Igor Melnikov, especially for "Belarusian Partisans", 12:14 16/03/2015
The Vitebsk region, the Mogilev region and the Gomel region have never been “originally Russian” lands. This is the historical truth.
Recently, new collectors of “Russian lands” have sharply become more active.
Thus, the well-known hater of everything Belarusian, Kirill Averyanov-Minsky, published another anti-Belarusian opus with a claim to historical research.
The annexation of Crimea and the war with Ukraine completely turned their heads. In certain Russian circles it has become fashionable to talk about some kind of Slavic unity of the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian peoples. Pseudo-analysts and the same historians strive to prove Moscow’s rights to the “original Russian lands”, allegedly illegally “torn off” from Russia at different times.
Over the past five years, the activities of the “Western Russian fifth column” on the territory of Belarus have been aimed at convincing Belarusians that throughout their history their lands were connected with the “Third Rome”, and all other stories in the history of Belarus were either invented by nationalists , or have a Polish or, more simply put, Western trace.
Adherents of “one and indivisible” stop at nothing, challenging even the Belarusian authorities. Do you remember the story about how, after a speech in parliament on April 22, 2014, Alexander Lukashenko scolded the then Vitebsk leadership for not “dealing with” the former official of one of the district youth affairs departments of Vitebsk, Andrei Gerashchenko? “Over there, somewhere at Kosinets’s place, I don’t want to give his last name, I don’t remember anymore, some figure began to declare that, you see, the Russian language is being infringed upon here - “hurray, hurray, Crimea, there is Russia” and so on.
I regret that he hasn't been thrown out of there yet. You understand? These are provocateurs. They create the ground for contradictions in our country,” Lukashenko said a year ago. And what, were any sanctions followed against this supporter of the “Russian world”? No. His “creations” are still sold in bookstores in the Belarusian capital. Central Belarusian TV channels invite him to their events. But people like Gerashchenko threaten not only the national identity of our people, but also the current Belarusian government.
While the domestic intelligentsia is quietly and peacefully trying to promote the Belarusian language, culture and history to the masses, adherents of Western Russianism are actively striving to create conditions in Belarus for some kind of “Russian spring”, which will be accompanied by the emergence of “people’s republics”, the stronghold of which will be “polite green men” " It is these ideas that are actively promoted through anti-Belarusian Internet resources, operating, among other things, on the territory of our country (for example, zapadrus.su imperiya.by, etc.).
A reasonable question arises: who poses a real danger to the official authorities: Belarusian historians and cultural experts who are returning Belarusians to their national consciousness, or supporters of the “single and indivisible” Russian empire, who question the borders of the Belarusian state and invite “spontaneously arisen self-defense” to our country "in Russian camouflage?
The answer, I think, is obvious. The next opus erupted from Kirill Averyanov-Minsky, who was deprived of the opportunity to enter Belarus. This time the “expert” drew attention to the events associated with the consolidation of the territory of Soviet Belarus in the 1920s. They say that it was in vain that these Belarusians were given the Vitebsk, Mogilev and Gomel regions, because these territories were allegedly originally Russian and never belonged to Belarus. To substantiate his thoughts, the Russian imperialist cites quotes from the then (1920s) “responsible” comrades who opposed the “withdrawal” of regions from the RSFSR and their transfer to Belarus. But have these eastern Belarusian regions always been part of Russia?
Let's take an excursion into the past of our country to understand who took Vitebsk, Mogilev and Gomel from whom. So, the city on the Vitba River in ancient times occupied an important position on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” and until 1021 belonged to the great princes of Kyiv. Later, Vitebsk came into the possession of the Polotsk prince Bryachislav Izyaslavich, after whose death in 1101, it became the center of the Vitebsk principality. In 1320, Gedymin's son Olgerd became the prince of Vitebsk. After 50 years, Jagiello became the new owner of the city on Vitba, and then the first castles appeared here. In 1444, by charter of Grand Duke Kazimir Jagelonczyk, Vitebsk was given the right of self-government (which was confirmed several times in the 16th century). Since the beginning of the 16th century, the city on Vitba has been attacked by its eastern neighbors. It is from this moment that Moscow’s struggle for Belarusian Vitebsk begins. The city was besieged in 1502 and 1516.
And three years later, Moscow troops managed to capture the Lower Castle (and a significant number of local residents were killed). During the Inflationary War of 1558-1582. “guests from the East” again besieged Belarusian Vitebsk, but were unable to take it. In March 1597, the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III Vasa endowed Vitebsk with Magdeburg law. At this time, a voivodeship was created on the territory of the Vitebsk region (Vitebsk and Orsha povets). In the middle of the 17th century, Vitebsk was one of the largest cities of the ancient Belarusian state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
But in 1654, the Moscow State attacked the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. During this war, Vitebsk was taken by Russian troops. After this, a significant number of city residents, Vitebsk artisans and craftsmen were captured and forcibly taken to the East. The city was returned to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania only in 1667. During the Northern War in 1708, by order of Peter I, the city on Vitba was burned.
Finally, as a result of the First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, a significant part of the Vitebsk Voivodeship with the city of Vitebsk went to the Russian Empire. In turn, Mogilev was first mentioned in the chronicles of the 14th century. Then it belonged to Grand Duke Svidrigailo.
In 1526, a new castle was built in the city on the Dnieper. In 1577, Mogilev acquired Magdeburg Law. In the 16th century, the “Dnieper outpost” played a vital role in the economic life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But, as you know, Moscow did not intend to peacefully coexist with the “half-blooded” Grand Duchy of Lithuania and sought to “gather Russian lands.”
During the Inflationary War of 1558-1582. Mogilev was attacked by Moscow troops, as a result of which a significant number of its inhabitants died. During the XVI-XVIII centuries. the city on the Dnieper was actually the center of Orthodoxy on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The famous Mogilev printing house worked here. But in 1654, brothers of the same faith from the East captured Mogilev. The troops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were able to recapture the city only in 1661. At the same time, King Jan II Casimir granted Mogilev a new coat of arms, which has survived to this day. By the way, today you can see the ancient Belarusian “Pursuit” on this symbol.
The next test for the city was the Northern War, as a result of which Mogilev suffered from Russian and Swedish troops. In 1772, the city on the Dnieper, together with the Mogilev volost (economy), was torn away from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and became part of the Russian Empire.
Finally, Gomel was first mentioned in chronicles in 1142. Since the 14th century, the city on Sozh has been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During the war of the Moscow State against the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1500-1503. the owners of the city went over to the side of Moscow. In 1535, the troops of the Grand Duchy under the command of Yuri Radziwill, using modern terminology, liberated the city from the separatists. Since that time, Gomel has been the center of the Gomel eldership. During the Inflationary War of 1558-1582. the city was burned by Moscow troops. The tragedy repeated itself in 1632-1634. when Gomel was attacked by the Cossacks.
During the war of 1654-1667. The Belarusian city was captured by the Cossacks of Hetman Ivan Zolotenko, who interacted with Moscow troops. As a result of the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667, Gomel returned to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Polesie city also suffered during the Northern War, when Russian troops were in the city. In 1772, the city on Sozh, together with the Gomel volost, became part of the Romanov Empire. In 1775, Catherine II donated these territories for eternal hereditary possession to the Russian military leader P. A. Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky. The royal rescript indicated that Gomel was given “for amusement.” In 1779, the Gomel eldership included 82 villages with 12,665 households.
In total, as a result of the First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia annexed 92 thousand km2 of the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with a population of 1 million 300 thousand people.
Later, on these lands, Paul I created the Belarusian province, which Alexander I then divided into Vitebsk and Mogilev (the latter included Gomel). Immediately after the inclusion of the East of Belarus into the Russian Empire, Catherine II ordered “all matters to be carried out in the Russian language.”
The Russian provincial and zemstvo courts that were soon created also used only the “great and mighty”. The Moscow Orthodox Church also played a role, also pursuing a policy of Russification. At that time, the Bishop of the Minsk Orthodox Diocese V. Sadkovsky declared: “I will eradicate you, destroy you, so that your damned Lithuanian language (i.e. Belarusian) and you will no longer exist. I’m sending you into exile.”
In 1782, the tsarist authorities created the Commission for the Organization of Public Schools, and a few years later Russian main and small public schools began to appear in Belarus.
On March 15, 1789, such an institution opened in Mogilev... In 1839, the empire abolished Uniatism in Belarus, essentially the Belarusian religion. A year later, the use of the name “Belarusian provinces” was officially prohibited in relation to the territories occupied as a result of the three divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
As a result, until October 1917, Belarus was officially called the Northwestern Territory of the Russian Empire. The Russification policy of the tsarist authorities led to the formation of the “Tuteisha syndrome” among Belarusians.
This is largely due to the fact that at the time of the proclamation of the BPR and the BSSR, many residents of the Belarusian territories did not understand the significance of what the independence of their Motherland would bring them. Unfortunately, this problem is still relevant today.
Thus, it becomes clear that in the 1920s the Bolsheviks “gave” to the Belarusians what had belonged to our people for centuries. The Vitebsk region, the Mogilev region and the Gomel region have never been “originally Russian” lands. These territories were historically part of the ancient Belarusian state - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
This is the historical truth.
“An article in the “Minority Opinion” section is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. The point of view of the editors of “Belarusian Partisan” may not coincide with the point of view of the author.
The editors are not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and act solely as a carrier.
You can send your article by email [email protected] for placement in the “Minor Opinion” section, which we will publish.”
Original taken from geogen_mir
in THE FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF Rus'. Why is the history of Russia the biggest secret on Earth?
This material was intended as an attempt to answer the question of why our true history is hidden from us. A short historical excursion into the area of historical truth should enable the reader to understand how far from the truth is what is presented to us as the history of the Russian people. In fact, the truth may shock the reader at first, as it shocked me, it is so different from the official version, that is, a lie. I came to many conclusions on my own, but then it turned out that, fortunately, there are already works of several modern historians of the last decade who have seriously studied the issue. Only, unfortunately, they, their works, are not known to the general reader - academicians and the authorities in Russia, well, they really don’t like the truth. Fortunately, there are interested ARI readers who need this truth. And today is the day when we need her in order to answer -
Who are we?
Who are our ancestors?
Where is the Heavenly Iriy, from which we must draw strength?
V. Karabanov, ARI. 09/01/2013 05:23
FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF Rus'
Vladislav Karabanov
To understand why we need historical truth,
we need to understand why the ruling regimes in Rus'-Russia
a historical lie was needed.
History and psychology
Russia is deteriorating before our eyes. The huge Russian people are the backbone of the state, which decided the destinies of the world and Europe, under the control of crooks and scoundrels who hate the Russian people. Moreover, the Russian people, who gave the name to the state located on its territory, are not the owner of the state, are not the administrator of this state and do not receive any dividends from this, even moral ones. We are a people deprived of our rights in our own land.
Russian national identity is at a loss, the realities of this world are falling upon the Russian people, and they cannot even stand up, group themselves in order to maintain balance. Other nations are pushing back the Russians, and they are convulsively gasping for air and retreating, retreating. Even when there is nowhere to retreat. We are squeezed on our own land, and there is no longer a corner in the country of Russia, a country created by the efforts of the Russian people, in which we can breathe freely. The Russian people are so rapidly losing their inner sense of right to their land that the question arises about the presence of some kind of distortion in self-awareness, the presence of some kind of defective code in historical self-knowledge that does not allow relying on it.
Therefore, perhaps, in search of solutions, we need to turn to psychology and history.
National self-awareness is, on the one hand, an unconscious involvement in an ethnic group, in its egregor filled with the energy of hundreds of generations, on the other hand, it is the reinforcement of unconscious feelings with information, knowledge of one’s history, the origins of one’s origin. In order to gain stability in their consciousness, people need information about their roots, about their past. Who are we and where are we from?
Every ethnic group should have it. Among ancient peoples, information was recorded by folk epics and legends; among modern peoples, who are usually called civilized, epic information is supplemented by modern data and is offered in the form of scientific works and research. This information layer, which reinforces unconscious sensations, is a necessary and even obligatory part of self-awareness for a modern person, ensuring his stability and mental balance.
But what will happen if people are not told who they are and where they are from, or if they tell them lies and invent an artificial story for them? Such people endure stress because their consciousness, based on information received in the real world, does not find confirmation and support in the ancestral memory, in the codes of the unconscious and images of the superconscious. The people, like people, seek support for their inner self in the cultural tradition, which is history. And, if he does not find it, this leads to disorganization of consciousness. Consciousness ceases to be whole and falls into fragments.
This is precisely the situation in which the Russian people find themselves today. His story, the story of his origin, is fictitious or distorted so much that his consciousness cannot focus, because in his unconscious and superconscious, it does not find confirmation of this story. It’s as if a white boy were shown photographs of his ancestors, where only dark-skinned Africans were depicted.
Or, on the contrary, an Indian raised in a white family was shown to be the grandfather of a cowboy. He is shown relatives, none of whom he resembles, whose way of thinking is alien to him - he does not understand their actions, views, thoughts, music. Other people. The human psyche cannot stand such things. The same story is with the Russian people. On the one hand, the story is absolutely not disputed by anyone, on the other hand, the person feels that this does not fit with his codes. The puzzles don't match. Hence the collapse of consciousness.
Man is a creature that carries complex codes inherited from his ancestors and, if he is aware of his origin, then he gains access to his subconscious and thereby remains in harmony. In the depths of the subconscious, every person has layers associated with the superconscious, the soul, which can either be activated when consciousness possessing correct information helps a person gain integrity, or blocked by false information, and then the person cannot use his inner potential, which depresses him. This is why the phenomenon of cultural development is so important, or if it is based on lies, then it is a form of oppression.
Therefore, it makes sense to take a closer look at our history. The one that tells about our roots.
Somehow it turned out strangely that, according to historical science, we more or less know the history of our people starting from the 15th century. Since the 9th century, that is, from Rurik, we have it in a semi-legendary version, supported by some historical evidence and documents . But as for Rurik himself, the legendary Rus', which came with him, historical science tells us more conjectures and interpretations than real historical evidence. The fact that this is speculation is evidenced by the heated debate surrounding this issue.
What is this Rus, which came and gave its name to a huge people and state, which became known as Russia? Where did the Russian land come from? Historical science, as it were, leads discussions. As they began to communicate at the beginning of the 18th century, they continue to do so. But as a result, they come to the strange conclusion that this does not matter, because those who were called Russia“did not have a significant impact” on the formation of the Russian people. This is exactly how historical science in Russia rounded off the question. That's it - they gave a name to the people, but who, what and why does not matter.
Is it really impossible for researchers to find an answer? Are there really no traces of the people, no information in the ecumene, where there are the roots of the mysterious Rus' that laid the foundation for our people? So Rus' appeared out of nowhere, gave its name to our people and disappeared into nowhere? Or were you looking poorly?
Before we give our answer and start talking about history, we need to say a few words about historians. In fact, the public has a deep misconception about the essence of historical science and the results of its research. History is usually an order. History in Russia is no exception and was also written to order, and given that the political regime here was always extremely centralized, it ordered the ideological construct that history is. And for the sake of ideological considerations, the order was for an extremely monolithic story, not allowing deviations.
And the people - Rus spoiled a harmonious and necessary picture for someone. Only in a short period at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, when some freedoms appeared in Tsarist Russia, were there real attempts to understand the issue. And we almost figured it out. But, firstly, no one really needed the truth then, and secondly, the Bolshevik coup broke out. In the Soviet period, there is nothing even to be said about objective coverage of history; it could not exist in principle. What do we want from hired workers who write to order under the watchful supervision of the Party? Moreover, we are talking about forms of cultural oppression, such as the Bolshevik regime. And to a large extent the tsarist regime too.
Therefore, it is not surprising the heaps of lies that we encounter when looking into the story that was presented to us, and which, neither in its facts nor in its conclusions, is true. Due to the fact that there are too many rubble and lies, and other lies and their branches were built on these lies and fabrications, in order not to tire the reader, the author will focus more on the really important facts.
Past out of nowhere
If we read the history of Rus', written in the Romanov era, in the Soviet era and accepted in modern historiography, we will find that the versions of the origin of Rus', the people who gave this name to a huge country and people, are vague and unconvincing. For almost 300 years, when attempts to understand history can be counted, there are only a few established versions. 1) Rurik, a Norman king, who came to the local tribes with a small retinue, 2) Came from the Baltic Slavs, either the Obodrites, or the Vagrs 3) A local, Slavic prince 3) The story of Rurik was invented by the chronicler
Versions common among the Russian national intelligentsia also come from the same ideas. But recently, the idea that Rurik is a prince from the Western Slavic tribe of the Vagr, who came from Pomerania, has become especially popular.
The main source for constructing all versions is “The Tale of Bygone Years” (hereinafter PVL). A few meager lines have given rise to countless interpretations that revolve around several of the above versions. And all known historical data are completely ignored.
What’s interesting is that somehow it turns out that the entire history of Rus' begins in 862. From the year that is indicated in the “PVL” and begins with the calling of Rurik. But what happened before is practically not considered at all, and as if no one is interested. In this form, history looks only like the emergence of a certain state entity, and we are not interested in the history of administrative structures, but in the history of the people.
But what happened before that? The year 862 almost looks like the beginning of history. And before that there was a failure, almost emptiness, with the exception of a few short legends of two or three phrases.
In general, the history of the Russian people that is offered to us is a history that has no beginning. From what we know, we get the feeling that the semi-mythical narrative began somewhere in the middle and halfway through.
Ask anyone, even a certified historian-specialist in Ancient Rus', or even an ordinary person, as for the origin of the Russian people and their history before 862, all this is in the realm of assumptions. The only thing that is offered as an axiom is that the Russian people descended from the Slavs. Some, seemingly nationally minded representatives of the Russian people, generally identify themselves ethnically as Slavs, although the Slavs are still more of a linguistic community than an ethnic one. This is complete nonsense.
It would also look ridiculous, for example, if people who speak one of the Romance languages - Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian (and its dialect, Moldavian) discard the ethnonym and begin to call themselves “Romanes”. Identify yourself as one people. By the way, the gypsies call themselves that - Romals, but they hardly consider themselves and the French to be fellow tribesmen. The peoples of the Romance language group are different ethnic groups, with different destinies and having different origins. Historically, they speak languages that have absorbed the foundations of Roman Latin, but ethnically, genetically, historically and spiritually, these are different peoples.
The same applies to the community of Slavic peoples. These are peoples who speak similar languages, but the fates of these peoples and their origins differ. We will not go into detail here, it is enough to point out the history of the Bulgarians in whose ethnogenesis the main role was played not only and perhaps not so much by the Slavs, but by the nomadic Bulgarians and local Thracians. Or the Serbs, like the Croats, take their name from the descendants of the Aryan-speaking Sarmatians. (Here and further, I will use the term Aryan-speaking, instead of the term Iranian-speaking used by modern historians, which I consider false. The fact is that the use of the word Iranian-speaking immediately creates a false association with modern Iran, in general , today, quite an eastern people. However, historically the word Iran itself, Iranian, is a distortion of the original designation of the country Arian, Aryan. That is, if we talk about antiquity, we should use the concept not Iranian, but Aryan). The ethnonyms themselves are presumably the essence of the names of the Sarmatian tribes “Sorboy” and “Khoruv”, from which the hired leaders and squads of the Slavic tribes came. The Sarmatians, who came from the Caucasus and the Volga region, mixed with the Slavs in the area of the Elbe River and then descended to the Balkans and there they assimilated the local Illyrians.
Now as for Russian history itself. This story, as I have already indicated, begins, as it were, from the middle. In fact, from the 9th-10th century AD. And before that, in established tradition, there was a dark time. What did our ancestors do and where were they, and what did they call themselves in the era of Ancient Greece and Rome, in the ancient period and during the period of the Huns and the great migration of peoples? That is, what they did, what they were called and where they lived directly in the previous millennium is somehow inelegantly kept silent.
Where did they come from, after all? Why do our people occupy the vast space of Eastern Europe, by what right? When did you appear here? The answer is silence.
Many of our compatriots have somehow become accustomed to the fact that nothing is said about this period. In the minds of the Russian national intelligentsia of the previous period, it seems to not exist. Rus' follows almost immediately from the Ice Age. The idea of the history of one’s own people is vague and vaguely mythological. In the reasoning of many, there is only the “Arctic ancestral home”, Hyperborea, and similar matters of the prehistoric or antediluvian period.
Then, more or less, a theory was developed about the Vedic era, which can be attributed to a period several thousand years BC. But in these theories we do not see a transition to our history itself, a transition to real events. And then, somehow immediately, passing a couple of millennia, virtually out of nowhere, Rus' appears in 862, the time of Rurik. The author in no way wants to enter into controversy on this issue and even in some ways divides the theories according to the prehistoric period. But in any case, Hyperborea can be attributed to the era of 7-8 thousand years ago, the era of the Vedas can be attributed to the times of the 2nd millennium BC, and maybe even earlier.
But as for the next 3 millennia, the times directly adjacent to the era of the creation of the historical Russian state, the time of the beginning of a new era and the time preceding the new era, practically nothing is reported about this part of the history of our people, or false information is reported. Meanwhile, this knowledge provides the keys to understanding our history and the history of our origin, respectively, our self-awareness.
Slavs or Russians?
A common and undisputed place in the Russian historical tradition is the approach that Russians are an original Slavic people. And, in general, almost 100% there is an equal sign between Russian and Slavic. What is meant is not a modern linguistic community, but rather a historical origin of the Russian people from ancient tribes identified as Slavs. Is it really?
What’s interesting is that even ancient chronicles do not give us grounds to draw such conclusions - to deduce the origin of the Russian people from Slavic tribes.
Let us cite the well-known words of the Russian initial chronicle for the year 862:
“We decided to ourselves: let’s look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right.” I went across the sea to the Varangians to Rus'; for all I know, I called the Varangians Rus, as all my friends are called Ours, my friends are Urman, Anglyans, friends of Gate , tako and si. Decided by Rus' Chud, Slovenia and Krivichi: “all our land is great and abundant, “but there is no outfit in it: let you go and reign over us.” And the three brothers were chosen from their generations, girding all of Rus', and they came; the oldest Rurik sede in Novegrad; and the other is Sineus on Beleozero, and the third is Izborst Truvor. From those the Russian land was nicknamed Novugorodtsy: they are the people of Novugorodtsi from the family of Varangian, before Slovenia."
It is difficult to learn something new, but in these chronicles, in different versions, one important fact can be traced - Rus named as a certain tribe, people. But no one considers anything further. Where did this Rus' then disappear to? And where did you come from?
The established historical tradition, both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, assumes by default that Slavic tribes lived in the Dnieper region and they are the beginning of the Russian people. However, what do we find here? From historical information and from the same PVL, we know that the Slavs came to these places almost in the 8th-9th centuries, not earlier.
The first completely incomprehensible legend about the actual foundation of Kyiv. According to this legend, it was founded by the mythical Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv, with their sister Lybid. According to the version given by the author of The Tale of Bygone Years, Kiy, who lived on the Dnieper mountains together with his younger brothers Shchek, Khoriv and sister Lybid, built a city on the right high bank of the Dnieper, named Kiev in honor of his older brother.
The chronicler immediately reports, although he considers it implausible, a second legend that Kiy was a carrier on the Dnieper. So what is next!!! Cue is named the founder of the town of Kievets on the Danube!? These are the times.
“Some, not knowing, say that Kiy was a carrier; At that time, Kyiv had transportation from the other side of the Dnieper, which is why they said: “For transportation to Kyiv.” If Kiy had been a ferryman, he would not have gone to Constantinople; and this Kiy reigned in his family, and when he went to the king, they say that he received great honors from the king to whom he came. When he was returning, he came to the Danube, and took a fancy to the place, and cut down a small town, and wanted to sit in it with his family, but those living around did not let him; This is how the Danube residents still call the settlement - Kievets. Kiy, returning to his city of Kyiv, died here; and his brothers Shchek and Horiv and their sister Lybid died immediately.” PVL.
Where is this place, Kievets on the Danube?
For example, in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron it is written about Kievets - “a town which, according to Nestor’s story, was built by Kiy on the Danube and still existed in his time. I. Liprandi, in his “Discourse on the ancient cities of Keve and Kievets” (“Son of the Fatherland”, 1831, vol. XXI), brings K. closer to the fortified city of Kevee (Kevee), which is described by the Hungarian chronicler Anonymous Notary and which was located near Orsov, apparently in the place where the Serbian city of Kladova is now (among the Bulgarians Gladova, among the Turks Fetislam). The same author draws attention to the fact that, according to Nestor, Kiy built K. on the way to the Danube, therefore, perhaps not on the Danube itself, and points to the villages of Kiovo and Kovilovo, located about 30 versts from the mouth of Timok. »
If you look at where present-day Kyiv is located and where the above-mentioned Kladov is with nearby Kiovo at the mouth of Timok, then the distance between them is as much as 1 thousand 300 kilometers in a straight line, which is quite far even by our times, especially by those times. And what, it would seem, is common between these places. We are clearly talking about some kind of insinuation, substitution.
Moreover, the most interesting thing is that Kievets really was on the Danube. Most likely, we are dealing with traditional history, when settlers, moving to a new place, transferred their legends there. In this case, Slavic settlers brought these legends from the Danube. As is known, they came to the Dnieper region from Pannonia, pressed in the 8th-9th centuries by the Avars and the ancestors of the Magyars.
That is why the chronicler writes: “When the Slavic people, as we said, lived on the Danube, the so-called Bulgarians came from the Scythians, that is, from the Khazars, and settled along the Danube and were settlers in the land of the Slavs.” PVL.
In reality, this story with Kiy and the glades reflects ancient attempts not so much to tell as to distort real facts and events.
“After the destruction of the pillar and the division of the peoples, the sons of Shem took the eastern countries, and the sons of Ham took the southern countries, and the Japhethites took the west and the northern countries. From these same 70 and 2 languages came the Slavic people, from the tribe of Japheth - the so-called Noriks, who are the Slavs.
After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where the land is now Hungarian and Bulgarian. From those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and were called by their names from the places where they sat." PVL
The chronicler clearly and unambiguously says that the Slavs lived in territories other than the lands of Kievan Rus, and are alien people here. And if we look at the historical retrospective of the lands of Rus', it is clear that they were by no means a desert, and life has been in full swing here since ancient times.
And there, in the Tale of Bygone Years, the chronicle conveys to the reader information about the settlement of the Slavs even more clearly. We are talking about movement from west to east.
After a long time, the Slavs settled along the Danube, where the land is now Hungarian and Bulgarian (more often they point to the provinces of Rezia and Norik). From those Slavs the Slavs spread throughout the land and were called by their names from the places where they sat. So some, having come, sat down on the river in the name of Morava and were called Moravians, while others called themselves Czechs. And here are the same Slavs: white Croats, and Serbs, and Horutans. When the Volochs attacked the Danube Slavs, and settled among them, and oppressed them, these Slavs came and sat on the Vistula and were called Poles, and from those Poles came the Poles, other Poles - Lutichs, others - Mazovshans, others - Pomeranians
Likewise, these Slavs came and settled along the Dnieper and were called Polyans, and others - Drevlyans, because they sat in the forests, and others sat between Pripyat and Dvina and were called Dregovichs, others sat along the Dvina and were called Polochans, after the river flowing into the Dvina , called Polota, from which the Polotsk people took their name. The same Slavs who settled near Lake Ilmen were called by their own name - Slavs, and built a city and called it Novgorod. And others sat along the Desna, and the Seim, and the Sula, and called themselves northerners. And so the Slavic people dispersed, and after his name the letter was called Slavic.” (PVLIpatiev list)
The ancient chronicler, whether it was Nestor or someone else, needed to depict history, but from this history we only learn that not very long ago Slavic clans moved to the east and northeast.
However, for some reason we don’t find a word about the Russian people from the chronicler PVL.
And we are interested in this Rus- the people, which is with a small letter, and Rus', the country, which is with a capital letter. Where did they come from? To be honest, PVL is not very suitable for the purpose of finding out the true state of affairs. We find only isolated references there, of which only one thing is clear: Rus there was and it was the people, and not some individual Scandinavian squads.
Here it must be said that neither the Norman version of origin Rus' neither Western Slavic is satisfactory. Hence there are so many disputes between supporters of these versions, because when choosing between them, there is nothing to choose. Neither nor the second version allows us to understand the history of the origin of our people. But rather confusing. The question arises, is there really no answer? Can't we figure it out? I hasten to reassure the reader. There is an answer. In fact, it is already known in general terms, and it is quite possible to form a picture, but history is a political and ideological tool, especially in a country like Russia.
Ideology here has always played a decisive role in the life of the country, and history is the basis of ideology. And if the historical truth contradicted the ideological content, then they did not change the ideology, they adjusted the history. That is why the traditional history of Rus'-Russia is largely presented as a set of false statements and omissions. This silence and lies have become a tradition in the study of history. And this bad tradition begins with the same PVL.
It seems to the author that there is no need to slowly lead the reader to true conclusions regarding the past Rus'-Russia-Russia, consistently exposing the lies of various historical versions. Of course, I would like to build a narrative, creating intrigue, gradually leading the reader to the correct conclusion, but in this case it will not work. The fact is that avoiding historical truth has been the main goal of most historians, and the piles of untruth are such that hundreds of volumes would have to be written, refuting one nonsense after another.
Therefore, here I will take a different path, outlining our actual history, along the way explaining the reasons for the silence and lies that determined the various “traditional versions”. It must be understood that, with the exception of a short period at the end of the era of the Romanov Empire and our present day, historians could not be free from ideological pressure. Much is explained, on the one hand, by a political order, and on the other, by the readiness to fulfill this order. In some periods it was fear of repression, in others it was a desire not to notice the obvious truth in the name of some political hobbies. As we delve deeper into the past and reveal the historical truth, I will try to give my explanations
The degree of lies and the tradition of diverting from the truth were such that for many readers the truth about the origin of their ancestors would be a shock. But the evidence is so indisputable and unambiguous that only a stubborn idiot or a pathological liar would dispute a completely clear truth.
Even at the end of the 19th century, it was clearly possible to state that the origin and history of the Rus people, the state of Rus, that is, the past of the ancestors of the Russian people, is not a mystery, but is generally known. And it’s not difficult to build a historical chain of times to understand who we are and where we come from. Another question is that this contradicted political guidelines. Why, I will touch on this below. Therefore, our history never found its true reflection. But sooner or later the truth must be presented.
“It’s weird and weird all around,” “Russia is Muscovy, which arose after the collapse of the Golden Horde,” wrote Karl Max. He wrote that the cradle of Muscovy was “the bloody swamp of Mongol slavery, and not the harsh glory of the Norman era.” He wrote that Russian policy continued the policy of the Horde, and not the policy of Rus'. That Muscovy (the future Russia) was not the legal successor of Rus', but of the Golden Horde. Simply put, he discovered the lies of imperial historians, which he wrote about. This book is called "Secret Diplomacy of the 18th Century." Marx Karl. Secret diplomatic history of the eighth century. London, 1899. Why was Marx not published in its entirety in the USSR? One of his books was not published, not translated, not mentioned. The one in which Marx showed the history of Russia. What did he write there that made it not published?
But, let's talk about everything in order.
THE APPEARANCE OF Rus'
Rus' - as a state with a center in Kyiv - was created by the Polyan tribes. The Polyans have long lived on the right bank of the middle reaches of the Dnieper. And the land of Kyiv (the land of the glades) was called Rus long before the creation of the state. Polyansky cities: Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslav. Over time, the glades united with other Slavic tribes. Polyany, Drevlyans, Northerners, Dregovichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi, Krivichi, Ilmen Slovenes. Having united and assimilated, these eight tribal unions became the basis of Rus'. This common nationality later became known as Rusyns. The Rus or Ruthenians were the basis of Rus', with its center in Kyiv. As they would say now, this was the titular nationality of Rus'.
IMPERIAL Rus'
Rus', with its center in Kyiv, was a kind of imperial state. There was a center (Kyiv and the Kiev region) and there were colonies that paid tribute to the Rusyns. Among those who paid tribute were both Lithuanian and Finno-Ugric tribes. From Nestor’s chronicle: “And these are the other languages that give tribute to Rus': Chud, Merya, all, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordovians, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania, Zimigola, Kors, Noroma, Lib: these are their own language, from the tribe of Afetov, who live in the lands of midnight.” All conquered lands were also considered Russia. But the population of these colonies were not ethnically Rusyns. And they did not consider themselves Rusyns. They were “Russian people” only in the sense that they paid tribute to Rus'. Well, they had one faith (the common church) became after Rus' conquered these tribes. There was a cultural influence, yes. For a long time, only the Kiev region was considered Russia in the narrow sense. Then the Chernigov and Pereyaslav regions ethnically became Russia. And much later (at the end of the 12th century), the inhabitants of Galicia and Volyn became Rusyns. Then the Galicia-Volyn principality began to be called Russia. There were no more Rusyns anywhere. And there was no other Rus' anymore.
CHUD (FINNO-UGRIAN TRIBES)
The Finno-Ugrians, who paid tribute to Rus', lived between the Volga and Oka and in the Urals. In Rus' these territories were called Zalesie. This is the central part of modern Russia. Zalesye was annexed to Rus' somewhere in the 10th-11th centuries. At that time, Rus' had already existed for a century or two. And the Rusyns formed as an ethnic group. There is no exact data on the conquest of Zalesye. It is only known that it was not conquered immediately, but when Rus' became stronger. When the “conqueror” appeared. At the end of the 11th century, a separate principality was formed in Zalesye: Rostov-Suzdal. It had two centers: Rostov and Suzdal. In the 12th century, another center appeared: Vladimir. It is this land that in the literature of the 19th century is called Rostov-Suzdal or Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. But there are not and were not in the annals of many Rus: Kyiv, Northern or Seroburo-raspberry. Especially Rostov-Suzdal or Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. This is what historians of the Russian Empire in the 19th century came up with. “Kievan Rus” is the same artificial name as “Russia”. There was only one Rus'. It was called “Rus”.
FORMATION OF THE MUSCOVITE (RUSSIAN) ETHNOSE
In the 10th century, the Rostov-Suzdal land was mainly inhabited by Finnish tribes. It was on these lands that the ethnos of the modern Russian people began to form. Like any metropolis, Kyiv influenced the conquered peoples. Slavic settlers in Zalesye, of course, mixed with Finnish tribes. And, of course, the Finno-Ugrians and other tribes became Russified over time. They adopted both the language and the Orthodox faith. But to this day the Russian outback preserves the history of the Finno-Ugric peoples, not the Slavs.
Russian folk costume has nothing in common with Slavic clothing. Muscovite folklore is also atypical for the Slavs. Fictions about “the most Slavic,” the first and main Russian people, are simply ridiculous. Cities on Finno-Ugric lands were sometimes named in the Russian manner. Nevertheless, the rivers and most settlements still retain Finnish names. For example, a bunch of rivers and tributaries have a Finnish ending (-va, which means “water”). Zalesie, one might say, was located on the outskirts of Rus'. The peoples inhabiting it were poor due to difficult living conditions. There were almost no trade routes. There are forests and swamps all around. Therefore, the Kyiv princes did not consider these lands a “tidbit.” For a long time almost no attention was paid to them. The Rusyns did not flock in droves from their rich and warm lands to Zalesye. There were few Rusyn settlers. In general, Rus' never moved to Muscovy en masse. And Muscovy was not originally Rus, and Muscovites were not Rusyns.
The Muscovite ethnic group formed as a hybrid somewhere in the second half of the 12th century. The Rusyns, as an ethnic group with a separate state and name, have existed since the 10th century. That is, modern Russians are the youngest East Slavic ethnic group. Not the eldest, but the youngest. Not a brother, but a neighbor.
Rus' AND CHUD
The Finno-Ugrians themselves (Chud) did not call themselves Russia. In their chronicles, they contrasted themselves with Rus'. What colony would not oppose itself to a metropolis alien to it? This contrast is clearly visible in the Laurentian Chronicle and the Ipataean Chronicle. And they describe the events of the 12th-13th centuries. That is, even in the 12th century and at the beginning of the 13th century, the Novgorod-Suzdal land was not considered Russia. Neither the Rostov-Suzdal land, nor Ryazan, nor the Smolensk region, nor the Vladimir land. Russia was only the land of the glades, that is, the metropolis in the Kyiv lands. And yes, Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities; mother of Rus' - the land of Polyana. And other cities of expanding Rus' that never belonged to the future Muscovy.
The Russians believe..., attention: that their first state (Rus) appeared about 400 years earlier than they themselves... and that it was precisely their state.
CONQUEST OF Rus' BY THE TATARS
At the beginning of the 13th century, due to internecine wars, Rus' weakened and fell under the onslaught of the Tatars. The Tatars conquered Rus', Poland, Hungary, and the northern Balkans.
Returning from a victorious campaign, the Tatars created their own state. This is how the state of the Golden Horde appeared on the lower Volga. The lands of Rus' did not enter the Golden Horde as part of the state, but became its vassals. Now Rus' itself was forced to pay tribute. The collapse of Rus' further separated the lands of Rus' and Zalesye from each other. And culturally, ethnically, and politically.
MOSCOW, OR MOSCOW STATE
Where did Muscovy come from? The Finno-Ugrians were first under Russia, then under the Tatar Horde. Partly under the influence of Rus' they became Russified, and under the influence of the Horde they became Tatarized. Moreover, they were very excited. But Russian historians deliberately exaggerate the influence of Rus'. And the influence of the Horde is deliberately downplayed. It gets to the point of ridiculousness: they practically deny the influence of the Horde on Muscovy. And this despite the fact that the Muscovite lands were under the Golden Horde for almost 300 years. What are these 300 years to us? Ha ha! We didn't even notice! So here it is. Only after the collapse of the Golden Horde were formed:
Muscovy
Khanate of Kazan
Kasym Khanate
Crimean Khanate
Khanate of Astrakhan
Khanate of Siberia
Moscow as a small settlement with this Finnish name is mentioned in surviving writings only from the middle of the 12th century. In the 16th century, this name spread to the entire Moscow Principality. A common thing for those times: the city of Rome gave the name to the Roman Empire, Moscow - the Moscow Empire.
Actually, then the Moscow Principality itself appeared on the international scene. Only in the 16th century. This is the beginning of Russian statehood.
Most of the peoples of Europe, as Evgeniy Nakonechny writes, begin their history with the emergence of their independent states in the 9th-10th centuries.
Russians are probably the only ones who believe that their first state (Rus) appeared about 400 years earlier than themselves.
But it was different: first, the Muscovite ethnic group appeared in the second half of the 12th century. Then, in the 15th century, the Moscow State appeared, and in the 16th century it appeared to its neighbors. This is what Marx wrote about: “Astonished Europe, which at the beginning of the reign of Ivan III barely noticed the existence of Muscovy, squeezed between Lithuania and the Tatars, was stunned by the sudden appearance of a huge state on its eastern borders.”
So, Moscow, Muscovy, Muscovy State. It was ruled by a prince, and the first Tsar of Moscow appeared in the 17th century. That is, first the Tatar khan was replaced by a prince, and later the prince was replaced by a king. The center was moved to Moscow. But, under the Moscow prince, the nobility remained almost entirely Tatar.
The policy of Muscovy was a continuation of the policy of the Horde. Which, in fact, is what Karl Marx wrote about. And Marx, and Gumilev, and Platonov. Many actually wrote. Then Catherine II simply rewrote history (more precisely: she continued this work). And those historians who wrote the truth had a very sad fate.
LIP ROLLED HALF THE WORLD
The Principality of Moscow was the successor to the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal. Which itself was part of the Golden Horde for almost 300 years. If Muscovy was someone’s successor, it was the successor of the Golden Horde. Muscovy was not and could not be the successor of Rus'. What Rus'? Which side? Trubetskoy: “The Moscow state arose thanks to the Tatar yoke. The Moscow tsars, far from having finished “gathering the Russian land,” began to collect the lands of the western ulus of the Great Mongolian monarchy: Moscow became a powerful state only after the conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia. The Russian tsar was the heir of the Mongol Khan. "The overthrow of the Tatar yoke" came down to replacing the Tatar khan with an Orthodox king and moving the khan's headquarters to Moscow."
Just like that. On the one hand, Muscovy collected the Horde lands, and on the other, the lands of Rus'. Still collecting. Crimea is also the land of the former Golden Horde. So Muscovy declared itself the successor of both Rus' and the Golden Horde. I rolled out the royal lip halfway around the world and still can’t find it.
Until 1721, only the name “Moscow” or “Moscow State” was officially used. Until this time, there was no official Russia, supposedly the heir of Rus'. Because before that time the Muscovites had not yet managed to steal either the name or the history of Rus'. Then the name of the Moscow state was deliberately changed.
In 1721, the Muscovite kingdom captured the lands of Rus', the name of Rus' and the history of Rus'. They did a rebranding, as they say: they stole the name Rus and turned Muscovy into Russia. This name is not popular. It's artificial. But this is precisely where the myth-making of Great Russia or Great Russia began.
Less than 100 years have passed since Russia-Muscovy began to be called true Russia. Muscovites began to be called Russians or Great Russians. Rusyn-Ukrainians suddenly became “Little Russians”. The lie was repeated so many times that it began to seem true.
But it didn’t become true. At the same time, the conquest of Rus' by Muscovy ceased to be recognized. What conquest? One land, one people. Is it possible to conquer your people? No. Combine as much as possible by gathering together. Good thing, right? A lie that has a beginning but no end. A meanness the like of which is hard to find in history.
When Muscovy changed its name, the Rusyns changed the name of their land. In order not to identify Rus' and Muscovy, Rus' began to be called Ukraine more often. And they began to call themselves more often not Rusyns, but Ukrainians. Because different peoples should be called differently.
Now the Rusyn-Ukrainians are being intensively told that they did not exist. That the people did not have a name, therefore there were no people. That there were no people because it didn’t have a name. That the Rusyn-Ukrainians did not have their own state.
Where did the older brother come from? It was invented only in the 30s of the XX century. That is, this concept is only about 70 years old. The older brother is like Russians to Ukrainians and Russia to Ukraine. Also to all other peoples of the USSR, Russia is also an older brother. Stalin is the father, and Russia is the elder brother.
The three “Slavic peoples” were declared equal, but the Russians were always written first. The Russian people became first among equals. Some, as you know, are always more equal than others. Although no. Is nationality important? In no case. Therefore, column 5 was mandatory (nationality). Therefore, the peoples of the USSR were deported based on the entry in this column. Therefore, Russia now justifies its aggression in Ukraine by “protecting Russians.” It doesn’t matter that only half of Crimea is Russian. It doesn’t matter that there are even fewer Russians in the eastern regions of Ukraine. Who cares about other peoples and nations? Only the Russians are ahead and higher, the rest will move forward.
The myth about the primacy and seniority of Russians is still being propagated. How else can we renew the Russian Empire or a semblance of the USSR led by Russia? On what basis otherwise would Ukrainian lands be seized again?
Three (un)fraternal peoples:
The ancestors of the Ukrainian people are tribes that lived on the territory of modern Ukraine (Volinians, Derevlyans, Polyans, White Croats, Ulichs, Tivertsy and Siverians) and did not move anywhere. In the 10th century, the Rusyns had already formed as a separate ethnic group.
The tribes occupying the territory of modern Belarus (Dregovichi, Krivichi, Radimichi mixed with the Balts, who settled in this territory before them) became the ancestors of the Belarusian people.
The Ilmen Slovenes formed a separate Pskov-Novgorod ethnic group, which was partially destroyed and partially assimilated by Moscow only in the 15th-16th centuries.
On the lands of Zalesye, Slavic settlers mixed with Finnish tribes and the youngest East Slavic ethnic group was formed - Muscovites, future Russians. This was sometime in the second half of the 12th century. Then the “Great Russians” appeared on the historical stage. The first of them was Andrei Bogolyubsky. He became famous for destroying Kyiv in 1169. He burned, killed, robbed, took prisoners. They don’t destroy their cities like that. Only strangers. This was not something like a “civil war” between the Rusyns. Rus' and Kyiv were strangers to the prince from Zalesye and his army. By the way, the Russian church recently recognized him as a saint.
The facts of liar historians who justify the great power do not confuse them. For this purpose, lying is the very first means. Lomonosov, Miller, Soloviev, Klyuchevsky, Pokrovsky and a bunch of other scientists wrote that the basis of the people of Muscovy are the Finno-Ugric tribes (Chud). Some of them said that Russians have 1/5 Slavic blood. And all this would not matter if the Russians themselves did not want to be the first and main Slavic people.
In addition to the article.
PS. Before Peter I, Muscovy considered itself part of the Islamic world. Moscow weapons at one time were entirely “Muslim”. They not only put Arabic words on it, but even entire verses from the Koran and Islamic prayers. Why this was done and how to explain it today, about this in the article → “Muscovy before Peter I”.
The noble prince Alexander Nevsky begs Khan Batu to spare the Russian land. Colored engraving from the 19th century.
Muscovy (Russia) paid tribute to the Crimean Khan, its sovereign and master, the legal successor of the Golden Horde, until 1700. The Tsar of Muscovy met the Crimean ambassador on Poklonnaya Hill, sat him on his horse, on foot, under the bridle, led the horse with the Crimean ambassador to the Kremlin, sat him on his throne and knelt before him...
1. Tsar Peter I renamed the state called Muscovy to Russia already in the 18th century, in 1721.
2. The Moksha tribe named their river Moscow, and the translation of this name, from the Moksha language, sounds like “dirty water.” Any other languages in the world cannot translate the word Moscow. The word “kremlin” is Tatar and means fortifications on a hill.
Z. In the Middle Ages, all cartographers of Europe wrote and drew the border of Europe along the borders of Rus' (Rus is the territory of present-day Ukraine). Muscovy, an ulus, with its Finnish peoples, has always been a component of the Horde, and Europe rightly attributed it to Asia.
4. Muscovy (Russia) paid tribute to the Crimean Khan (!), its SOVEREIGN and MASTER, who was the legal successor of the Golden Horde, until 1700. The Tsar of Muscovy met the Crimean ambassador on Poklonnaya Hill, sat him on his horse, on foot, under the bridle, led the horse with the Crimean ambassador to the Kremlin, sat him on his throne and knelt before him (!?).
5. In 1610, in Muscovy, the Chengizid dynasty (a relative of Genghis Khan) ended with Boris Godunov (Murza Gudun), and Alexei Koshka from the Finnish Kobyly family was elevated to the throne, and when he was crowned into the Kingdom, the church gave him the surname Romanov, who allegedly came from Rome to rule Muscovy.
6. Catherine II, after the occupation of the last free Russian Power - the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the territory of Belarus) in 1795, by her order ordered to call the Finno-Ugric tribes of Muscovy some kind of Great Russians, and the Ukrainians - true Russians - Little Russians.
7. No one has ever seen in the original the agreement on reunification between Muscovy and Ukraine, allegedly signed by B. Khmelnitsky and Tsar A. Romanov.
8. For several centuries now, archaeologists in Muscovy have been looking for artifacts confirming the authenticity of the Battle of Kulikovo, but so far without success, but the fable about D. Donskoy’s victory over Mamai is still sung at the top of their voices.
9. Pskov, Novgorod, Smolensk regions of Russia are former Slavic-Russian Principalities, and had nothing to do with Finno-Ugric Muscovy until Muscovy-Horde occupied them in 1462, 1478 and 1654, respectively. And in other regions of Russia (Muscovy) Slavic tribes and peoples have never lived.
10. The Golden Horde and its daughter, Muscovy, are the only countries in the world that kept their own people as slaves. This explains the eternal backwardness of Muscovy, rich in natural resources, from European countries relatively deprived of natural resources. After all, the efficiency of free people is much higher than that of slaves.
Format: A4. R distribution: Russia. Release schedule: 1 time per month. Readership of issue 1: 459,000 people*
Exclusive advertising in the magazine
The magazine “Historical Truth” has been published since 2017, publishing house S-Media. The essence of the magazine “Istoricheskaya Pravda” is extremely simple - it is the history of our country. The authors of editorial materials tell about the history of our country in a very interesting way, avoiding boring officialdom and tediousness! Moreover, everything that is written about in the magazine is documented facts! Nothing is invented, nothing is “from one’s own” or “pulled out of thin air.” Only facts told in interesting and accessible language! Everything that was previously carefully hidden, that was not written about in school textbooks and official encyclopedic literature, can now be read in the magazine “Istoricheskaya Pravda”. Everything secret gradually becomes clear, and turns out to be much more interesting than the information that was considered to be true.
In every issue of the magazine "Historical Truth" original and very entertaining versions of various events in the history of our country. The secrets of famous people and the scandalous events associated with them, their shortcomings and deepest vices, the magazine “Istoricheskaya Pravda” will tell you all the ins and outs of historical celebrities. Read and be surprised!
The most important thing in the magazine "Historical Truth" there is not a shadow of lies or fabrications! Everything our journalists write about are reliable, verified historical facts, which are simply not convenient or customary to talk about!
Start of the magazine "Historical Truth" They provided regular information inserts in other thematic publications dedicated to various antics of famous historical characters, as well as the successfully developing “Forbidden History” project. But since the magazine “Forbidden History” publishes materials not only about our country, it was decided to create a separate magazine, “Historical Truth,” for those who like to look for the truth specifically about our historical characters. The information in the “Istoricheskaya Pravda” magazine is presented quite harshly and uncompromisingly. The materials were prepared by our own correspondents, and the stories obtained from reliable sources are the high professionalism of our authors.
Magazine "Historical Truth" published once a month, on 36 pages of A4 format, nationwide distribution, by subscription and retail, in the largest press sales networks KARDOS Retail, MEDIA DISTRIBUTION, SALES, ROSPECHAT, SOYUZPECHAT, ARPI SIBERIA, Segodnya-Press, YugMediaPress, MS PLUS and many others. And also in the supermarket chains MAGNIT, PYATEROCHKA, DIXY, AUCHAN, MONETKA and other food stores, and in 42,000 branches of the Russian Post. Any advertisement intended for a wide readership will work well in the Historical Truth magazine.
* The readership of the 1st issue of the publication was determined by direct survey (telephone interviews and printed questionnaires) of readers conducted by the publisher. Coverage: Russia (August-November 2018)
When history books lie. The past that never happened [with illustrations] Balabukha Andrey Dmitrievich
Historical truth
Historical truth
The Hundred Years' War, which lasted intermittently from 1337 to 1453, was an exclusively family matter - the right to the French throne was disputed by immediate relatives (it is not for nothing that in the history of England this period is called the “time of the French kings”). For our heroine this is of decisive importance: in any other situation, her story would have been either completely different or impossible at all.
The august wife of the French crown-bearer Charles VI the Mad, Isabella of Bavaria (better known as Queen Isabeau), was distinguished by such an ardent temperament that of her twelve children, only the first four, apparently, owed their birth to her husband. The fathers of the others were the king's younger brother, Duke Louis of Orleans, as well as a certain Chevalier Louis de Bois-Bourdon. Her last child was Jeanne, born on November 10, 1407, an illegitimate daughter who was given to be raised in the family of impoverished nobles d'Arches. Born in adultery, she nevertheless remained a princess of the blood - the daughter of a queen and the brother of a king; this circumstance explains all the oddities of its subsequent history. And even the nickname Maid of Orleans testifies not to the heroic command of the troops near Orleans (by the way, there were other, truly outstanding military leaders - the mentioned Count of Dunois, Jeanne’s half-brother, as well as our hero Gilles de Rais), but to belonging to the House of Orleans dynasty Valois.
The very next day after the official presentation at the Chinon court, Jeanne talked with the Dauphin Charles, and - and this is noted by all the witnesses - she sat next to him, which only a princess of the blood could afford. When the Duke of Alençon appeared, she unceremoniously asked:
- Who is this?
- My cousin Alençon.
- Welcome! – Zhanna said benevolently. – The more of us there are, in whom the blood of France flows, the better...
The confession, you see, is completely straightforward.
By the way, in battles Jeanne used not only the sword of the great constable, but also a battle ax specially forged for her, on which the first letter of her name was engraved - J, topped with a crown. The evidence is, frankly speaking, eloquent. To appropriate a heraldic attribute that did not rightfully belong to oneself, and even of such a rank, was simply unthinkable in the 15th century. A few days after Joan was wounded in the vicinity of Paris on September 8, 1429, she donated this weapon to the Abbey of Saint-Denis as a votive offering. To this day, there remains a tombstone-like stone slab depicting Joan in armor - in her left hand she clutches a battle ax with a clearly visible "J" under the crown. There is no doubt that it is the Virgin of Orleans that is depicted, for the inscription on the slab reads: “This was the equipment of Joan, which she gave as a gift to St. Denis."
The “voices” that called Joan to fulfill a high mission also become more understandable if we remember not about the d’Arque family, but about her actual ancestors and relatives: her grandfather, Charles V the Wise, was married to Joan of Burgundy, who went down in history as Zhanna the Mad; father, Louis d'Orléans, suffered from hallucinations; half-sister Catherine of Valois, wife of the English king Henry V Plantagenet, too; their son Henry VI is again known as the Madman...
Historians have known all this for a long time. Including - and that Jeanne was not burned at the stake at all: after all, royal blood is sacred (the number of executed august persons was later opened by the unfortunate English queens - first the wives of Henry VIII, then Mary Stuart); a monarch or prince of the blood can be deposed, captured, imprisoned, finally killed - but in no way executed.
In manuscript No. 11542, stored in the British Museum, it is said in a dull tone: “in the end they ordered it to be burned in front of all the people. Or some other woman who looks like her. Which a lot of people had and still have different opinions about.” The so-called “Chronicle of the rector of the Cathedral of St. Thibault in Metz” is much more categorical: “In the city of Rouen in Normandy, she was put on the stake and burned. That’s what they say, but the opposite has since been proven!” The very circumstances surrounding the execution are suggestive. Firstly, Jeanne was not given unction before her execution, but this rite in the 14th–15th centuries was mandatory for everyone except children and the righteous. The virgin, accused of having relations with the devil, was by no means a righteous woman! From this circumstance, the historian Robert Ambelain concludes: “... she was denied this highest sacrament, since it was known that she was by no means destined to die.” Secondly, eight hundred English soldiers literally drove the people out of the Old Market Square, where the fire was built. Then, under an escort of 120 people, a certain woman was brought there, whose face was hidden by a low-pulled hood. But usually those sentenced to burning walked with their heads covered only with a paper cap or crown.
Who really was burned then in Rouen? Some historians believe that it was some kind of sorceress (either Jeanne la Turkenne, or Jeanne Vanneril, or Jeanne la Guilore). Others say that a certain nun died at the stake, convicted of lesbian love or bestiality, who voluntarily preferred a quick death to a long decline in prison. I'm afraid we will never know.
But it has been proven that until February 1432, the Maid of Orleans remained in honorable captivity in the castle of Bouvereuil in Rouen, then she was released, on November 7, 1436 she married a certain widowed knight Robert des Armoises, Seigneur Tichemont (a great way to legally change her name!), and in 1436 she re-emerged from oblivion in Paris, where she was recognized by her former associates and treated kindly by Charles VII (tenderly hugging her, the king exclaimed: “Virgin, darling, welcome again, in the name of God ..."). Joan of Arc (now Dame des Armoises) died in the summer of 1449.
Everyone knows about this - except those who do not want to know. It’s just a pity that the name of these unwilling ones is legion. However, it is not surprising: after all, living in the familiar paradigm of myth is much calmer and more convenient, while in a professional environment, any attempts at myth are most often perceived as heresy. Of course, they won’t lead you to the stake (these are not the times!), but they will certainly look askance at you, and you can put a big bold cross on your academic career with an unwavering hand.
From the book After all by Polevoy Boris3. The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth A long line of witnesses, citizens of different states, people of different professions, of different intellectual levels, has already passed before the Tribunal. From their testimony, often simple and ingenuous, the face of Nazism even emerges
From the book When History Textbooks Lie. The past that never happened [with illustrations] author Balabukha Andrey DmitrievichHistorical truth The Hundred Years' War, which lasted intermittently from 1337 to 1453, was an exclusively family matter - the right to the French throne was disputed by immediate relatives (it is not for nothing that in the history of England this period is called the “time of the French kings”). For our
From the book “About the Current Moment” No. 3(75), 2008. author USSR Internal Predictor4. Russia and the behind-the-scenes bosses of the West: historical reality and historical necessity The second fundamental conclusion is as follows: Unless you are a purist, disgustedly turning your face away from the specific facts of world history and its dominant feature - the biblical
From the book Political Class No. 42 author Magazine "Political Class"Deontological war with Russia. Historical truth as propaganda
From the book Imperialism of the Dollar in Western Europe author Leontyev A.1. The myth of the “peaceful” growth of American capitalism and historical truth It is necessary first of all to expose one legend. Lackeys of American imperialism and, above all, right-wing socialists like Leon Blum, Karl Renner and co. spread the myth that the United States is supposedly
From the book Faschizophrenia author Sysoev Gennady BorisovichChapter 12. Union: truth and “Ukrainian truth” To manipulate consciousness, truthful facts are also needed. There was the Great Famine of 1933 - on this today Ukrainian official and semi-official propaganda are building a false and absurd myth, creating a “new version” of our history. There's only one in it
From the book Everything you wanted to know about Jews, but were afraid to ask author Burovsky Andrey MikhailovichThe first truth The truth about a single people, or Who are the Jews? It is madness to neglect Judaism; it is useless to argue with the Jews; to understand Judaism better, although it is more difficult. B. S. Solovyov Indeed... Who are they? Many people are sure that they know: Jews are such a
From the book There Will Be No Other Russia author Belyakov SergeyTruth Four Truth about the Judaic civilization The aristocracy of the garbage dump Dictates the fashion for morality. I don’t care, but my heart is bitter, And sadness hits my liver. Street song 1992 What is civilization? “Civilization is a collection of people standing between the people and
From the author's bookThe fifth truth The truth about the Jews of Eastern Europe Having set off across the world, Ready for any unknown, the Jew populates the planet, Changing in the image of the terrain. I. Guberman In Ancient Russia The chronicle tale about the “test of faith” tells that the Jews also praised the prince
From the author's bookThe sixth truth The truth about the appearance of Jews in the Russian Empire, or Greetings from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Through kings and pharaohs, Leaders, sultans and kings, Having mourned the death of millions, A Jew walks with a violin. I. Guberman Award for the bravery of Russian troopsIn 1772, the first
From the author's bookThe seventh truth The truth about the love of Jews for the land There is no one in the world quicker and quicker, Quicker and quicker (like a bird), than a middle-aged sick Jew, looking for an opportunity to feed himself. I. Guberman Attempt to turn into peasantsCatherine II also wanted to resettle Jews to new
From the author's bookThe eighth truth The truth about the role of Jews in the Russian Empire When a bowlful of happiness is scooped up, When everyone is cheerful and cheerful, Aunt Pesya remains a pessimist, Because Aunt Pesya is smart. I. Guberman Beginning It is very difficult to say whether Alexander II wanted
From the author's bookThe tenth truth The truth about the role of Jews in the “liberation movement” Russian spiritual greatness is growing in attics and cellars. They'll come out and hang each other on poles for the slightest difference. I. Guberman Shvonder's adventures in RussiaFor decades of Soviet power
From the author's bookTruth Eleventh Truth about participation in the revolution Demons rush swarm after swarm In the boundless depths, With pitiful squeals and howls, Breaking my heart. A. S. Pushkin One of the secrets of empires Empires are generally quite mysterious formations. One amazing feature: each
From the author's bookTruth thirteenth Truth about Russia without Jews Gentlemen still live in Britain today. They are all 70 or 80 years old. K. Huty Three types of Jews in Russia Karen Huty published her book in 1993. Today, English gentlemen are no longer 70–80, but 80–95 years old. Many of them even after ten,
From the author's bookAn assault rifle in the hands of a child: historical truth and mythology of war Prologue I was lucky enough to see the time when veterans of the Great Patriotic War could be found in every yard: not only on holidays, but also on weekdays they wore medal bars on their jackets, otherwise
