavy Parthian cataphracts
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Passer
    Passer 23 July 2013 23: 17 New
    +3
    Quote: artem772
    Not Russian, but Muscovite

    And sho is "heroi" -Banderites write on the Moscow Move? And not as true patriots in the Square.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sashka
    sashka 24 July 2013 01: 32 New
    0
    Before the baptism of Russia there was no ???. So they just appeared and occupied the sixth part of the Earth .. Stupid by definition. WE have always been. When there were no others yet .. And the Mongols are still simple nomads who do not know how to do anything and do not have .. Just like all the "separated" ones. Ukraine example..Halyava pliz ..
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 24 July 2013 01: 42 New
      -1
      Quote: Sasha
      Before the baptism of Russia was not. So just appeared and occupied the sixth part of the Earth .. Stupid by definition. WE have always been. When there were no others ..

      Even dinosaurs !!! laughing
      P.S. Somewhere I have already heard something like this ... a dozen years ago ... even about some kind of "proto-ukrah")
      P.P.S. By the way, for those who occupied the 6th part of the land "When there were no others ..":
      YOU, somehow not enough, just like Canadians. Incidentally, they are 2 by area in the world, there are also not many of them (34 lyamas, it seems) and their population is mainly ... English and French! belay How so? !!! They also should have been LONG (after YOU, of course) ... but why the Angles and the French? And why is their country only 200 years old? !!! It's impossible!!!
    2. Ulan
      Ulan 26 July 2013 18: 53 New
      0
      But the Huns do not exist at all, as is the Goths. So, is their conquest a myth? What is Macedonia today? So there was no Alexander’s empire? And the Tamerlane empire, too, only because there was no fragment left, and not the most developed economically?
      So there is no argument comparing the current Mongolia with the empire of Genghis Khan.
      Of course there are many questions there, but this is not a reason to completely deny the fact itself.
  • bomg.77
    bomg.77 24 July 2013 01: 37 New
    +3
    The author and his article are a plus! The whole history of Russia and Europe is especially fictional about Roman legions laughing how they crossed the Alps and conquered the Germanic tribes and what is characteristic of everything in summer sandals laughingor Hannibal Barki’s crossing when he allegedly dissolved rocks in vinegar. Why didn’t they use this method after, for laying tunnels or roads, but in the old fashioned pickaxe and a shovel? Why did the crusaders seize and plunder Constantinople? Why can’t they find the library of Ivan the Terrible, I think there are many answers to our questions. Why did Grozny treat the monarchs of Europe as Lord and subordinate? Historians have why and why there are so many, but they don’t have answers or are trying to ears to tighten
    1. Ulan
      Ulan 26 July 2013 18: 59 New
      +1
      Alas, you are wrong. In the cold season and in cold regions, legionnaires dressed accordingly and wore warm shoes.
      For example, the modern name for the trousers that we wear comes from the name of the legionnaire’s long trousers - marriage.
      The classic image of a legionnaire in sandals is for a hot climate. In a hot climate, they replaced their metal armor - the lorika of the segment, replaced with leather. For example, in Judea.
      The military system of Rome was very perfect and their weapons are excellent and the helmet of the legionnaire is generally an engineering structure.
      All this was until Rome began to decompose. Well, that's another story.
  • Magadan
    Magadan 24 July 2013 06: 15 New
    +3
    Quote: Skif-2
    And so as not to lie, the author submits a very good idea - lawsuits against the Ministry of Education.

    In my opinion the most sensible thought. Insulting the memory of our ancestors should be punished to the fullest !!!
  • Very old
    Very old 24 July 2013 07: 50 New
    +4
    Everything is very simple - ENVY. Russia never lost to them, did not bend. Across the throat ...
  • freedmen
    freedmen 24 July 2013 08: 27 New
    +3
    Great article!
    I agree to all 100 and more than that, in the open sources of Russian historians (scientists, researchers, archaeologists, etc.) today, lordship is more and more traced.
    More and more articles and videos on this topic appear. Especially, youtube is full of sources.
    examples:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB54Ys3CY2I
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1rhr4NxVKY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmk9I_kx4UA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW7KI9Nx5Xo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSEM5k4iUos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZafDoY-OEB0
    etc.
    and immediately questions arise about the same Kuraev. What is Christianity? Who is Jesus? Where did all this obscurantism come from in Golden Russia. Who invented this "coming" story?
    listen to V.A. Chudinov, G. Sidorov and many others.
    Open sources on the internet are just going wild.
    Many people in our statehood are seeing clearly.
    And the greater good is that these articles appear more and more often.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 24 July 2013 13: 53 New
      +2
      Open sources on the internet are just going wild.
      Similar opuses are surging on the Internet. Serious science, unfortunately not. It is much easier for the author and more attractive for the reader to engage in "tearing off the veils" than to study something seriously.
    2. SergBrNord
      SergBrNord 27 July 2013 20: 07 New
      0
      I think it’s not a secret for anyone that Internet sources should be checked with emery cloth and then etched with dichlorvos ...
  • Prometey
    Prometey 24 July 2013 08: 37 New
    +3
    I agree with the author - one-sided world history. The great ancient Greeks and ancient Romans - a treasure trove and an unsurpassed example of civilization of all times and peoples - are still clouding the brains of schoolchildren with fantasies. There was a very long time ago in the Mediterranean civilization and most likely not one, to which the Greeks and pasta have only a territorial relationship. Just like there was civilization in the Russian expanses. Who are the Huns, where did they come from and where did they disappear? According to the hypothesis, they were attributed either to the Mongoloids or to the Turks. They say they got catching up from the Han Empire and went across the whole of Eurasia to look for the Promised Land. For 300 years, they crawled into Europe, made a rustle there, and then disappeared, dissolved. And now the questions - why did the nomads have to crawl thousands of kilometers from the borders of China to the conditionally borders of the "Roman Empire", and not settle down somewhere more calmly? But did not the so-called Huns from time immemorial live on the East European Plain (Sarmatians?) Why Turks or Mongoloids, and not Proto-Slavs? And here are more facts, textbooks write that the Huns are a wild nomadic people. But in terms of military organization and military technology, they were on a level higher than the "great" Romans. The Huns massively used heavy cavalry and armored riders. They knew stirrups and a specific cavalry weapon - a saber. And now the question is - how could wild nomads massively create such weapons and organize a complex process from mining ore to riveting armor? Or maybe the Huns did not disappear anywhere, but went back, where the Old Russian state later appeared?
    1. Corneli
      Corneli 24 July 2013 10: 39 New
      -1
      Quote: Prometey
      And now the questions - why did the nomads have to crawl thousands of kilometers from the borders of China to the conditionally borders of the "Roman Empire", and not settle down somewhere more calmly?

      But why did the Hungarians do it for example in the 10th century? They repeated their path and settled themselves in Hungary)))
      Quote: Prometey
      But have not the so-called Huns lived from time immemorial on the East European Plain (Sarmatians?)

      They drove out the Alans, for example, about whom it was known long before the Huns (in the west) and who clearly did not consider the Huns as their Sarmatian brothers.
      Quote: Prometey
      And here are the facts, the textbooks write that the Huns are a wild nomadic people.

      Yes, so it was, or do you know a lot of cultural and scientific achievements of the Huns?
      Quote: Prometey
      But in terms of military organization and military technology, they were on a level higher than the "great" Romans.

      The Romans were no longer "great" then. And what about the military organization and military technology (excluding the stirrups, which type they envisioned) In what the Huns were more advanced than the same Persians of that time?
      Quote: Prometey
      The Huns massively used heavy cavalry and armored riders.

      The Huns - were light horse archers! What are heavy armor? Their heavy cavalry was German or Alan (and even they were far from knights).
      Quote: Prometey
      Or maybe the Huns didn’t disappear anywhere, but went back, where later the Old Russian state appeared?

      Or maybe they just assimilated, and not immediately?) For example, the Hun cavalry is remembered in the army of Belisarius. The one who destroyed the vandals and Alans in Africa. Have you taken anything about the Sarmatians or Germans in Tunisia? I think not, but they lived there for 200 years.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 24 July 2013 11: 57 New
        0
        Quote: Corneli
        But why did the Hungarians do it for example in the 10th century? They repeated their path and settled themselves in Hungary)))

        One of the assumptions is that they came from the Volga steppes or the Urals, from where the Pechenegs drove them. Although to study the migration of peoples without a suitable material source is an ungrateful thing. It is not possible to refute that the Hungarians did not participate in the Hunnic Confederation under a different name.

        Quote: Corneli
        They drove out the Alans, for example, about whom it was known long before the Huns (in the west) and who clearly did not consider the Huns as their Sarmatian brothers.

        And we do not have a reliable source base, whom the Alans considered their brothers. Nothing prevented them from coexisting peacefully for a period of time.

        Quote: Corneli

        Yes, so it was, or do you know a lot of cultural and scientific achievements of the Huns?


        Once again, wild nomads cannot have a high level of military development and forge normal weapons. To do this, you need to have a developed economy. And what kind of cultural and scientific achievements of the ancient past are known to us, except for the Egyptian pyramids? How to prove that it is the Greeks who are involved in the construction of the Parthenon or the Italians to the Coliseum?

        Quote: Corneli
        The Huns - were light horse archers! What are heavy armor? Their heavy cavalry was German or Alan (and even they were far from knights).


        About the Hun (namely Hun) heavy cavalry there is a mention of the Gothic historian Jordan, as well as in other sources. The presence of horse archers did not interfere with the presence of heavy cavalry.

        Quote: Corneli
        Or maybe they just assimilated, and not immediately?)


        Can. Now only hypotheses can be built.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 24 July 2013 13: 48 New
        0
        Have you taken anything about the Sarmatians or Germans in Tunisia?
        The Germans also lived in the Crimea with Moldova for a long time. And in the territory of present Belarus.
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 24 July 2013 14: 14 New
          0
          He means the state of vandals.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 24 July 2013 14: 31 New
            0
            I know. I have an idea wink
  • lesnik340
    lesnik340 24 July 2013 09: 12 New
    +1
    An interesting fact, how many national heroes do you know? Have you heard of Salavat Yulaev ?, Tadeusz Kostyushka, Zhanna D. Ark. Now call not a politician or president but a national hero of America?
    The following people come to mind: Superman, Spider-Man. And how many American heroes of World War II do you know?
    probably the "Mario brothers" defeated fascism by jumping over the ocean because almost the entire fleet died in the waters
    Pearl Harbor.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 24 July 2013 13: 41 New
      0
      probably the "Mario brothers" defeated fascism
      Nope - this one, like him, has forgotten .. Oh! Private Rain
      wassat
  • Oleg1986
    Oleg1986 24 July 2013 09: 24 New
    0
    To what insanity you need to reach to print such stupidity in the military review. This is really cave obscurantism or notes from ward 6. The original of this writings, apparently, was taken from here - http://www.peshera.org/khrono/khrono-01.html There is much more interesting to read there. About UFOs, for example. Or "billions of civilizations in the universe."
    It is no longer funny even to what stupidity they have reached.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 24 July 2013 23: 44 New
      0
      Damn it! Accidentally clicked the wrong way - by minus. And recall in no way
      fool
      Excuse me
      hi
      Plus to you of course!
  • pa_nik
    pa_nik 24 July 2013 09: 49 New
    +1
    May God give us Memory! .. and do not deprive us of Reason good "The Poles are a vindictive people ... now they remember and will not forget for another five centuries." Although these with their "itching" reveal the real history, the nemchura painfully tried to turn our history around in the XNUMXth century.

    I’m interested in this topic for some time .. Here - about the ancient country of Tartaria, its outposts, defensive wall with a length of more than 2 thousand km (Great China - nervously smokes aside lol ).

    http://kadykchanskiy.livejournal.com/127704.html