© Copyright A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij

                         (SHORT SCHEME)


    This   article   is   devoted   to   the   investigation   of
traditional version of English chronology and English history.  It
should be mentioned that this tradition was  established  only  in
15-17th cc.(and especially by Scaliger and Petavius) as a  result
of attempts to construct the global chronology of Europe and Asia
at that time.
    The results of our investigation show that modern version  of
English history (which is in fact a slightly  modernized  version
of 15-16th cc.), was artificially prolonged backward  and  became
much more long as it was in reality. The real history of England,
as it was reflected in written documents, was  much  more  short.
The same is true for other countries.
    In correct version, ancient and medieval English  events  are
to be transferred to the  epoch  which  begins  from  9-10th  cc.
Moreover, many of these events prove to  be  the  reflections  of
certain events from real Byzantine-Roman history  of  9-15th  cc.
Consequently, the Great Britain Empire is a direct  successor  of
medieval Byzantine Empire.
    This effect for English history corresponds  to  the  similar
"shortening effects" for traditional histories of other countries
(Italy, Greece, Egypt, Russia etc.). Such effects were discovered
earlier  by  the  authors  (see  our  previous  publications).  A
discussion of the  whole  problem  of  global  chronology  and  a
history of this problem one can find in [1],[24]. English history
is not an exemption from the "rule".
    We do not think that all  speculations  which  are  suggested
here  are  final  ones.  Surely,  they  are  subject  to  further
corrections and clarification. Nevertheless, the general  concept
is quite clear and seems to be a final one.
    The aim of present work is only to present main points of our
new version of reconstruction of the real English history.


   2.1. The most old English chronicles

         2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
         2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum"
         2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum".
                "Histoires of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of
         2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles

    2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations and
         countries according to ancient English chronicles?

    2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history

         2.3.1. Scotland  and  England: two parallel "dynastic
         2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D. England
                as the Roman colony
         2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830. Six kingdoms and their
         2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. The epoch is finished by
                Danish conquest and then by disintegration of
                Dutch kingdom in England
         2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066. Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon
                dynasty and it's fall
         2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327. Norman dynasty and after
                it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards
         2.3.7. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.


    3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams of England and
         Byzantine-Roman empire

    3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England
         from one side and medieval Byzantine empire from another side.
         General concept of correspondence between English and
         Byzantine histories

    3.3. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism

         3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and Byzantine
                history 378-553 A.D. 275-year shift
         3.3.2. English history of 800-1040 and Byzantine
                history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift
         3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and Byzantine
                history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift


    4.1. Our new concept of English history

    4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
         into  the  medieval  English  history  (of  the   island


    5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered Britain
         (and the first king of britts)

    5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a contemporary
         of Julius Caesar?

    5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles

    5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper  way?  Problem
         of vowels restoration

    5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events

         5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical
         5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
         5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?

    5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
         England were located on islands?

    5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
         Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?

    5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =

    5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain =

    5.10. Where was London located in 10-11th cc.A.D.?

    5.11. Who were scots in 10-12th cc.A.D. and were did they live?
          Where was Scotland located in 10-12th cc.A.D.?

    5.12. Five original languages of ancient Britain. Which
          nations used these languages and where did they live
          in 10-12th cc.A.D.?

    5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms
          Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
          10-12th cc.A.D.?

    5.14. A shift of originally Byzantine map to the land of
          modern Great Britain resulted in duplicating of many
          geographical terms

    5.15. William I the Conqueror and  Hastings  battle  in  1066
          A.D. The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.

         5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine
                 empire have the same origin
         5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story
         5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's
         5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from
                 Byzantine and English chronicles

    5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English
          chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to
          galats and who they were?


                        1. INTRODUCTION

    This work belongs to the scope of investigations carried  out
by authors in order to give a critical analysis  of  ancient  and
medieval chronology, and also - to try a reconstruction  of  real
ancient chronology. The whole history of the problem one can find
in  A.T.Fomenko's  books  [1],[24].  In  these  books  some   new
statistical methods of obtaining true dates  for  ancient  events
recorded in old chronicles were suggested. As  a  result,  a  new
chronology of Europe, Asia, Egypt and Northern Africa based on  a
statistical investigation of  ancient  texts,  was  suggested  in
[1],[24]. One also can find there a list of all  publications  by
A.T.Fomenko and his colleagues devoted to chronological problems.
    This new concept of global history  and  chronology  confirms
some ideas  which  were  expressed  by  different  scientists  in
16-20th cc. The most  important  were  ideas  of  famous  Russian
scientist N.A.Morozov (1854-1946) who had an extremely wide range
of scientific interests in many  different  branches  of  natural
science and  history.  Very  interesting  works  devoted  to  the
problems of traditional chronology were written by Isaac  Newton,
J.Gardouin, R.Baldauf, E.Johnson and others.
    As  a  result  of  application  of  statistical  methods   to
historical science, A.T.Fomenko discovered a "fiber structure" of
our modern "textbook in ancient and medieval history". In such  a
way we will call a  modern  chronological  tradition  in  history
which is expressed in all our textbooks. It was proved that  this
"textbook" consist of four more  short  "textbooks"  which  speak
about the same events, the same historical  epochs.  These  short
"textbooks" were then shifted one with respect to  other  on  the
time axis and then glued together preserving  these  shifts.  The
result is our modern "textbook"  which  shows  the  history  much
longer than it was in reality. To be more precise, we speak  here
only about a "written" history, i.e.,  such  history  which  left
it's traces in  written  documents  which  finally,  after  their
certain evolution, we possess today. Of course before  it,  there
was a long "pre-written" history, but  information  about  it  is
    Resume is as follows. History which  we  in  principle  could
learn about today,  starts  only  in  9-10th  cc.  "A.D."  (i.e.,
1100-1200 years ago). And the very name "A.D."  attached  to  the
era which we use now, is not correct.
    New results concerning the problem of reconstruction of  real
ancient chronology one can find  in  two  last  Fomenko's   books
[4,5] devoted to history and chronology.
    An important step  to  the  reconstruction  of  real  ancient
chronology was made by publication  of  a  book  [3]  written  by
A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskij. In this book  the
true  date  of  compilation  of  a  famous   ancient   scientific
manuscript,  the  Ptolemy's   "Almagest",   was   (approximately)
determined as a  result  of  statistical  analysis  of  numerical
astronomical data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is  assumed
that the "Almagest" was compiled not later than in 2nd c. A.D. In
[3] it is proved that the real date of it's  compilation  belongs
to the time interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
    Later, in 1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V.  Nosovskij  applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In  Russian   history
there also were discovered chronological shifts  and  duplicates.
It proves to be very much different from  well-known  version  of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of  Romanov  dynasty
reign in Russia. The book  "Chronology  and  General  Concept  of
Russian History" by  A.T.Fomenko  and  G.V.  Nosovskij  is  being
printed (in Russian).
    In  1992-1993  authors  recognized  that   the   history   of
development of English chronology and English history itself is a
very interesting and important point in the whole scope of global
chronology  reconstruction.  In  our  analysis  of  Russian   old
documents it was necessary to use also  some  English  documents.
And immediately we came upon several such amazing facts that,  it
become quite clear to us that English history  (which  is  rather
"spoiled"  in  modern  "textbook")  gives   new   and   important
information to the reconstruction of real  chronology  of  Europe
and Asia.
    We tried our best to make  this  work  independent  from  our
previous works. Nevertheless, such dependence exists. That is why
we recommend to anyone who really wants to understand  the  whole
problem of reconstruction  the  English  history  as  it   as  in
reality, to look through mentioned  above  books  and  scientific
publications by authors. We believe that this work  is  good  for
the beginning and it could serve  as  a  starting  point  to  the
reader. We tried to avoid citation from other our works here  (as
far as it was possible).
    It is pleasure for us to thank Mrs. Laura Alexander (USA) for
her  excellent  assistance  in  arranging  materials   concerning
English history. Her  energy  very  much  inspired  our  work  on
English history.
   We thank T.N.Fomenko for several  good  ideas  which  improved
some of our results  concerning  parallels  between  English  and
Byzantine history and also for valuable remarks which  made  this
text better.


              2.1. The most old English chronicles

               2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

    To understand a material we are going  to  present  here,  it
would be better if a reader knows main things from English, Roman
and Byzantine history. As to  Roman  and  Byzantine  history,  we
assume that it is more or less the case. But old English  history
is not so generally well-known. That  is  why  we  are  going  to
present here a brief review of "English history textbook".
    Surely, we could simply suggest that a reader  looks  through
one of modern books concerned  with  English  history  before  he
reads  this  paper.  But  all  such  books  are  necessarily  the
secondary texts which, in fact, copy an information from more old
texts and documents devoted to English history.  The  problem  is
that this coping proves to be not so good (part of information is
lost). That is why we prefer to analyse medieval historical texts
themselves rather then modern textbooks, which are based on them.
An important advantage of these medieval texts is that they  were
written more close to the time of  creation  of  now  traditional
global chronological  version  (it  was  I.Scaliger's  one).  Our
experience says that an information about old  history  was  been
lost while publishing new and new textbooks from that time up  to
now. Medieval texts are more valuable for reconstruction of  real
    Our analysis  was  based  mostly  on  three  famous  medieval
English chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius' "Historia
Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus Monemutensis'  "Historia  Brittonum"
[9]. In fact, these texts form a basis for modern concept of  old
and medieval English history.
    Also we used well-known  "Chronological  Tables"  which  were
compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of 19th  c.  These
fundamental tables  cover  all  historical  epochs  which  seemed
important to experts in the end of 19th century.
   Now it is assumed that so-called "legendary"  English  history
started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in  12-13th  cc.  B.C.
Nevertheless a 1000-year period from Trojan war to the  epoch  of
Julius Caesar (1st c. B.C.) is  considered  usually  as  a  "dark
    From  the  time  of  creation  and  establishment  of  modern
chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and  D.Petavius  in  16-17th
cc.) it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60
B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But it  is
known today that documents speak about English history only  from
approximately 1 A.D., i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It
was the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its records ([2],
    The  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  consists  of  several   separate

     Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle
                      (60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),
     Manuscript B: The Abigdon Chronicle I
                       (A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),
     Manuscript C: The Abigdon Chronicle II
                      (60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),
     Manuscript D: The Worcester Chronicle
                      (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079),
        (with twelfth-century addition 1080 - 1130 A.D.),
     Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle
                      (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),
     Manuscript F: The Bilingual Canterbury Epitome
                      (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).

    It is well-known that all these  manuscripts  duplicate  each
other in the sense that they all speak about the same events, but
in more or less details. That is why all they are placed  in  the
publication [2] parallel to  each  other  in  a  very  convenient
manner,  which  makes  it  easy  to  compare  different   records
concerning the same year. Maybe, all these manuscripts  have  the
same written original and in fact represent different scripts  of
one old chronicle.
   Anglo-Saxon Chronicle covers an epoch  from  1  A.D.  to  11th
century (except manuscript E which stops in 1153).
    It is traditionally assumed that all these  manuscripts  were
written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in the form  which  we
have today. But it is only a hypothesis which is  strongly  based
on the Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very natural. For
example, manuscript A exists now only in two "copies" and both of
them were made only in 16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The  original
version (from which these two copies were made)  was  practically
burned out in a fire. As  to  other  manuscripts  of  Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, their history is not clear from [2]. For  example,  it
is not pointed out what were the methods of determining of  dates
when existing copies were made. One could have an idea  that  the
dating was as follows: if last records of these manuscripts refer
to 11-12th cc., then the copies we  now  posses  are  necessarily
written just in that form in  11-12th  cc.  Leaving  aside  other
objections, we must say that this speculation in fully  based  on
Scaliger's chronology. If real dates  of  last  mentioned  events
change, then such dating of a manuscript would also change.
    Difficulties with reconstruction of a true story for origin
of these manuscripts are well-known among experts. For
example David Knowles had to claim that:
     "The question  of  provenance  and  interdependence  of  the
various versions [of the Chronicle] are so complicated  that  any
discussion soon assumes the appearance  of  an  essay  in  higher
mathematics" ([2],p.xxxi).
    Moreover, G.N.Garmonsway says that  any  modern  analysis  of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles Plummer's  revision
(1892-1899) of it's original edition published by John  Earle  in
1865. It should be mentioned that manuscripts A and E  are  again
"associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with  certain  persons
from 16th century - Archbishop Parker (1504-1575) and  Archbishop
Laud (1573-1645). Here is his text:
    "Any account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary  based
on Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John Earle (1865)
which was published in two volumes by the Oxford University Press
in 1892-9... Plummer's edition... gives  prominence  on  opposite
pages to manuscripts A and E, associated  respectively  with  the
names  of  Archbishop  Parker  (1504-75)  and   Archbishop   Laud
(1573-1645);...The other manuscripts were once in the  possession
of Sir Robert Cotton (1571-1631), and are  to  be  found  in  the
Cottonian   collection   of   manuscripts    in    the    British
    It seems that all the manuscripts  of  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle
which are available today were actually written (or revised)  not
earlier than in 15-16th centuries. However, they  are  considered
to be written in this form  in  11-12th  cc.  Probably  the  only
reason for such point of view is that traditional  dates  of  the
last events from Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  belong  to  this  epoch:
11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It  is  possible  that
events from 11-12th cc. were described by somebody in 15-16th cc.
and we actually possess his secondary text which  could  be  very
far from an original version. And also, the dates of events  from
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle strongly depend  on  a  used  chronological
concept. If it changes then the dating of  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle
would change automatically.
     There is a strong argument which suggests  that  manuscripts
of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a  rather  late  origin.
The problem is that all these manuscripts use modern  "A.D."  era
which came into regular practical use only in 15th century. It is
a known fact in traditional history. Later we will  also  present
some  facts  which  suggest  that  the  authors  of   Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle were already familiar with  J.Scaliger's  chronological
concept (16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological concept
of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
was written much later then it is usually accepted.
    The reason for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be  paid  such  great
attention in  our  reconstruction  of  English  history  is  very
simple. It turns out that
     "Thanks to the example of Bede, the Chronicle is  the  first
history written in English  to  use  his  mastery  innovation  of
reckoning years as from the Incarnation of Our Lord -  "Years  of
Grace" as they were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).
   Concerning  the  way  of  presenting  dates   in   Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we should  make  a  remark.  It  is  accepted  that  in
medieval England they used for "A.D." era the following  formula:
"Years from the Incarnation of Our Lord". It  is  accepted  today
that this formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of Grace".
But this equivalence in not so evident  and  requires  a  special
investigation. (We will return to this subject later and  discuss
it in more details). Note that  there  is  a  strange  similarity
between two well-known names-terms
                        Grace - Greece.
    Maybe the  original  (and  forgotten  today)  meaning  of  a
formula "Years of Grace"  differs  from  one  which  is  accepted
today. Maybe it was "years in Greece", "Greek years" or something
like this. It is possible also that there is a  relation  between
terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of Christ associated
in some sense with a name of country "Greece"? For example Christ
religion = "Greece religion"? It might  be  because  in  medieval
epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine  empire,  and  another  it's
name was Romea, Rome. So Christian,  "Roman"  religion  could  be
called also as "Greek religion"; but if so then there might be  a
confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old "Greek", Byzantine
era which was used  sometimes,  as  well  as  "A.D.",  with  it's
thousands omitted. It could be not obvious which era was actually
used in an old documents which  indicate  "Years  of  Grace".  Of
course, such kind of similarity between different terms could not
be considered as very strong arguments supporting  any  point  of
view. It play a role of preliminary speculations  and  should  be
considered as a serious argument only in the case when it appears
(repeats) constantly  in  a  long  historical  parallelism,  when
similar names arise simultaneously for hundreds of years  in  two
different epochs after one of them is shifted in time as a  whole
and then compared with another one.
    Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written in a very  laconic  manner,
it was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them devoted  to
a certain year. Many years are not described at  all  (there  are
some  lacunas  in  the  text).  It  is  considered   today   that
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks about events from the  beginning  of
A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1.  The  text  of  Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle seem to  be  really  very  old.  Absence  of  long  and
"beautifully  designed"  periods  in  the   text   (typical   for
historical literature of 15-16th cc.) suggests  that  Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle is an important historical document which was based  on
some really ancient records. Surely, it was edited in 16-17th cc.
and  a  main  question  is:  what  credit  should  we   give   to
chronologists of 15-17 centuries who  actually  dated  events  in
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as we have it now?

             2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum".

    Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" is a rather  short  text,  only
about 24 pages in [8].
    There exist more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius'  book  which
are known today (see [8]).
    "The earliest manuscripts are dated today  by  9th  or  10th
centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even  14th  centuries.  In
some of the manuscripts  are  indications  that  the  author  was
Gildas. Nennius is called as the author sufficiently rare.  Thus,
this manuscript is possibly - compilation...  The  original  text
was lost, we do not have it today. But  there  exists  its  Irish
translation of 11th century" ([8],p.269).
    Translation was  made  from  the  publication:  "Nennius  et
l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934.
    Some manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals Cambriae",
which is considered to be compiled approximately in 954 A.D.
    Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" does not have nor chronological
subdivision neither any chronological notes except the  following
two ones:
    1) A table titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at
the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time  distances   in
years between some biblical events -  and  already  according  to
Scaliger's calculations, which were carried out only in 16th c.
    2) Chapter XVI of the "Historia" has a section  titled  "The
ground of the dating" , which speaks about the relative distances
(in years) between a few events from English history.
    In both cases chronological notes are very brief.
    Resume is that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote the
"Historia".  It's  original  text  does  not   exist   today,   a
translation which is considered to be carried out in 11th c.  The
text does not have it's  own  chronological  scale.  Surely,  all
questions  which  arise  with  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle,  refer  to
"Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is  written  in  a  free
artistic manner with many stylistic accessories. It suggests that
this manuscript is of rather late  origin.  Such  text  could  be
written only in an  atmosphere  of  a  deep  and  well  developed
literary tradition when many people use writing and reading books
and paper is not a treasure.
    It is accepted today that Nennius describes certain events in
a time interval from the epoch of Trojan war to 10-11th cc.  A.D.
In fact it is  a  result  of  only  a  traditional  chronological
concept (which  suggests  that  short  Nennius'  text  covers  an
extremely large 2000-year historical period) that one could  find
today giant lacunas in chronology of "Historia". Fig. 1 shows  by
a dotted line the epoch which is  considered  to  be  covered  by
"Historia".  According  to  traditional   chronological   concept
Nennius easily omits whole centuries in his  story,  makes  giant
chronological jumps without any explanations.  He  seems  not  to
notice it at all and continues his story after such jumps  as  if
nothing was missed.

      2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum".
  "Histories of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth".

    It is  generally  accepted  today  that  this  chronicle  was
written  in  30th  or  40th  of  12th  century  ([8],  p.196)  by
Galfridus Monemutensis who based it on  Nennius'  text, sometimes
even copying Nennius "errors" ([8], p.231, comments to chap.  17;
see also [8], p.244). Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather  big
one - about 130  pages  in  [8].  In  opposition  to  Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle his text has no chronological subdivision (no indication
about years). His writing style was rather complicated, with many
accessories,  moralities,  philosophical  excursions  et  cetera.
Galfridus is even considered to be not a historian only but  also
a poet. Surely, the traditional  point  of  view  that  Galfridus
wrote his book after Nennius, is correct. It is known  also  that
Galfridus made an extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History  of  the
English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9], p.244). It  is
assumed that Bede's "History" covers 597-731 A.D.
    It is remarkable that  modern  commentators  point  out  "the
extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation of the antique
tradition"  ([9], p.207). For example, Galfridus  not  only  used
ancient plots, but also copied  a  stylistic  manner  of  ancient
authors ([9], p.207). It seems that  Galfridus  writes  his  book
being fully influenced by the atmosphere  of  antiquity.  It  was
pointed out that Galfridus copies some  of  his  topics  directly
from ancient authors (for example, from Stacius),  but  does  not
give any references ([9], p.236).
     Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum"  was  extremely
popular in medieval times. "Today we have about two hundreds (! -
Auth.)  copies  of  his  "History",...  which  were  written   in
different places  starting  from  12th  century  and  until  15th
century, i.e., up to appearance of  the  first  printed  edition"
([9],p.228). At first time "Historia" was  printed  in  Paris  in
    Fig. 1 shows a  historical  epoch  which  is  assumed  to  be
covered by Galfridus' text (according to traditional chronology).
Notice that it is approximately the same  time  interval  as  for
Nennius' case: namely, from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D.  Of
course, Galfridus' book is much bigger  then  Nennius'  one,  but
being referred again to the giant  2000-year  time  interval,  it
could  not  cover  it  all  without  huge  lacunas.  And  really,
traditional  chronology  states  that  Galfridus   "omit"   large
historical epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself does
not mind it  at  all.  He  calmly  continues  his  story  without
notifying a  reader  that  he  sometimes  actually  misses  whole
historical epochs in his chronology.

            2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles

    In our work we use also  some  other  English  chronicles  of
9-13th centuries, particularly those represented  in  a  book  by
V.I.Matuzova "English medieval documents"  [10].  Here  we  would
like to present a very interesting list  which  was  compiled  by
V.I.Matuzova as a result of her investigation of these chronicles
rather then to characterize them in details. We will discuss this
subject in the next section.

  2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations
     and countries according to ancient English chronicles?

    Many people use to think that medieval  chronicles  refer  to
such well-known areas (regions) as England, London, Russia,  Kiev
etc. with just the same names as today, and so in  general  there
is no problem to recognize what place old documents are  speaking
about. Sometimes, in more new documents, it is actually the case.
But in more old, original documents such situation  seems  to  be
rather an exception then a rule. Old chronicles  very  often  use
absolutely different geographical names and it  is  a  nontrivial
task to understand what regions (areas, towns et cetera) they are
really speaking about.
    It is also a problem that old documents in general use  many
different names for each country, land, nation  etc.  Very  often
these names have nothing to do with those we use today. The names
of ancient nations, countries and cities which are  known  today,
were fixed only in 18-20th centuries. But before that time  there
were  various  opinions  concerning  what  names  to  use.  These
opinions were often quite different from each other. It is a very
interesting question to analyse the  names  which  were  used  in
medieval English documents  for  cities,  nations  and  countries
which are so well-known today with their modern names.  It  turns
out after such analysis, that medieval authors seem to have quite
different views on old and ancient history. That  is  why  modern
specialists in history usually claim  that  almost  all  medieval
people  were  "extremely  wrong"  in  history,  that   they   had
"fantastic concepts" about it,  "confused  and  mixed  historical
epochs", "did not distinguish antiquity and medieval  epoch"  and
so on.
    In a  following  list  some  medieval  "synonyms"  of  modern
accepted names and terms are presented. Each entry  of  the  list
shows a modern term and is followed by it's medieval synonyms.

    AZOV SEA =                              ALANIA =
     Meotedisc lakes,                       Valana,
     Meotedisc fen,                         Alania,
     Maeotidi lacus,                        Valana,
     Maeotidi paludes,                      Valvy,
     palus   Maeotis,                       Polovtzy ?! - see below.
     paludes Maeotis,
     paludes Maeotidae,
     Paluz Meotidienes.

ALBANIANS =                               AMAZONS LAND  =
     Liubene,                               Maegda land,
     Albani.                                Maegda londe,

BULGARIANS =                              BUG RIVER =
     Wlgari,                                Armilla.

VANDALS =                              HUNGARY =
     Wandali,                               Hungaria,
     Sea-cost Slavs.                        Hunia,
                                            Minor Ungaria.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE =                     VALACHIANS =
     Graecia,                               Coralli,
     Constantinopolis,                      Blachi,
                                            Turks ! (see below).

VALACHIA =                               VOLGA RIVER =
     Balchia.                               Ethilia.

     Galacia,                               Gothia,
     Gallacia.                              Mesia,

HIBERNIC OCEAN =                       HIBERNIA =
     The English Channel                    Ireland (!)
     Hibernicum occeanum.

GOTHIA =                                GUNNS =
     Germany,                              Hunni,
     Island Gotland,                       Huni,
     Scandinavia,                          Hun.
     Tavrida (=old name of Crimea).

DACKS =                                 DENMARK =
     Dani,                                  Denemearc,
     Daneis.                                Dacia,

DUTCH =                              DARDANELLES (the strait) =
     Daci,                                  St. Georg strait =
     Dani,                                  branchium Sancti Georgii.

DERBENT (passage) =                  DNEPR RIVER =
     Alexander gates =                     Aper.
     Alexandres herga,
     Porta ferrea Alexandri,
     claustra Alexandri.

DOGI =                                DON RIVER =
     Russians (see below).                  Danai,

MEDIEVAL RUSSIA =                    DANUBE RIVER =
     Susie,                                 Danubius,
     Russie,                                Hister,
     Ruissie,                               Danuvius,
     Rusia,                                 Damaius,
     Russia,                                Deinphirus,
     Ruthenia,                              Danube.

IRON GATES =                          IRELAND =
     see "Derbent".                        Hybernia.

ICELAND =                             CAUCASUS =
     Ysolandia.                             beorg Taurus,

CASPIAN SEA =                         CASSARIA =
     Caspia garsecge,                       Chasaria (! (see below)
     mare Caspium.

KIEV =                                 CHINESE =
     Chyo (!),                              Cathaii.
     Cleva (!),
     Riona (!),

CORALLS =                               RED SEA =
     Wlaches (see above),                      mare Rubrum.
     Turks (see above),

ENGLISH CHANNEL =                          MARBURG =
     Hibernic ocean =                          Merseburg.
     Hibernicum occeanum.

MESIA =                                    MONGOLIANS =
     Moesia = Germany (see above),          Moal,
                                            Tatars (see above),

NARVA =                                     GERMANS =
     Armilla.                               Germanici=

NETHERLANDS =                              NORMANS =
     Frisia, Arise.                         Nordmenn.

OCEAN=                                   PECHENEGS (medieval
                                      neighbours of Russians) =
     Garsecg,                               Getae.

POLOVTZY (medieval
neighbours of Russians) =
                                        PRUSSIA =
     Planeti,                               Prutenia (!).
     Captac,                           (P-Rutenia = P-Russia).
     Cumani,                           PRUSSES =
     Comanii,                               Prateni,
     Alani,                                 Pruteni,
     Values,                                Pructeni,
     Valani.                                Prusceni,
     (See Comment 1.)                       Praceni,

RIONA =                                RUGS =
     Kiev (see above)                       Russians, , Sea-cost
                                            Slavs (see below)

RUSSIANS =                              RUTHENS =
     Russii,                                Russians (see above)
     Dogi (!),
     Rugi (!),
     Rutheni (!),

THE ARCTIC OCEAN =                      SITHIA =
     Scith ocean = Sciffia garsecg,      Scithia (see above)
     Occeanus Septentrionalis,
     mare Scythicum.

SCANDINAVIANS =                          SCITHIA =
     Gothi.                                 Sithia,
SCYTHS                                      Barbaria,
     Scithes,                               Scithia,
     Scythae,                               Scythia,
     Cit (!).                               Sice (!).

SEA-SIDE SCLAVI =                      TAVR =
     Winedas,                               Caucasus (see above)
     Wandali,                          TAVRIDA (CRIMEA) =
     Roge.                                  Gothia (!!!)

TANAIS =                               TATARS (MONGOLS) =
     Don (see above)                        Tartareori,
                                            gens Tartarins,
TYRRHENIAN SEA  =                           Tartari,
     mare Tyrene.                           Tartariti,

TURKS =                                URAL MOUNTAINS =
     Coralli,                               Riffeng beorgum,
     Thurki,                                Hyberborei montes,
     Turci,                                 montes Riph(a)eis,
     Blachi, Ilac, Blac (!!!).              Hyperborei montes.

FRANCE =                              FRISIA =
     Gallia,                                The Netherlands (see
     Francia.                               above.)

CHASARIA =                              CHASARS =
     Cassaria,                              Chazari.
     Cessaria (!!!).

CHIO =                                  BLACK SEA =
     Kiev (see above)                       Euxinus,
SCOTLAND =                                  mare Ponticum,
     Scotia,                                mare Majus.

CHINGIS-CHAN =                           JAROSLAV THE WISE
     Cingis,                              (Kiev Princeps Magnus) =
     Churchitan,                            Malesclodus,
     Zingiton,                              Malescoldus.
     Chircam,                               Juriscloth (= Jurius-
     Cliyrcam                                           Georgius),
     Gurgatan,                              Juliusclodius (= Julius-
     Cecarcarus,                                        Clodius).
     Ingischam,                             Julius Claudius.
     Tharsis (!),
     DAVID (!),

    One remark about Jaroslav the Wise. He was known in  medieval
England as "Malescoldus". According  to  M.N.Alexeev  [12]  there
were also some other names which were  applied  to  Jaroslav  the
Wise in Western historical tradition:
               Juriscloht (from Jurius-Georgius),
                       Juliusclodius (!),
(the last form of Jaroslav's name was used by Norman historian of
12th century - Gijom),
                        Julius Claudius,
(this form used by Orderic Vitali).

    Let us present a typical example of  old  English  historical
    "He escaped to the kingdom of Dogs, which we prefer to  call
RUSSIA. When the king of [this]  land  -  MALESCLODUS  -  learned
about him, he was given a great honor" ([13],[14]).
     Here is a Latin original text:
    "Aufugit ad regnum Dogorum, quod nos melius vocamus Russiam.
Quem rex terrae  Malescoldus  nomine,  ut  cognovit  quis  esset,
honeste retinuit" [13].
    Imagine please reading this old text without looking at  the
modern comments which suggest that Dogs Kingdom means the same as
Russia. The text would look like this:
    "He escaped to the Kingdom of Dogs. When  the  king  of  that
land learned about him, he was given a great honor."
   Most probably  such  text  would  be  understood  as  a  story
treating some medieval events in England or Scotland.  The   word
"Dogs" seems to designate a population in some part of England or
Scotland and the name "Malescoldus" very much looks like  a  name
of medieval English or  Scottish  king.  Such  an  interpretation
looks rather  natural.  One  knows  from  Scottish  history,  for
example, that there were several kings with  a   name  "Malcolm",
close  to  "Malescoldus":  Malcolm  I   (943-958),   Malcolm   II
(1004-1034), Malcolm III (1057-1093) etc.
   But  such  interpretation  of  this  text   would   definitely
transform some of ancient Russian events into English ones, i.e.,
into ones which are thought to  happen  on  the  land  of  modern
England. This example suggests that even a direct  understanding,
not to say about an interpretation, of  an  old  historical  text
could be rather ambiguous.
   Differences between  medieval  English  writer's  opinion  and
modern way of understanding and interpretation of medieval  terms
occur for texts written in 9-15th centuries (not  so  old  texts,
from the  point of view of modern tradition). It means that there
exist several possibilities to interpret medieval documents.  The
way of such interpretation which is in general use now, proves to
be not unique. It is only one of possible  ways,  maybe  not  the
best one. We are going to show here that  this  standard  way  is
really not enough supported  by  original  documents.  The  above
vocabulary of synonyms (medieval terms-duplicates) is very useful
for our analysis of English history.

    2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history

   2.3.1. Scotland and England: two parallel "dynastic streams"

     Fig. 1 shows a rough scheme of the English history as it  is
considered today. The beginning of English history is  placed  in
the 1st century  B.C.  (Julius  Caesar's  conquest  of  England).
Starting at this  moment  and  going  up  to  400  A.D.,  English
chronicles talk in fact about Roman history. Sometimes they  only
mention that certain Roman emperor visit  England.  According  to
English chronicles there were no  independent  kings  in  England
before 400 A.D.
     We will take J.Blair's "Chronological tables" as a source of
information about general structure of English chronology.  These
tables were  compiled  in  the  end  of  18th  c.,  but  the  new
information which became available  after  that  time,  have  not
changed  the  whole  picture  of  English  history  and  so  this
information is not very important for us now.
     In 5th century A.D. the Roman power in England came  to  the
end and in that time the first English kings appeared.
     It was a moment when English history divided into:
     a) history of England and
     b) history of Scotland.
In other words, two dynastic streams began in 5th  c.:
     a) English stream and
     b) Scottish stream.
     These two dynastic streams develop in parallel  up  to  1603
when they transformed into a single dynastic stream of the  Great
     In 404 A.D. the long dynasty of Scottish  kings  began  with
the king Fergus I. It ends in 1603 when a united kingdom of Great
Britain appeared  with  it's  first  king  Jacob  I  (1603-1625).
Scottish dynasty looks "very good organized": it practically does
not have simultaneous reigns of different kings, it does not have
breaks and epochs of anarchy also. Being represented  graphically
on a time axis, this dynasty covers  a  1200-year  time  interval
from 404 to 1603 A.D. in a very nice, extremely "regular" manner:
reigns of Scottish kings cover one by one  without  intersections
all this time interval.  It  is  a  fine  example  of  "carefully
written history". See dotted line in the Fig.1.  The  absence  of
simultaneous reigns suggests that Scotland was a  "geographically
homogeneous"  kingdom:  it  never  was   divided   into   several
independent parts.
     English history shows a strong contrast to Scottish  one  in
it's structure.

        2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D.
                   England as the Roman colony.

     Time period from 60 B.C. to the beginning of the era A.D. is
considered today as an epoch of conquest of England by Roman army
under the command of Julius Caesar.
     Period from 1st century A.D. to 445 A.D. is considered to be
an epoch of Roman occupation of  England.  England  was  a  Roman
colony at that epoch, and there were no  English  kings,  because
England was ruled formally  by  Roman  emperors  themselves.  The
description of this period in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in fact  a
compilation from Roman history of 1st -  5th  (middle)  centuries
A.D. as it appears in Scaliger's version of chronology.
     It  was  409  A.D.  when,  according  to   the   Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, Romans were defeated by Goths, leave England and their
power was never restored after that date:
     "In this year the city of Romans was taken by assault by the
Goths,  eleven  hundred  and  ten  years  after  it  was   built.
Afterwards, beyond that, the kings of the Romans ruled no  longer
in Britain; in all  they  had  reigned  there  four  hundred  and
seventy years since Julius Caesar  first  came  to  the  country"

                  2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830.
                  Six kingdoms and their union.

     From 445 A.D. we see six kingdoms on the English land.  Each
of these kingdoms has it's own dynastic stream of rulers.  Namely
they are
                       Brittany = Britain,
                          Saxons = Kent,
                      Sussex = South Saxons,
                      Wessex = West Saxons,
                       Essex = East Saxons,

     These six kingdoms exist up to 828 A.D. when  they  all  are
destroyed in a war and instead of them one kingdom is established
- the kingdom of England. It is the time of Egbert,  who  becomes
the first king of united England. The  time  of  about  830  A.D.
could be called, following [6],[7], as the end of  Six  Kingdoms.
"It was 829 A.D., the  time  of  Wessex  king  Egbert,  when  all
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms united into  one  feudal  kingdom"  [11,  p.
172]. See Commentary 2 which speaks about the term "Saxon".

            2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. This epoch
            is finished by Danish conquest and then by
           disintegration of Dutch kingdom in England.

     Beginning from 830 A.D. English chronicles speak about  only
one dynastic stream of kings (in united kingdom of England).
     In the period 1016-1040 A.D. there was a  crucial  point  in
English history. In  1016  Danish  king  Cnut  Danish  the  Great
occupied England. He become the  king  of  England,  Denmark  and
Norway simultaneously. But his state proved to be not stable  and
after his death in 1035 it was divided. A representative  of  old
English dynasty Edward "The Confessor" (1042-1066) became a  king
in England after that division. The year 1040 is  represented  in
the Fig.1 as one of the most important break  points  in  English

                 2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066.
        Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon dynasty and it's fall

     The reign of Edward "The Confessor" finished in  1066  A.D.,
which is a well-known date  in  English  history.  In  that  year
Edward died and after that England was occupied by  Normans  with
their leader William I Conqueror the Bastard. In 1066 William the
Conqueror defeated English-Saxon king Harold in  Hastings  battle
and as a result became an English king  himself.  Period  of  his
reign was 1066-1087. This well-known date  (1066  A.D.)  is  also
represented in the Fig.1.

                 2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327.
    Norman dynasty and after it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards.

     This epoch starts with the beginning of Norman dynasty which
ruled England up to 1153 or 1154 ([7], p. 327). Just after it the
next, Anjou dynasty started in England. It existed from  1154  to
1272 ([7], p. 327).
     In 1263-1267 a civil war broke out in England ([11], p.260).
After that, in the end of 13th c.- beginning of 14th c., the  new
monarchy was established in England.  First  kings  in  this  new
dynasty were Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II  (1307-1327).  In
the end of the considered time period there  was  a  war  between
England from one  side  and  Wells,  Scotland  and  Ireland  from
another side. England tried to  occupy  these  regions  but  it's
attempt was not successful. In 1314 Scots won.

                 2.3.6. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.

     This  period  is  started  with  the  reign  of  Edward  III
(1327-1377) and is  finished  with  the  establishment  of  Great
Britain as a union of England and Scotland.
     The  last  period  from  1600  to  the  present  time  is  a
well-known history, which we do not  doubt  and  do  not  analyse

     We see that English history could be  divided  into  several
periods which are separated by well-known "break point" dates. We
argue that these division is not occasional one. It reflects  the
existence of  duplicates  and  chronological  shifts  in  English


            3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams
              of England and Byzantine-Roman Empire.

     We saw that old English chronicles claim that England was  a
Roman colony for the first 400 years of it's  history.  Moreover,
when they speak about England at  that  times,  they  speak  more
about Rome and Byzantine empire then about England  itself.  That
is why an idea  of  comparison  of  English  and  Roman-Byzantine
dynastic streams seems quite natural. For this  purpose  we  used
the  Global  Chronological  Map,  which  was  already   made   by
A.T.Fomenko including dynastic streams of Rome, Byzantine  empire
and England.
    Even first glance on this map shows a surprising  statistical
similarity  of  general  structure  for  density  of  reigns   in
Roman-Byzantine empire and  in  English  dynastic  streams.  Such
specific "density picture" exists only  for  these  two  dynastic
streams - Roman-Byzantine and English ones. Now we are  going  to
describe this picture.
    Consider a partition of time interval from 1st to  1700  A.D.
by decades. Let us calculate the number of kings in England whose
reigns intersect with a  certain  decade.  For  example  if  some
decade is covered by a reign of only one king then let us  assign
number 1 to this decade. If it is covered by two reigns  then  we
assign number 2 to it, and so on. As a result of  this  procedure
we obtain a graph which shows us how many kings ruled inside each
decade. We call  this  graph  as  "density  graph"  for  a  given
dynastic stream.
     Because of absence of kings in England before 400  A.D.  the
values  of  density  graph  in  that  time  interval  are   zero.
Approximately in 440 A.D. there were established 6  dynasties  in
England  (six  kingdoms,  see  above)   which   existed   up   to
(approximately) 830 A.D. when English kingdoms were united. After
that union there was only one English dynasty up to present  time
    Similar procedure was  applied  to  the  dynastic  stream  of
Roman-Byzantine empire from 1st to 1500  A.D.  Information  about
all Roman and Byzantine emperors of 1st-15th  centuries was used.
From 1st c. to 4th c. all Roman emperors are supposed to stay  in
Italian Rome (and in it's colonies), and after 330  A.D.  another
Roman dynasty in New Rome = Constantinople appeared.  So,  up  to
6th c. there were two parallel Roman dynastic streams  (sometimes
they had intensive intersections). In 6th c. after a known Gothic
war western Rome lost it's status as  emperor's  residence.  From
that time only one Roman dynasty stream in Constantinople  =  New
Rome was existing constantly up to 1453. In 1453 after  siege  of
Constantinople by Turks this stream was finished.
    The result of our calculations is shown in the  Fig.2.  There
are two curves in the Fig.2. At the bottom one can see a  density
graph for Roman-Byzantine empire, and on the top -  for  England.
Note that English chronology is shifted down as the  whole  block
by approximately 275-year shift.
    Both graphs look very similar. Both  of  them  start  with  a
period of low density and then, at the same  moment  the  density
increases  very  sharply.  Periods  of  such  high  density  have
approximately the same length and  the  same  amplitude  in  both
cases. Then the sharp fall of density  occurs  simultaneously  in
these graphs. After that both of them are approximately constant.
Their value changes mostly in a range of 1-2  reigns  per  decade
for remaining several hundreds years.
    High  density  zone  in   English   chronology   is   located
approximately in 445-830 A.D.,  and  for  Roman-Byzantine  empire
this zone constitutes 170-550 A.D. The  length  is  approximately
380 years in both cases. The duration of the  historical  periods
in  England  and  in  Roman-Byzantine   empire   being   compared
constitutes about one and a half thousand years.
    We should say once more that  such  specific  density  graphs
could not be find in other dynastic streams. It is a  feature  of
English and Roman-Byzantine history only.
     Fig.3   compares   density   graphs    for    England    and
Roman-Byzantine empire in a very rough  way:  only  high  density
zones are represented from the graphs. Fig.3 clearly  shows  that
the  chronological  shift  between  English  and  Roman-Byzantine
history is equal to approximately 275 years.
    Of course, above  method  of  comparison  for  two  different
histories is very rough and could not be considered  as  a  basis
for any statements. But such similarity  for  density  graphs  is
probably a reflection of the same origin of  these  two  dynastic
streams (on a long time period). It is also possible that one  of
them is a reflection of another one.  Moreover,  some  well-known
facts from old English history could support this possibility.
    For example, it is well-known that the old  name  of  England
and English people was not "England" but "Anglia", "Angles" (from
"Angel"), maybe "Angeln" ([2], p.12-13,289). Term "Angels"  as  a
name of population appears in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at a date 443
A.D. After that this term is  used  constantly.  The  first  king
which was called as "king  of  Anglia  (England)"  was  Athelstan
(925-940) ([7],p.340).
   Note that "Angels" was also a famous noble  feudal  family  in
Byzantine which includes  Byzantine  emperor  dynasty  of  Angels
(1185-1204) ([15], p.166).
     The natural question arises: may be  the  name  "England"  -
"Angels" - "Anglia" is the reflection of the  name  of  Byzantine
dynasty Angels of 11-12th cc.?
   It was only some  preliminary  remarks.  They  could  only  to
suggest  that  some  connection  between  English  and  Byzantine
ancient history seem to exist. More careful  analysis  says  that
these histories on a long time period are the same.
   Remark. When we speak about a "dynasty stream" we mean  simply
a sequence of kings in a certain  kingdom  which  is  ordered  in
time. We do not care about family relations between  these  kings
(which is usually included in term "dynasty").

  3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England
  from one side and medieval Byzantine Empire from another side.
      General concept of correspondence between English and
                       Byzantine histories.

   We have discovered that  there  exists  a  strong  parallelism
between durations of reigns for English history of 640-1327  A.D.
from one side and Byzantine history of 378-830 A.D. continued  by
Byzantine history of  1143-1453  A.D.  from  another  side.  This
parallelism is represented in a visual  form  at  the  bottom  of
   More precisely, we discovered that:

    1) Dynastic stream of English kings from  640  to  1040  A.D.
(400-year  period)  is  a  duplicate  (reflection)  of  Byzantine
dynastic stream from 378 to 830 A.D. (452-year period). These two
dynastic streams coincide after 210-year chronological shift.
   It means that there exists a subsequence  ("dynastic  stream")
of English kings whose reigns cover time interval 640-1040 and  a
subsequence  of  Byzantine  emperors  whose  reigns  cover   time
interval 378-830, such that they duplicate each other. Note  that
not all kings or emperors from these epochs are included in those
dynastic streams. It is possible because often there were several
corulers (i.e., kings or emperors which ruled simultaneously).

   2) The next period of English kingdom history:  from  1040  to
1327 (287-year period) duplicates Byzantine dynasty history  from
1143 to 1453 A.D. (310-year period). These two  dynastic  streams
coincide after 120-year chronological shift.

   3) Dynastic stream of Byzantine emperors from 830 to 1143 also
duplicates the same English dynastic history of 1040-1327. It  is
quite natural because Byzantine history has it's  own  duplicates
inside  it.  In  particular,  Byzantine   history   of   830-1143
duplicates  Byzantine  history  of  1143-1453.  For  details  see

    4)  The  ends  of  time  intervals   from   English   history
duplicating Byzantine history coincide with  the  break points  in
English history which we pointed out earlier.

    5)  The  ends  of  time  intervals  from  Byzantine   history
duplicating English history also  prove  to  be  certain  natural
break points in Byzantine history. They generate  a  partition  of
the whole  Byzantine history into 4 parts which we will denote by
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1,  Byzantine  empire-2  and
Byzantine empire-3.

 3.3. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism table")

            3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and
                Byzantine history of 378-553 A.D.
                         275-year shift.

   We used J.Blair's Tables [2]  as  the  first  main  source  of
chronological information and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the second
one. Below we use an abbreviation ASC for Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle.
Note that sometimes  different  chronological  tables  contain  a
slightly different data, but these differences do  not  influence
the parallelism which we are going to present here.
English history                   Byzantine history
English history of 640-830.       Byzantine history of 378-553.
Wessex kings - one of the six     Byzantine emperors dynasty
kingdoms in England of 400-830.   starting from the foundation of
This dynastic stream is a part    New Rome = Constantinople.
of the dense sequence of kings    This dynastic stream is a part
whose reigns cover the time       of the dense sequence of kings
axis with  high multiplicity.     whose reigns cover the time
See Figs.2,3.                     axis with  high multiplicity.
                                  This period of Byzantine history
                                  is denoted as Byzantine-0 on Fig.1.
                                  See Figs.2,3.
     Commentary. Durations  of  reigns  are  shown  in  brackets
(rounded off to whole years). In the left column the  whole  list
of English kings is presented. In the  right  column  almost  all
Byzantine emperors appear. Only absent are names of some emperors
with very short reign and  co-emperors  of  those  ones  who  are
presented here. Note  that  all  English  kings  (with  only  few
exceptions  of  very  short  reigns)   are   included   in   this
1. Cenwalch  643-672  king of     1. Theodosius I The Great
Wessex and  643-647  as the king     378 or 379 - 395 (16)
of Sussex. He ruled 29 or 25
years, if we consider only his
rule in Wessex (after 647 A.D.)
Queen Seaxburh 672-674  (2),                     ?
wife of K.Cenwel. Short rule
2. Cens 674-686 (12) according    2. Arcadius  395-408 (13)
to Blair. In Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we see here two kings:
Escwine + Centwine (9 years in
Caedwalla 686-688 (2).                           ?
Short rule
3. Ine 686-727 (39) according     3. Theodosius II  408-450 (42)
to Blair and (37) according to
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (= ASC)
4. Aethelheard 727-740 (13),      4. Leo I  457-474 (17)
and (14) according to ASC
5. Cuthread 740-754 (14) accor-   5. Zeno 474-491 (17)
ding to Blair and (17) in ASC        (he ruled two times)
Sigeberht 754 (1). Short rule                    ?
6. Cynewulf 754-784 (30) accor-   6. Anastasius
ding to Blair and (31) in ASC        491-518 (27)
7. Beorhtric 784-800 (16)         7. Justin I  518-527 (9)
8. Egbert 800-838 (38). In 828    8. Justinian I The Great. In
A.D.(i.e., at the 28th year of    553 A.D.(i.e. at the 26th year
his rule) he consolidated all     of his rule) he defeated the
six kingdoms into one - Anglia.   Goths (this is well-known Gothic
The last 10 years he ruled as     war) and became unique emperor
the king of Anglia. He is consi-  in Roman-Byzantine empire. He
dered as distinguished king in    ruled during his last 12 years
English history                   without any corulers. Well-known
                                  emperor in Byzantine history

              3.3.2. English history of 830-1040 and
       Byzantine history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift.
English epoch of 830-1040.        Byzantine epoch of 553-830.
Anglia after consolidation into   Is denoted as "Byzantine
one kingdom (see Blair [6]).      empire-1" in the Fig.1.

9. Aethelberht 860-866 (6)        9. Justin II  565-578 (13)
10. Aethelbald                    10. Tiberius Constantinus
    857-860 (3)                       578-582 (4)
11. Aethelwulf 838-857 (19)       11. Maurice 582-602 (20)
12. Aethelred 866-872 (6)         12. Phocas 602-610 (8)
Here the old English chroniclers transposed two  kings,  namely  -
the kings Aethelwulf (see  No.11) and Aethelberht (see No.9) were
placed in another order (their Byzantine originals are Justin  II
and Maurice). This confusion has a simple explanation:  all  four
English kings of this period have very  similar  names  beginning
from "Aethel".
13. Alfred The Great 872-900 (28) 13. Heraclius
according to Blair and  871-901       610-641 (31)
(30) according to Bemont and
Monod ([7],p.340)
14. Edward the Elder              14. Constans II
    900-925 (25)                      Pogonatus  641-668 (26)
15. Athelstan 925-941 (16).       15. Constantine IV
It is supposed today that he was      668-685 (17)
the first who took the name king
of Anglia ([7],p.340)
16. Confusion: the war with       16. Well-known confusion in
Northumbria. The Anglo-Saxon      Byzantine history in the end of
Chronicle mentions about          7th century - beginning of 8th
three main kings of this period:  century. Here there are several
Edmund I  941-948 (7),            emperors with a short rules:
Eadred 948-955 (7),               Leontius II  695-698
Eadwig 955-959 (4). All these     or 694-697, Tiberius III  697-704
kings ruled relatively short      or 698-705, Justinian II  705-711,
period                            Philippicus Bardanes 711-713,
                                  Anastasius II  713-715 or 716,
                                  Theodosius III  715 or 716-717
Thus, both confusion epochs (English and Byzantine)  are  matched
under the rigid chronological shift. We did not discuss here  the
details because of mess structure of the chronicles of this time
17. Edgar 959-975 (16)+ Edward    17. Leo III Isaurian or
"The Martyr" 975-978 (3), and         the Syrian  717-741 (24)
totally (after summation) they
give 19 years. Their names are
similar and consequently their
union is natural
18. Aethelred II "The Unready"    18. Constantine V Copronimus
    978-1013 (35)                     741-775 (34)
19. Cnut The Great Danish         19. Constantine VI Porphyrogenitus
1017-1036 (19). His death         780-797 (17). Let us note that
indicates the disintegration      now we are in the end of historical
of Danish empire. Thus, this      epoch which was marked out in
epoch is finished by the well-    [1] and [24] as Byzantine empire-1
known event in the history of     (527-840). Thus, in this column
Anglia. Let us note that this     of our table we came to some
fragment of English history is    important turning-point in
matched with Byzantine epoch      Byzantine history
under 210 (or 275)-year shift
     The old English chronicles placed in the end of this epoch
(in history of Anglia) two "short" kings:
     Harold I Danish (1036-1039, ruled 3 years) and
     Harthacnut (1039-1041, ruled 2 years).
     We did not find the Byzantine duplicate-original for Harthacnut,
but the original-duplicate for Harold I will be demonstrated below
     We continue the motion along English  history  in  the  left
column of the table. The parallel  with  Byzantine  history  will
continue (in the right column). But this  parallel  becomes  more
clear and evident if we take the next epoch "Byzantine  empire-3"
(1143-1453) instead of the epoch "Byzantine empire-2" (Fig.1). As
we explained before, these two epochs of  Byzantine  history  are
parallel, i.e. they are duplicates (of  course,  not  identical).
Consequently, we will list in the right column of the  table  the
emperors from "Byzantine empire-3" and also  will  indicate  here
their duplicates from "Byzantine empire-2". And we will  see  that
the  parallelism  between  English  and  Byzantine  history  will
continue until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

             3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and
      Byzantine history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift.
English epoch of 1040-1327        Byzantine epoch of 1143-1453.
                                  Is marked as "Byzantine empire-3"
                                  in the Fig.1. It is the original
                                  for "Byzantine empire-2"
20. Edward "The Confessor"       20. Manuel I Comnenus
1041-1066 (25)                       1143-1180 (37)
The death of Edward "The Confes-  After the death of Manuel I the
sor" indicates the beginning of   hard time for Byzantine empire
Norman invasion. It is possible,  began and the turning-point is
that English chronicles mean      the well-known crusade and the
here in reality "Roman invasion"  conquest of Constantinople in
because there is the parallel     1204. It is supposed today that
between some periods of Roman     Italian Rome organized the
history and Norman history        invasion in Byzantine empire
(see [1],[24])
    The commentary to the dynastic stream of  English  history.
After the death of Edward "The Confessor" a new  king  Harold  II
"Godwinson" took the throne. He ruled only 1 year and was  killed
in 1066 in the battle near Hastings. From the other  hand  it  is
known ([7],p.343) that in reality he got a great political  power
in 1054 when Edward was alive. But the English chronicles  placed
just before the rule of Edward "The Confessor" one  more  "short"
(i.e. with a short  rule)  Harold,  namely  Harold  I  "Harefoot"
(1036-1039) who ruled only 3 years.  It  is  possible  that  this
Harold I is simply the reflection of Harold II
21. "Doubled Harold", i.e.        21. Isaac II Angelus 1185-1195,
Harold I Danish (1036-1039) and   then he lost the power and
then Harold II (1066 year).       appeared on Byzantine throne
Harold II ruled only 9 months.    again in 1203 (second time). He
It is clear that this "doubled    ruled no more than 1 year and
Harold" is the reflection of      finally lost the power in 1204,
Byzantine"doubled Isaac Angelus", after the conquest of Constanti-
who ruled two times. His second   nople by crusaders. Thus, his
rule was short: less than 1 year  second rule was no more than 1
Norman conquest of Anglia. The    The conquest of Byzantine empire
famous battle near Hastings in    by crusaders. Famous fourth
1066                              crusade 1199-1204
We will speak later and more detailed about the parallel between
these events
22. William I of Normandy         22. Theodore I Lascaris
(Bastard) The Conqueror 1066-     1204-1222 (18). In 1204 a new
-1087 (21). His rule starts the   Nicaean empire starts on the
new Norman dynasty in Anglia      territory of Byzantine empire. The
                                  reflection of Theodore in Byzantine
                                  empire-2 is Basil I the Macedonian
                                  867-887 (19)
23. William II "Rufus" 1087-1101  23. Possibly, there is some mess
(14). Thus, here we have 14       in the chronicles when they describe
years and in the right column     the Norman dynasty and Nicaean
we have 11 or 12 years. We see    empire. The first conjecture:
here some confusion in the        the original preimage for William II
chronicles because in the right   is lost. Second conjecture: this is
column Isaac II Angelus ruled     again Isaac II Angelus. But in this
twice                             case the chronicle took the whole
                                  his rule: 1185-1195 and then 1203-
                                  -1204, i.e. totally 11 or 12 years.
24. Henry I  1101-1135            24. John III Vatatzes
(34 or 35 years)                  1222-1254 or 1256 (32). His
                                  reflection in Byzantine empire-2
                                  is  Leo VI "The Philosopher"
                                  886-912 (26)
25. Stephen of Blois 1135-1154    25. Michael VIII  1259 or 1260
(19). King Stephen finishes the   until 1282 or 1283  (23). His
Norman dynasty in Anglia ([7],p.  reflection in Byzantine empire-2
357). The next king Henry II      is Romanus I  919-945 (26).
starts a new Anjou dynasty in     Michael VIII starts a new
Anglia                            Palaeologus dynasty which lasts
                                  from 1261 until 1453
            Thus the rigid chronological shift matches
     English Norman dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Angelus
                         and then matches
   the next Anjou dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Palaeologus
26. Henry II Plantagenet          26. Andronicus II Palaeologus
1154-1189 (35). Note that both    1282 or 1283  - 1328 (46). If
terms Plantagenet and             calculated from 1283 to 1320 -
Porphyrogenetus have the same     the moment when his co-ruler
meaning: "one who was born in     Andronicus III began to reign
a shirt". This term has well-     then duration of Andronicus II
known meaning - see commentary    reign is 37 years. He was
below                             reflected as  Constantine VII
                                  910 or 912 - 959 (47),(49)
                                  in Byzantine empire-2.
Term (name) "Porphyrogenetus" = "Porphyro" + "Genitus"  could  be
interpreted as "one, who was born  in  porphyr".  It  says  about
birth in a "royal  attributes",  maybe  "royal  clothes",  "royal
shirt". It suggests a rare case from medical practice when a baby
is born "in a shirt", i.e. still  in  placenta  (placenta  sounds
similar to "planta" - part of "Plantagenet"). In old  times  such
cases were considered as a sign of  outstanding  future  for  the
baby (good or bad one). We see in English version (left column) a
name Plantagenet, i.e. Planta + Genet. It means exactly "birth in
a planta, in a cover" - the same as "birth in a shirt"
27. Henry II established a known  27. Michael VIII. He was just
dynasty of Plantagenets (House    before Andronicus II. He
of Plantagenet) in English        established a known dynasty of
history. This dynasty was         Palaeologus in the history of
finished in 1329 with Richard     Byzantine. This dynasty covers
II. So, this dynasty covers time  time interval 1261-1453 (up to
interval 1154-1399 ([27], p.346). the siege of Constantinople)
                                  ([27], p.636).
So, the chronological shift which we discovered puts together two
dynasties: Palaeologus' and Plantagenets. Dynasty of Palaeologus'
is finished in 1453 and reflecting them Plantagenets continue  up
to 1399.
28. Richard I Coeur de Lion       28. Andronicus III Palaeologus
1189-1199 (10). Duration of       1320-1328-1341. Formally his
his reign is 10 years which       reign lasts 21 years (1320-1341),
is close to 13 years - duration   but his reign as unique emperor
of reign of his analog            (without corulers) was only for
(original) in Byzantine           13 years (1328-1341). In 1328
empire                            finished the reign of his coruler
                                  - emperor Andronicus II.
29.John Santer 1199-1216 (17)     29. John VI Cantacuzenus
                                  1341 or 1347 - 1355 (15)
30. Henry III  1216-1272 (56).    30. John V Palaeologus 1341-1391
Henry III was the last king in    (50). His has a reflection in
Anjou dynasty in England.         Byzantine empire-2: Basil II
Dynasty of Palaeologus in         Bulgaroktonos (975 or 976 -
Byzantine empire (right column)   1025). Basil II Bulgaroktonos'
is not finished at this point     reign was for 49 or 50 years.
but it is near to the end
31. Edward I  1272-1307 (35)      31. Manuel II Palaeologus
                                  1391-1425 (33 or 34).
32. Edward II Caervarven          32. John VIII Palaeologus
1307-1327 (20)                    1424-1448 (23 or 24).
End of parallelism.               In 1453 Constantinople was seized
                                  by Turks and Byzantine Empire
                                  changed to Turkey.
    Fig.4 illustrates this  parallelism.  It  is  important  that
durations of reign fit each other so well in the  case  when  the
same chronological shift was applied to all reigns.  All  dynasty
was shifted as a whole, it's internal time was unchanged.
    Fig.5 shows the same parallelism in a different form which is
designed for visual comparison of  durations  of  reign  in  both
dynasties.  For  quantitative  comparison   we   used   numerical
characteristic of a distance  between  two  arbitrary  dynasties,
which was introduced in [1],[24]. It appears that this "distance"
drops into a range of values which are normal only  for  strongly
dependent dynasties (details about this numerical  characteristic
one can find in [1],[24]). Recall that two dynasties are called as
dependent ones if they both reflect the same real dynasty.
    Dependence  of  these  two  dynasties  (we  mean  statistical
dependence of reign durations) is the main result of this  paper.
It is in fact a formal result and we might finish on it. But many
not formal questions follow after this result is claimed. Main of
them is: what real events lay under both of these two  dynasties?
What was the real history?


             4.1. Our new concept of English history

     The answer follows definitely from the above parallelism and
from the Fig.1. Naturally, the more new dynasty  (one  which  was
later in time) is to be supposed  as  original  one.  This  is  a
Byzantine  dynasty  1143-1453  A.D.  It  was  denoted  above   as
Byzantine empire-3. In [1],[24] it was discovered that  Byzantine
empire-3  is  a  source  of  information  for  it's   reflections
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1  and  Byzantine  empire-2.
Roughly speaking the whole Byzantine history is constructed  from
several blocks - duplicates of the same epoch: 1143-1453 A.D.  As
we discovered, English history  being  stringed  to  the  English
kings dynasty is a duplicate of Byzantine history up to 1327 A.D.
(in English chronology) = 1450 A.D.  (in  Byzantine  chronology).
Middle of 15th century was a  time  from  which  we  have  enough
information, so Byzantine dynasty of that time was surely a  real
one.  It  suggests  that  Byzantine  is  an  original  in   above
parallelism, and England before 1327  A.D.  -  a  reflection.  It
could be seen from the Fig.1 how English history before 1327 A.D.
was constructed from several reflections of Byzantine  Empire  of
1143-1453 A.D.
   As a resume we present the follows hypothesis.

    1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that period  speaks
more about events in Rome itself then in England. It  was  proved
in [1],[24] that Roman history of that time reflects real  events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.

    2) That chronicles which are  supposed  now  to  speak  about
English history of 400-830  A.D.  appear  to  describe  Rome  and
Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some  real
events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.

    3) That chronicles which are  supposed  now  to  speak  about
English history of 830-1040 A.D.  appear  to  describe  Byzantine
empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real  history  of  9-15th
cc. in Byzantine empire.

    4) That chronicles which are  supposed  now  to  speak  about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear  to  describe  Byzantine
empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th  cc.in
Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the  name
of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)

     5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are
thought by historians to speak about some events from  the  epoch
before the beginning of 14th century,  are  in  fact  devoted  to
certain periods  of  Byzantine  history  of  9-15th  cc.  Roughly
speaking, ancient  English  chronicles  are  in  fact   Byzantine
chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to  England  and  then
modified in a such way that they seem to speak  about  events  in

    6) The time when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most  probably  the  epoch  of
9-10th centuries. Now we have only  very  few  information  about
that early period of  English  history  on  the  island.  So  the
description of English history of 9-13  cc.  is  in  fact  rather
fragmentary. But this information about  real  island  events  was
then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine  empire.  The
resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine fiber"
we can see now as the English history of 9-13th cc.

     7) Starting from 14th century English history  speaks  about
real  events  in  England  only.  Roughly  speaking,  traditional
version of English history becomes correct from 14th c.

     8) One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that  in  ancient  English  chronicles  there  are  chronological
details about, for example, how many years there were between the
Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological
details  often  agree  with  Scaliger's  (modern)   chronological
concept." The answer is follows.
    At first, note that chronological and astronomical data  from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with  modern
historical version. See [1],[24].
   In the second, even if we  see  that  a  direct  chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it
says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have
today, were finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was exactly
the time when modern chronological concept  was  worked  out  (in
general). Such direct chronological  statements  are  simply  the
traces of chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that  time
historians "calculated" the dates  of  ancient  events  and  then
placed  (for  reader's  convenience)   the   results   of   their
(medieval!) calculations inside  ancient  historical  texts.  The
fact that chronological statements  in  different  ancient  texts
often agree means that today we have mostly the results  of  work
of  only  one  medieval  chronological   school.   It   was   the
chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc.  by
Roman-Catholic church.
   Often, astronomical calculations were used  for  chronological
purposes. In  this  case  there  could  be  certain  astrological
motivations in medieval astronomical calculations for chronology.
Medieval scientists, and historians  among  them,  often  trusted
astrology  and  could  use  it  in  their  considerations.  Maybe
medieval astrologers tried to solve problems like these: what was
the planetary  configuration  at  the  moment  of  coronation  of
Justinian I (or  when  ancient  lunar  eclipses  occurred  etc.)?
Results of such  astronomical calculations of 15-16th  cc.  could
be placed in ancient texts to make their chronology  more  clear.
It was large work and it might be very useful if the calculations
were correct. Unfortunately, medieval astronomers and  historians
made a lot of mistakes. These mistakes are discussed in [1],[24].
As a result of such mistakes, ancient chronicles got an incorrect
chronological  skeleton.  This  incorrect  chronology  was   then
supported  by  church  authorities  and  by  medieval  scientific
schools.  It  was  the  chronology  which  we  have  now  in  our
textbooks. And today, our contemporaries  -  the  historians  and
chronologists - take the ancient chronicles (from  archives)  and
with  pleasure   discover   in   them   the   "astronomical   and
chronological information". Then, basing on  the  modern  theory,
they  date  the  described  eclipses,   horoscopes   (i.e.,   the
configuration of the planets along the zodiacal  constellations).
After  this,  historians  discover  (with  great  pleasure)  that
sometimes these records from "ancient chronicles" satisfy to  the
Scaliger's  chronology  (and,  consequently,  are  correct).   Of
course, sometimes there are some contradictions. And sometimes  -
very serious. The real explanation is as  follows:  the  medieval
methods for calculations were more rough that modern  ones.  Then
in each  such  case  the  modern  chronologists  "correct"  these
"records of ancient chronicler".  As  a  result,  they  form  the
illusion of the correctness of traditional Scaliger's version  of
ancient chronology. But what the modern historians really do when
the results of modern astronomical calculations sharply  disagree
with Scaliger's chronology? As we know today (see,  for  example,
[1],[24]) the list of such contradictions is very long. This fact
shows that Scaliger's chronological version is wrong. But in  all
such cases the modern historians start to  speak  (with  a  great
irritation and displeasure) about "ignorance of ancient observers
and  chroniclers",  about  "impossibility  to  apply  the  modern
scientific methods to the analysis an ancient texts" etc.
     The visual picture of our chronological conjecture  you  can
see in the Fig.6.

     4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
      into medieval English history (of the island Anglia)?

     The answer will be extremely simple if we  will  erase  from
our minds the picture which is imposed by traditional  Scaliger's
     Starting from  11th  century,  several  crusades  storm  the
Byzantine empire. Several feudal crusaders' states
were founded on the territory of Byzantine empire in 11-14th  cc.
In these states many nations were mixed:  local  population,  the
crusaders from England, France,  Germany,  Italy  etc.  In  these
crusaders' regions and in Byzantine empire the  new  culture  was
created, in particular, were  written  a  historical  chronicles.
Among Byzantine inhabitants were a lot of people from Europe,  in
particular, from some island, which later will be called England.
     In  1453  A.D.  Turks  conquered  Constantinople.  Byzantine
empire was ruined and the crowds of its  inhabitants  leaved  the
country. Many of them  returned  in  the  Europe,  in  their  old
homeland.  In  particular,  -  in  the   island   Anglia.   These
descendants  of  crusaders  took  with   them   their   Byzantine
historical chronicle, because these texts describe their own real
history in Byzantine empire (during  many  years  -  one  or  two
hundreds years). Several decades passed.  On  the  island  Anglia
starts the writing its history (i.e., the history of  the  people
living on  the  island).  In  16-17th  centuries  some  qualified
historians appear and start to create the general history of  the
whole land Anglia ("from the beginning"). They search for ancient
documents. Suddenly they find several old trunks with "very  old"
documents. The documents are dusty, the paper  is  very  fragile,
and  the  old  books  fall  to  pieces.  These  chronicles   were
transported from Byzantine  empire.  But  now  (in  16-17th  cc.)
nobody knew this. Unfortunately, the prehistory of  these  trunks
is  forgotten.  And,  unfortunately,  is  forgotten  that   these
chronicles describe the history  of  ANOTHER  LAND.  The  English
historians of 16-17th centuries carefully analyse these texts  as
the history "of island England" and put them into  the  basis  of
"old British-island history, which started many  centuries  ago".
In some strong sense they were right because really  the  authors
of the chronicles were closely connected with island Anglia (but,
let us repeat, described ANOTHER LAND - Byzantine empire).
     This process is quite  natural  and  does  not  suggest  any
special falsification of the history. Such  natural  errors  were
inevitable at the first steps of creating of the general history.
     As  a  result,  appeared  such  chronicles  as   Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, the Nennius' chronicle etc. After some time this wrong
version of an old English history  stand  stockstill,  becomes  a
"monument". Further historians simply modify (only a little)  the
initial scheme of the history, add some new documents.  And  only
today, using some statistical  and  other  methods  we  start  to
discover some strange regularities inside the "history  textbook"
and  start  to  realize  that  the  real  history  was   possibly
sufficiently shorter and that today we need to  remove  from  the
"old English history" its "Byzantine part" and return this  piece
to its right place (in  time  and  in  the  geographical  sense).
     This procedure is very painful. We realize this  because  we
discovered the same problem in the old Russian history,  when  we
also found several chronological duplicates.
     General  remark.  It  is  possible,  that  this  process  of
"insertion of an old Byzantine chronicles" in the beginning of  a
"local history" is presented for several different regions  which
were closely connected with Byzantine empire. In  particular,  it
is true for Russia, for England, for Rome, for Greece.

              ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES

        5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered
               Britain (and the first king of Britts)

     We have analyzed above the durations of rules and  suggested
the conjecture that  old  English  history  is  "a  chronological
reflection"  if  one  period  of  real  Byzantine  history.   The
following question immediately arises:  what  about  old  English
chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or there are some
contradictions? Let us take these chronicles and let us read them
once more by "fresh sight", without a priori "school"  hypothesis
about "great antiquity" of these sources.
     Now  we  recall  to  the  reader   well-known   facts   from
traditional history of England (Anglia  in  old  texts).  Let  us
take, for example
     "Historia Brittonum" of Nennius,
     "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis
     and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
     Galfridus calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In
brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as follows. After  the
end of the Trojan War and after the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero
Aeneas  arrived  on  the  ship  in  Italy.  After  two  or  three
generation his great-grandson Brutus was born ([9],p.6-7). By the
way, Nennius thinks that "time distance" between Aeneas and Brutus
is sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that  "the  distance"
between Trojan war and Brutus is about several  hundreds  years.
However, this difference is not so important for us.
     Then Brutus  leaved  Italy  and  arrived  it  Greece,  where
becomes the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus collects
the large fleet and then his army (on the fleet)  leaves  Greece.
After some time they landed on some "island",  began  the  battle
with local people, won the war and founded the new kingdom.
     This is Britain.
     Brutus is the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain.
Today they are considered as legendary heroes, because, according
to traditional chronology, these events were  "in  a  deep  past"
(before Jesus Christ).
     Nennius tells  the  analogous  story  of  Brutus  (but  more
short). Nennius definitely states that  Brutus  "arrived  on  the
island, which was  called  by  HIS  NAME,  i.e.,  on  the  island
Britain, then populated the island by  his  posterity  and  lived
there. From this day and before now  the  Britain  is  populated"
([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the name of Brutus.
     Then Nennius informs us about opinion of some other authors,
that "island Britain was called by the name  of  Britt,  son  of
Isicion, who was the son of Alan" ([8],p.172). But  according  to
the most widespread and authoritative version (which is quoted by
Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of Brutus, who was ROMAN
CONSUL (! - Auth.)" ([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of
Britain was Roman consul.
     This statement is extremely strange and impossible from  the
point of view traditional Scaliger's chronology, because Rome was
founded only about 753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this
Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no Rome!
     Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that:
     "The first inhabitants of this land were  the  Britons,  who
came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..." ([2],p.3).
     It is quite clear that here the name Armenia points  out  on
the Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which was called
Romai-Romania. Thus, as  we  see,  the  English  chronicle  again
connects Britain and Roman-Byzantine empire.
     Of course, today this statement of old chronicle is declared
by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary is as  follows:
"instead of erroneous name Armenia one  should  read  Armorica  =
Brittany" ([2],p.3).  However,  the  replacement  of  Armenia  by
Armorica does not help to traditional history: the name  Armorica
also can be connected with the name  of  Roman-Byzantine  empire.
Our conclusion does not change.
     Thus, old English chronicles state that Britain was at first
conquered by Roman  consul  Brutus,  who  arrived  there  with  a
military fleet and founded the British  kingdom.  He  became  the
first king of an island Britain.

       5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a
                  contemporary of Julius Caesar?

     It seems that the answer is quite clear.
     We need only to understand  -  when  lived  this  remarkable
Roman consul (according to traditional chronology)?  It  is  very
simple. The qualified reader already  prompts  to  us  the  right
answer: it was 1st century B.C. In this century we see (in modern
textbook in ancient history) the well-known Roman consul Brutus -
the friend and brother-in-arms  of  Julius  Caesar.  Brutus  took
part in many campaigns of Julius  Caesar.  Then  Brutus  betrayed
Caesar - his patron and protector. We remember from our  "scholar
childhood" the bitter words of Caesar: "And you,  Brutus",  which
Caesar said when Brutus struck him by the sword.
     As we also known, the traitorous murder of Caesar -  one  of
the most important episode in "biography" of ancient Roman consul
Brutus. It is remarkable, but the  old  English  chronicles  also
speak about this episode but in a slightly different words.  They
state that Brutus (the first Britts' king)  killed  his  farther.
This  murder  is  considered   by   chronicles   as   accidental,
unintentional. Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow  and  accidentally
killed  "his  farther"  ([8],p.173).  In  our  opinion,  this  is
slightly distorted Roman story about murder of Julius  Caesar  by
Brutus. Here "farther" is Caesar - former friend and protector of
     Because of this terrible murder,  the  people  expel  Brutus
from his native land. It was done in both stories: in  Roman  and
in English. Brutus started on a journey.
     Our simple and natural conjecture is as follows: in the  old
English story  about  conquest  of  Britain  acts  Brutus  -  the
contemporary of Julius Caesar. As  we  saw,  this  conjecture  is
supported  by  ancient  documents,  although  they  do  not  call
directly Brutus  as  friend  or  enemy  of  Caesar.  Indeed,  all
chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was  conquered  by  Julius
Caesar. Some interesting details  are  reported.  Namely,  Caesar
arrived in Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted of
about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of the land  became  a
complicated problem and soon Caesar returned in Britain with  the
fleet consisting of 600 (!) ships. After  the  battle  the  local
army of natives were defeated and Romans founded the new  kingdom.
Moreover, Nennius claims that Julius Caesar WAS THE  FIRST  ROMAN
who arrived on the island Britain and conquered the  kingdom  and
Britts ([8],p.176).
     Thus, if Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain,  and
if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST  ROMAN  arrived  in  Britain,
then BRUTUS and  JULIUS  CAESAR  are  simply  CONTEMPORARIES  and
brothers-in-arms. This  conclusion  evidently  follows  from  old
English chronicles.
     Let us resume these corollaries in the form of some table.

 Brutus - the first king of Britts      Julius Caesar
1. The first Roman arrived on     1. The first Roman arrived on
the island, conquered the land    the  island,  conquered  the
and founded the kingdom           country and also founded the

2. Arrived in Britain with great  2. Was the head of great military
military fleet                    fleet which invaded into the land

3. "Accidentally" killed his      3. His contemporary - Roman Brutus,
farther by arrow                  Caesar's friend, traitorously
                                  killed Caesar (= "his farther-

4. The murder of Brutus' father   4. Well-known story: the murder
by his son was predicted in       of Julius Caesar was predicted
advance by prophet (see Nennius,  by Roman prophet (see, for
[8],p.173)                        example, Plutarch

5. Afterwards Brutus was expelled 5. Romans expelled Brutus as great
from his native land (as the men  traitor, because he killed Julius
who committed the murder)          Caesar

6. Roman consul Brutus starts     6. Julius Caesar lived (according
the history of Britain            traditional chronology) in 1st c.
     Thus, from the position of common sense we immediately  date
the epoch of the first Brutus'  conquest  of  Britain  (with  his
contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st century A.D. Let us note, that
this our statement is not new in reality. All  experts  know that
Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D. All experts know
that Brutus was  the  first  who  conquered  Britain.  We  simply
combine these two facts and  formulate  the  evident  conclusion:

     "Ancient" Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts,
the first king of Britain, the "starting  person"  of  the  whole
English history - is  a  contemporary  on  Julius  Caesar,  i.e.,
well-known in classical Roman history consul Brutus.

     The reader qualified  in  ancient  history  can,  of  course
recall here also the second known Brutus in  Roman  history,  who
acted allegedly about 6th c.B.C. in Rome. He expel ed  the  Roman
kings from the capital and founded the Roman republic.  But  this
historical epoch is in reality  another  chronological  duplicate
(copy),  reflection  of  the  epoch  of  Julius  Caesar.  It  was
discovered in [1],[24]. Consequently, the attempt to identify the
Brutus = the first king of  Britts  -  with  "another  Brutus"  -
fails. We again come to the epoch of Julius Caesar  (1st  century
A.D. according to traditional chronology). Let  us  recall  here,
that according to chronological results,  obtained  in  [1],[24],
the  epoch  of  Julius  Caesar  is  in  reality   the   duplicate
(reflection) of the epoch of 10-11th cc.A.D.
     The reader can ask us: why we discuss in such  details  such
evident question (the identification of Brutus - the  first  king
of Britts - with Brutus of Caesar's epoch)?
     Our answer is as follows. This  our  statement  is  mortally
dangerous to the traditional chronology of England (and not  only
England). This is the explanation why the traditional  historians
try to avoid  any  serious  discussion  about  the  assertion  of
English chronicles, that Brutus was Roman consul and that  Britts
are  the  descendants  of  Romans.  In  particular,  the   modern
commentators  of  Nennius   and   Galfridus   (A.S.Bobovich   and
M.A.Bobovich) irritatedly write: "The (medieval - Auth.) idea  to
deduce the origin of Britts from Romans and  Trojans  is  not  so
original: already in 6th century A.D. the Frank's rulers  deduced
their origin from Trojans (and, in our opinion, they were  right,
see the discussion about  this  subject  in  [1],[24]  -  Auth.)"
([9],p.270). And then  commentators  add  carefully:  "There  are
several Brutus in Roman history". They do not continue and do not
discuss this remark, and now we realize - why. If  you  start  to
analyse the "Brutus' problem", you  (as  we  demonstrated  above)
will  make  the  inevitable  (and  catastrophic  for  traditional
chronology) conclusion that "English Brutus" was the contemporary
of Julius Caesar.
     At first, because  in  this  case  the  so  called  "ancient
legendary  British  history"  is  immediately  moved  upwards  by
approximately 1000-year shift in the epoch  of  1-13th  A.D.  and
moreover, in 10-15th cc.A.D.
     Such corollary, of course, is completely  unacceptable  (and
totally fantastic) to any modern traditional historian. But there
are some another, sufficiently more dangerous corollaries.
     About this - our next section.

            5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles

     The "Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis is  strung
on the pivot of biblical history. This means that sometimes, when
speaking about the events of British history,  Galfridus  inserts
the phrases similar to this: In Judea the prophet  Samuel  ruled
at this time ([9],p.20). These rare phrases are  scattered  along
the chronicle and form the rough (and  very  brief)  skeleton  of
biblical history of prophets and biblical kings, which is closely
interwoven with the stream of British history. But, by  the  way,
Galfridus does not give any absolute  dates.  His  chronology  is
completely relative, i.e., he tells only - in the time  of  which
biblical kings (or prophets) were occurred some of British events.
Thus, when analyzing the English  chronology  in  a  unprejudiced
way, we meet the necessity to start the  analysis  of  biblical
chronology also. Let us do it and we will see what we will obtain.
     The  evident  identification  of   "English   Brutus"   with
well-known Brutus from the epoch of Julius Caesar, is  impossible
for traditional historian because in this case the whole biblical
chronology is automatically moved from its traditional place  (in
time) upwards by about at least 1000-year shift ! In reality this
shift will be sufficiently more: about 1800 years! See [1],[24].
     Indeed, if "English Brutus" (the forefather  of  Britts)  is
placed in 1st century B.C., then, according to the "Historia
Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis, ALL BASIC EVENTS OF BIBLICAL
HISTORY should be distributed on time axis from 1st century  A.D.
until 13th century A.D. Here we mean: the history of all
biblical prophets, the history of the kingdom of  Judah  and  the
kingdom of Israel et cetera. On the face of it,  such  conclusion
is completely  impossible!  Traditionally,  biblical  history  is
dated from 11th century B.C. until 1st century A.D.
     But if we will wait a little and will  try  nevertheless  to
place ancient biblical history on the interval from  1st  century
A.D. until 13th century A.D. - what we obtain?
     It turns out that  this  procedure  does  not  lead  to  the
contradiction with ancient evidences of ancient texts. We suggest
to the reader to take the books of Fomenko  [1],[24],  where  you
can find the details. Here we demonstrate only one, but remarkable

       5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper  way?
                  Problem of vowels restoration.

     In the attempt to read and date  the  most  of  the  ancient
manuscripts  (ancient  Egyptian,  ancient  Slavonic,  biblical  et
cetera) certain basic problems are frequently encountered.
     As soon as J.Sunderland started investigating  the  original
language of the Old Testament, he, in his words,
     "...faced  the  fact  of   enormous   and   even   startling
importance.  The  thing  is  that  the  Jewish  written  language
originally had neither vowels nor signs replacing them. The books
of the Old Testament were written only with consonants" ([16], p.
     This is also typical for other languages.  For  example,  an
ancient Slavonic text  was  a  chain  of  only  consonants,  too;
sometimes even without signs replacing  the  vowels,  or  without
division into words. Old Egyptian  texts  were  also  written  in
consonants only.
     According to well-known chronologist E.Bickerman,
     "...the names of Egyptian kings are  given  in  contemporary
literature  schematically,  in  a  quite   arbitrary,   so-called
scholastic manner adopted in school textbooks.  These  forms  are
often greatly different from each  other;  it  is  impossible  to
order them somehow, due to their arbitrary reading (! - Authors.)
which became traditional" ([17], p.176).
     Probably, the rarity and high cost of writing  materials  in
ancient times made the scribes save them, and  omit  the  vowels,
thereby essentially shortening the text.
     J.Sunderland continues:
     "However, if we take the Jewish Bible or a manuscript today,
we shall find in them the skeleton of vowels filled with dots and
other signs denoting the missing  vowels.  These  signs  did  not
belong  to  the  old  Jewish  Bible.  The  books  were  read   by
consonants, and the intervals were filled with  vowels  according
to one's skill and the apparent requirements of the  context  and
oral legends" ([16], p. 155).
     Imagine  how  exact  the  meaning  of  a  word  written   in
consonants can be if, for example,  CLN  can  mean  clean,  clan,
colon, and so forth.
     According to T.Curtis, even for the priests, the content  of
manuscripts remained extremely doubtful and could  be  understood
only by means of the authority of the legend ([16], p. 155).
     It is assumed that this serious short-coming of  the  Jewish
Bible had been eliminated not earlier that the 7th or 8th century
A.D., when the Massoretes  revised  the  Bible  and  added  signs
replacing the vowels; but they had no manuals, except  their  own
reason, and  a  very  imperfect  legendary  tradition  ([16],  p.
     Well-known expert S.Driver adds that, since the times of the
Massoretes in the 7th-8th century A.D., the Jews  have  taken  to
keeping their sacred books with extraordinary care, but  then  it
was too late to repair the damage already  done.  The  result  of
such  attentiveness  was  just   the   immortalization   of   the
distortions, which were then placed on exactly the same level  of
authority with the original text ([16], p.157).
     J.Sunderland: "The opinion reigning  earlier  was  that  the
vowels had been introduced into the Jewish text by  Ezra  in  the
5th century A.D. But in the 16th and 17th century,  E.Levita  and
J.Capellus in France refuted this  opinion  and  proved  that  th
vowels had been introduced only by the Massoretes. The  discovery
created a sensation in  the  whole  of  Protestant  Europe.  Many
people believed that the new theory would lead to disproving  the
religion completely. If the vowels were not a  matter  of  Divine
Revelation, but only a human invention,  besides,  a  much  later
one, then how could we rely on the text of  the  Scripture?  This
discussion was one of the hottest  in  the  history  of  the  new
biblical  criticism  and  proceeded  for  more  than  a  century,
stopping only when the validity of the  new  point  of  view  was
acknowledged by everyone" ([16], p. 157-158).

        5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events.

          5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical

     Even if the vowels of common words are  not  that  important
(you can easily reconstruct a well-known word from the  context),
the situation changes completely when combination  of  consonants
meaning a city, country, the name of a king, etc., appears in  an
ancient text. Tens and hundreds of different variants  of  vowels
for one term (word) may be found, stating  the  "identifications"
of the  biblical  vowel-free  names  of  cities,  countries,  and
others,  made  by  traditional  historians  proceeding  from  the
chronological (and geographical) version of  J.Scaliger  and  the
localization referring the biblical events to the Near East.
     As the archaeologist M.Burrows notes, the archaeological job
generally  leads  to  the  undoubtedly  strongest  creed  in  the
reliability of biblical information (cit.from [18], p. 16).
     F.Kenyon of the British Museum insists as much categorically
on archaeology  refuting  the  "destructive  skepticism  of  the
second half of the 19th century" [18].
     But  here  is  unexpected  information   reported   by   the
well-known archaeologist G.Wright, who, by the way, is a  staunch
partisan of the  correctness  of  orthodox  localization  and  of
traditional dating biblical events. He wrote,
     "A great many findings do not prove  or  disprove  anything;
they fill the background and only serve as historical  artifacts.
Unfortunately, the desire "to prove"  the  Bible  permeates  many
works available to the average reader. Historical  evidences  may
be used in an incorrect manner, whereas the conclusions dawn  are
often erroneous and only half correct" ([18], p. 17).
     If we attentively examine the fundamental  facts  about  the
Bible discovered by N.A.Morozov [19], then we shall see that none
of  the  books  of  the   Old   Testament   contain   any   solid
archaeological confirmation of their traditional geographical and
time   localization.   As   I.A.Kryvelev   noted,    the    whole
"Mesopotamian" biblical theory will be questioned.
     The traditional localization of the events described in  the
New Testament is no better.
     I.A.Kryvelev many years studied the biblical  geography  and
chronology. He wrote,
     "The  reader  interested  in  biblical  archaeology  may  be
bewildered by the hundreds  of  pages  speaking  of  excavations,
landscapes, or artifacts,  historical  and  biblical  background.
And, in the conclusion, when it comes to the results of the whole
job,  there  are  only  a  number  of  indistinct  and  imprecise
statements about the problem not having been  completely  solved,
but that there is still hope for the future, and so forth. We may
be absolutely sure that none of the stories of the New  Testament
contains any somewhat convincing archaeological confirmation  (in
terms of  the  traditional  localizations  -  Authors).  This  is
perfectly true, in particular,  if  applied  to  the  figure  and
biography of  Jesus  Christ.  Not  a  single  spot  traditionally
regarded as the arena of a particular event occurring in the  New
Testament  can  be  indicated  with  the  slightest   degree   of
confidence" ([18], p. 200-201).
     The natural question arises: where the events of Old and New
Testaments were geographically located in reality?

              5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?

     In reality, considerable difficulties accompany the attempts
of geographical localization of many of the  ancient  events  and
cities (not only from the Bible).
     For  example,  one  of  the   accepted   today   traditional
localizations of the famous city of Troy is near  the  Hellespont
(= the sea of Helen). It  is  for  this  particular  reason  that
Schliemann ascribed the famous name of Troy (described by  Homer)
to the rests of a small  ancient  village he excavated  near  the
Hellespont. It is well known that today we have not any proofs of
this "identification".
     It  is  assumed  today,  that   according   to   traditional
chronology, Troy was completely destroyed in the 12-13th  century
B.C. and after this was never reconstructed [17].  But,  it turns
out, that in the Middle Ages,  Italian  city  Troy,  which  still
exists  today  [1],[24],  enjoyed  widespread   fame.   This   is
celebrated medieval city which played an important role  in  many
medieval wars; especially, in the  well-known  war  of  the  13th
     Many Byzantine historians also speak of Homer's Troy  as  of
an existing medieval city, namely, Choniates Nicetas and Gregoras
Nicephoras ([20], v. 6, p. 126).
     T.Livy indicates the spot named Troy and the  Trojan  region
in Italy (Book.1). Certain medieval  historians  identified  Troy
with Jerusalem (see, for example,  [21],p.88,235,162,207),  which
embarrasses the modern commentators:
     "The book of Homer somewhat suddenly turned (in the medieval
chronicle, while describing  Alexander's  expedition  to  Troy  -
Authors)... into the book on the destruction of Jerusalem" ([21],
p. 162). Let us recall that the second (well-known) name of  Troy
is  Ilion,  whereas  the  second  name  of  Jerusalem  is   Aelia
Capitolina ([19], v. 7). It is absolutely clear that in the names
of these cities there is a similarity:
                          Aelia = Ilion.

     The books [1] and [2] contains the data and arguments  which
allow to assume that Homer's Troy is the  Constantinople  (=  New
Rome), and that the Trojan War  is  the  reflection  of  crusades
which started from 11th c.A.D. The  Constantinople  was  captured
during crusades. Besides this, some part of the legend on  Trojan
War is the reflection of a real medieval war from the  middle  of
13th c.A.D. in Italy. The Italian city Troy was involved in  this
war (see [1]).
     The identification of the  Great  Troy  with  Constantinople
follows also from the texts of  crusades  epoch.  The  chronicler
Rober de Clari told that  the  Great  Troy was  located  near  the
entrance into the "branchium Sancti Georgii" ([25],p.210). It  is
supposed today that this is the Dardanelles. From the other  hand
it is also known  that  another  famous  chronicler  of  the  4th
crusade - Villehardouin - calls as "branchium Sancti Georgii" not
only the Dardanelles but also the Bosporus!  M.A.Zaborov  (modern
historian) notes:  "Villehardouin  applies  the  name  "branchium
Sancti  Georgii"  to  the  Dardanelles  and  to   the   Bosporus"
     Thus, the Great Troy can  located  also  near  the  entrance
into the Bosporus. But here we see the Constantinople!
     Consequently, it was completely unnecessary  to  search  the
"rests" of the Troy on a desert hills  as  Schliemann  done.  Our
conjecture: the Trojan War  is  the  reflection  of  the  one  or
several crusades on the Constantinople or on Italian Troy.
     The well-known medieval "Novel on the Troy" of Benoit de
Sainte-Maure ("Roman de Troie") was  finished  allegedly  between
1155 and 1160 A.D. "The source of this novel is  the  "History  of
Troy destruction" written by some Dares, who was  allegedly  the
eyewitness of Trojan War (possibly, he was one of the crusaders -
Auth.). Benoit looks in the antiquity through the  prism  of  his
epoch and his reality... In his basis is the ancient Greek  epos,
but its personages and heroes are transformed into  noble  knights
and beautiful ladies, and the Trojan War  itself  is  transformed
into  the  sequence  of  knight's  duels...  Ancient   Medea   is
represented in his chronicle as courtier lady, whose clothing  is
exactly the same as the clothing of the lady of her social  level
in medieval France of the middle of 12th century"([10],p.235).
     We suggest to read  the  old  chronicles  "in  direct  way",
without some special complex interpretations;  we  need  to  read
"what is written" and not "what should be written". In this  case
we are forced to agree that Benoit de Sainte-Maure describes  the
Trojan War as the event from medieval epoch.

             5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?

     Let us return to the Bible.
     Many strange phenomena occur in an unprejudiced analysis  of
biblical geography (see detailed Morozov's analysis in [19]).
     That many biblical texts describe volcanic activity has been
stressed in history long ago. Let us take the Bible.
     The Lord said to Moses, "I am now coming to you in  a  thick
cloud... But when the ram's horn sounds (when  the  cloud  leaves
Mount Sinai - Authors), they may go  up  the  mountain'...  there
were peals of thunder and flashes of lightning, a dense cloud  on
the mountain and a loud trumpet  blast...  Mount  Sinai  was  all
smoking because the Lord had come down upon it in fire; the smoke
went up like the smoke of a kiln... and the sound of the  trumpet
grew ever louder" (Ex. 19:9, 13, 16, 18).
     And then:
     All the people  saw  how  it  thundered  and  the  lightning
flashed, when they heard the trumpet sound and saw  the  mountain
smoking..." (Ex.20:18).
     "You stood... at Horeb... THe mountain was ablaze with  fire
to the very skies: there was darkness,  cloud,  and  thick  mist.
And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire  "  (Dt.
     The destruction of biblical cities Sodom  and  Gomorrah  has
long been regarded in history to have  been  due  to  a  volcanic
eruption. For example:
     "And then the Lord rained down fire and brimstone  from  the
skies on Sodom and Gomorrah... He saw  thick  smoke  rising  high
from the earth like the smoke of a like-kiln" (Gn.19:24,28).
     And so on.
     The  complete  list  of  all  apparent  volcanic   eruptions
mentioned  in  the  Bible  was  compiled   by   V.P.Fomenko   and
T.G.Fomenko (see [1],[24]).
     To  associate  (as  is   done   traditionally)   all   these
descriptions with  Mn.  Sinai  =  Mn.  Horeb  (and  Jerusalem  in
traditional Palestine) seems doubtful; it is generally known that
it has never been a volcano.
     Where did the events occur then?
     It suffices to study the geological map of the Mediterranean
area to obtain immediately the unique answer. There are no acting
volcanoes in the Sinai peninsula, Syria, or Palestine; there  are
only zones of tertiary and quaternary volcanism, as, for example,
near Paris. In the above-mentioned regions,  where  the  biblical
events are traditionally located, no volcanic activity  has  been
discovered  in  historical  epoch  since  the  birth  of  Christ.
Besides, Egypt and North Africa have no volcanoes.
     The only powerful, and by the way, acting volcanic zone,  is
Italy together with Sicily.
     Thus, according to the Bible, we have to find

     1) a powerful volcano active in the historical era;
     2)  a  destroyed  capital  (see  the  book  of  the  Prophet
Jeremiah) near the volcano;
     3) two other cities destroyed by the volcano, namely,  Sodom
and Gomorrah.

     There exists such a volcano in the Mediterranean, and it  is
unique, namely the famous Vesuvius,  one  of  the  most  powerful
volcanoes in history.
     Famed Pompeii (biblical "capital"?) and two destroyed cities
Stabiae (Sodom?) and Herculaneum (Gomorrah?) are located  nearby.
We cannot but mention a certain similarity in the names of  these
Italian and biblical towns. It is possible that the name of Sinai
for Vesuvius originates from the Latin Sino (sinus), and biblical
Horeb from the Latin horribilis (horrible).
     The following analytic study worth mentioning, which permits
to read the vowel-free  text  of  the  Bible,  was  performed  by
Morozov in [19]. It took into account placing Mt.Sinai=Horeb=Sion
in Italy.
     We illustrate by several examples.

     The Bible speaks:
     "The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and said,  "You  have
stayed on this  mountain  long  enough;  go  now,  make  for  all
KNN (Canaan)..." (Dt.1:6-7).
     The theologians supply the Hebrew KNN with vowels Canaan and
place it in the  desert  on  the  Dead  Sea  coast,  but  another
solution is also possible, namely, KNN = GENUA (Italian Genoa).

     The Bible continues:
     "All KNN (Canaan) and the LBN (Lebanon)..." (Dt. 1:7).
     The theologians  restore  the  Hebrew  LBN  with  vowels  as
Lebanon; however lebanon means "white", i.e., the  same  as  Mont
Blanc, or White Mountain. Famous mountain in Europe.

     "As far as the great river, the PRT" (Dt. 1:7).
     The theologians restore PRT with vowels and decipher  is  as
Euphrates; but, there is the large tributary of the  Danube,  the
Prut, located in central Europe, as beyond Mont Blanc.

     "Then we set out from Horeb... and marched through that vast
and terrible wilderness" (Dt. 1:19).
     In fact, the famous Phlegraei,  vast  and  burnt-out  spaces
filled with  small  volcanoes,  fumaroles,  and  solidified  lava
streams are located near Vesuvius=Horeb.

     "And so we came to KDS-BRN" (Dt. 1:19).
     KDS-BRN is traditionally    supplied    with    vowels    as
Kadesh-Barnea, which is, from the other hand, possibly, a town on
the Rhone ([19], v. 2, p. 166). It is also possible  that  modern
Geneva was meant as "town on the Rhone".

     "And we spent many days marching round the  hill-country  of
Seir" (Dt. 2:1).
     Mount Seir was left here without translation; however, if it
is translated, we obtain Devil's Mountain(s). And there is such a
mountain  near  Lake  Geneva,  namely  Le   Diableret   ("Devil's

     Then, the "Children of Lot" (Dt. 2:9) met on the way can  be
evidently identified with the Latins ( = LT).

     "And cross the gorge of the Arnon" (Dt. 2:24).
     In the canonical translation we see Arnon (RNN). But,this is
the Italian river Arno existing up to now!

     "Next we... advances... to Bashan" (Dt. 3:1).
     The town Bashan (Bassan) is often mentioned in the Bible. It
is surprising that town Bassano still exists in Lombardy.

     "King of Bashan... came out against us at Edrei" (Dt.3:1).
     Adria is still here, on the Po delta; the Po,  by  the  way,
has  often  been  mentioned  by  ancient  Latin  authors   (e.g.,
Procopius) and called the Jordan (in Procopius' Eridanus),  which
is very consistent with the  biblical  spelling  of  the  Jordan,
namely  hay-yarden (JRDN) ([19], v. 2, p. 167).

     "And we captured  all  his  cities...  sixty  cities..."(Dt.
     Indeed, in the Middle Ages, there were many  big  cities  in
the region: Verona, Padua, Ferrara, Bologna, and others.

     "From the gorge of the Arnon to Mount  Hermon  (HRMN)"  (Dt.
     But it is obvious that MNT HRMN can be supplied with  vowels
to be translated as the "German mountains".

     "Only the Og king of Bashan remained... His  sarcophagus  of
iron may still be seen in the... city of Rabbah" (Dt. 3:11).
     Here is mentioned not only Ravenna (=Rabbah), but  also  the
famous tomb of Theodoric (493-526 A.D.) of the Ostrogoths  (Og  =
Goths?). It is clear that biblical OG means possible GOTH.

     There  follows  TBRN  (Taberiah  in   traditional   biblical
translation), which is naturally identified  with  the  Tiber  in
Italy; ZN is Siena, southeast of Livorno.  The  slopes  of  Monte
Viso are called Jebus (Jgs. 19:10-11) in the Bible, and  Rome  is
called Ramah (Jgs. 19:14).

     And so on.
     As we see, the shift of some biblical events from "the  deep
antiquity" in the medieval epoch does  not  contradict  with  the
ancient text of the Bible (without  vowels).  Thus,  now  we  can
continue our analysis of English history.

    5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
                 England were located on islands?

     The fact that modern England is located on the island,  does
not surprise us. But Russia!? There are no  geographical  reasons
to think that Russia is the island! But nevertheless, for example
the  well-known  chronicler  Benoit  de   Sainte-Maure   in   his
"Chronicle of the dukes of  Normandy"  [22]  speaks,  that
     There exists an ISLAND called Cansie (or Canzie), and I
think that this is Rosie (in another copy  of  the  manuscript  -
Russie - Auth.), which is surrounded by the great salty sea.  And
they (the people of Russie - Auth.) fly out  as  great  swarm  of
bees, and their number is thousands; and they... can  attack  the
great kingdoms and  take  the  great  procurement  and  they  can
win and conquer.
     Here the original text:
     "Une isle i a par non Cancie (Canzie in manuscript  B -  see
[10],p.240), e si crei bien que c'est Rosie (Russie in manuscript
B, see [10],p.240), qui est de la grant mer salee de  totes  parz
avironnee.  Dunc  autresi  com  les  euetes   de   lor   diverses
maisonnetes gitent essains granz e pleners, ou moct a  nombres  e
millers, ou com de ceus qui  sunt  irie'  sunt  en  estor  glaive
sachie', tost e isnel d'ire esbrasez, trestot eissi e plus  assez
seuct icil poples fors eissir por les granz rennes envair  e  por
faire les granz ocises, les granz gaaiz e les conquises."

     Russia is called here Rosie or Russie. If  we  look  in  the
table of medieval names, titles and their duplicates (see above),
we will see that here the chronicler really speaks about Russia.
V.I.Matuzova  (who  included  this  text  in  her  book  "English
Medieval Texts") comments this fragment as follows:
     "Rosie is Russia. The report that Russia  is  an  ISLAND  is
similar  to  another  such  reports..."([10],p.244).   And   then
Matuzova quotes another medieval authors who were confident  that
Russia is an ISLAND (in  particular,  some  Arabian  and  Persian
chroniclers; but, by the way, it is not so  clear  -  where  they
lived in reality, may be in Spain?).
     It is supposed sometimes today that Cancie  is  Scandinavia.
But Scandinavia also is not an island! By the way, the "Chronicle
of Monastery of Saint Edmund" (13th c. A.D.)  is  also  convinced
that Russia is located on an island, because reports that Tartars
rushed on Hungary FROM ISLANDS ([30], and also [10],p.100-101).
     How we can explain it? The simplest  way  -  to  accuse  the
authors of 12th century that they were completely ignorant  (this
is the standard explanation in modern  historical  textbooks  and
this idea allows to the modern historians simply  to  "close  the
     But another explanation is also possible.
     English word island means today the piece of land surrounded
by a sea. But may be in the medieval epoch  this  word  had  also
another meaning? Our conjecture: it was Asia-Land, i.e., the Land
located in Asia. Without vowels we have:
               asialand = SLND, and island = SLND.
     This is the same word!
    Then all things immediately fit in  their  "correct  places".
Russia really can be considered (from the Western point of  view)
as far Asian Land = island. Large part of Russia belongs  to  the
Asia. Consequently, medieval chroniclers were quite right when we
talked about Island Russia. They were not so ignorant  as  it  is
supposed today.
     Let us repeat once more our conjecture: the word island  had
two meanings in the past: piece of land surrounded by a sea,  and
     But in this case the natural question arises (as the flash).
     If the ancient English authors speaking about island Russia,
assumed that they speak about Asia-Land Russia, then  we  do  not
see any obstacles to assume  that  when  they  told  bout  island
Anglia, they also speak about  Asia-Land Anglia. And  only  after
this, in a new  epoch,  the  word  island  Anglia  become  to  be
considered only as island Anglia in a modern sense (piece of land
surrounded by sea).
     We saw the remarkable parallel between English  history  and
Byzantine history. But Byzantine Empire really was Asia-Land  for
Western chroniclers. And only in the next epoch  (when  Byzantine
chronicles were transported in England  and  were  inserted  into
English history) the Asia-Land Anglia was transformed into Island
     Thus, were was located the land  Anglia-Britain  in  10-12th
cc. A.D.? This is complicated question. To get the answer we have
unique way - to take the old English chronicles. Our answer  will
be as follows:
     Anglia-Britain of 10-12th cc.A.D. was Byzantine Empire.

      5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
         Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?

     On the face of it, the answer on  this  absurd  question  is
completely evident: on the same place  where  England-Britain  is
located today. But let us not to hurry.
     Let us recall  after  "accidental  murder  of  his  father",
Brutus was expelled from Italy. He went to the Greece  ([9],p.7).
Here Brutus fixed the ancient relationship  and  he  was  staying
among Trojans ([9],p.7). The period of wars in Greece started  at
this time. These wars are described by Galfridus in many details.
Then Brutus organized the army and fleet and after  this  started
the campaign-cruise. It is supposed today that his fleet went  in
Atlantic ocean and then arrived in modern England.  Is  it  true?
May be the chronicles describe in reality the military operations
inside Mediterranean sea and  on  the  territory  of  Greece  and
Byzantine Empire?
     For  example,  Brutus'  army  arrived  in  Sparatin.  Modern
commentary: "Location is unknown"  ([9],p.230).  Of  course,  you
cannot find Sparatin if you assume that Brutus  travel  far  from
Mediterranean sea. But if these events occurred in  Greece,  then
you do not need to search Sparatin, because  this  is  well-known
     Then Galfridus describes the path of Brutus' fleet which  is
considered today as a "proof" that Brutus really went in Atlantic
and then arrived in modern England.  But  we  see  suddenly  from
modern comments that it turns  out  that  Galfridus  "repeat  the
mistake  containing  in  his source  -   namely,   in   "Historia
Brittonum" of Nennius, who made the mistake because of  erroneous
reading of Orosius' chronicle..."([9],p.231). Moreover,  then  it
turns out  that  "following  to  Nennius,  Galfridus  ERRONEOUSLY
placed Tyrrhenian Sea BEHIND Gibraltar. We recall that Tyrrhenian
Sea is BEFORE Gibraltar because is a part  of  Mediterranean  Sea
near Western coast of Italy" ([9],p.231).
     But we are sure that here - no mistake! Galfridus was  right
because  he  describes  in  reality  some  complicated   military
movements INSIDE Mediterranean Sea, in  particular,  near  Italy,
where you can see Tyrrhenian Sea. Brutus' fleet did not  pass  in
the Atlantic Ocean! Modern historians  try  to  accuse  Galfridus
(and  other  chroniclers)  in  some   "mistakes"   only   because
historians try to adjust their modern "traditional" chronological
and geographical concepts with real evidences  of  real  medieval
texts. Of course, a  lot  of  contradictions  appear.  All  these
contradictions are considered today as  "the  fault  of  medieval
     Then Galfridus describes the battle between Brutus' army and
Greeks  on  the  Akalon  (Acalon)  river  ([9],p.8).  The  modern
commentary is as follows: "This name is, possibly, the fantasy of
Galfridus... E.Pharal is his book formulated the idea  that  this
description of Greek's defeat during the battle with Trojans near
Acalon river, was taken by Galfridus from the story of  Etien  de
Blua about the defeat of TURKS during the battle  with  CRUSADERS
near "Moscolo" river at March 1098 A.D." ([9],p.230).
     Consequently, here we can penetrate through the thick  cover
of traditional plaster into the real contents  of  the  Galfridus
chronicle.  He  describes  in  reality  (following  to  some  old
documents) the epoch of the First Crusade  in  the  end  of  11th
c.A.D. in Byzantine Empire.
     Thus, we can assume that Brutus' campaign = Julius  Caesar's
campaign is the reflection of well-known crusade in  the  end  of
11th c.A.D. The conquest of  Britain  is  shifted  from  the  1st
c.B.C. into the 11th c.A.D. (about 1000-year shift !). This  fact
confirms  the  discovered  parallel  ("identification")   between
Roman-Byzantine  history  of  10-15th  cc.A.D.  and  old  English
history starting, allegedly, in 1st c.B.C. See above.

     After some time they (Brutus' fleet) arrived to "the  island
which was called Albion" ([9],p.17). Modern commentary: Albion  =
Al'bania - one of the early (old) names of Britain or the part of
it, which was appeared in ancient sources" ([9],p.232).
     When speaking about Britain, Galfridus very often  uses  its
second equivalent name: Al'bania ([9],p.19).
     Thus, Britain = Al'bania.
     Let us refuse  now  to  follow  the  traditional  historical
version which identifies persistently the Anglia of  10-12th  cc.
A.D. with the modern island. Then we  immediately  recognize  the
modern  name  Albania  (located  on  the  territory  of  medieval
Byzantine Empire) in this Galfridus' term Al'bania.
     Thus, Galfridus places the medieval Britain on the territory
of medieval Byzantine Empire.
     The name Albania or Al'bania was slightly  transformed  into
Albion later  (occasionally  or,  possible,  deliberately),  when
somebody decided to erase the evident traces of Byzantine  origin
of the old English chronicles.

    5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =

     After landing  on  the  coast  of  Albania  (later  Albion),
"Brutus named the island Britain using his own  name,  and  named
his fellows Britts" ([9],p.17). By the way, transformation of the
Asia-Land  Albania  into  island  Albion  (as  a  piece  of  land
surrounded by  sea)  can  be  supported  and  partially explained
because of the reason that Brutus arrived into Albania  with  his
fleet, i.e., after sea expedition. And in some texts the  landing
on the coast of Byzantine Empire was transformed into the landing
on the coast of some island.
     With whom meets Brutus after landing?
     With giants. We think that here  chronicle  means  different
great nations which lived in Byzantine Empire and possibly formed
some individual dependent or independent states.
     "Among  these  giants   was   one   especially   disgusting,
abominable, who was called Goemagog" ([9],p.17-18). This  "giant"
was (according to Galfridus)  extremely  powerful  and  terrible.
Brutus' army meets  in  battle  with  12  giants  (among  them  -
Goemagog). Initially, Britts were defeated. But  then  they  "won
and killed all the giants except  of  Goemagog"  ([9],p.18).  The
battle with Goemagog continues and in the end Britts won.
     Let us stop for a moment and think a little. What  tells  us
Galfridus in his poetic chronicle (of course,  he  was  based  on
some old real documents).
     1) About the victory of Britts. In other words, as we think,
- about the victory of crusaders who conquered Byzantine Empire.
     2) About one of the most dangerous their enemies   -    some
     The modern commentary:
     "Galfridus combined in one name two  ones:  Gog  and  Magog"
([9],p.232). The modern historian, the commentator  of  Galfridus
chronicle, noted that the nations Gog and  Magog  are  frequently
mentioned in the Bible (in Revelation, in Ezekiel). For  example,
in the biblical book Ezekiel we can see the following text  about
these terrible and powerful nations:
     "Set thy face against Gog, the  land  of  Magog,  the  chief
prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal...Gog shall  come  against  the
land of Israel..." (Ezekiel, 38:2-3,18). According to the  Bible,
death and destruction carry these nations.
     Remark. In some English publications of the Bible  the  word
"Rosh" is omitted! Why?
     About the hordes of Gog  and  Magog  with  fear  speaks  the
biblical book of Revelation: "Satan shall be loosed  out  of  his
prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations... Gog and Magog,
to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is  as  the
sand of the sea" (Revelation, 20:7-8).
     The modern historian tells  us:  "Late  the  people  fantasy
transformed Gog and Magog into  spiteful,  malicious  giants.  In
London starting from the Middle Ages there are  two  monuments  -
the figures of Gog and Magog (near entrance to  the  City,  today
near town hall" ([9],p.232).
     These two medieval nations are well-known and are identified
according to some medieval chroniclers with Goths and Mongols. In
13th c.A.D.  Hungarians  considered  Gog  and  Magog  as  Tartars
([9],p.174). All  these  facts  forced  us  to  move  the  events
described by Galfridus into Byzantine Empire (or  in  neighboring
     From the other hand it is impossible do  not  mention  about
the following important remark.
     The Moscow kingdom, according to  the  old  Russian  legend,
which can be found in Russian textbooks until 19th century,  "was
founded by biblical patriarch Mosoh". This  legend  explains  why
Moscow is called in Greek  as  Mosha  (Moska).  When  the  Moscow
kingdom was founded? The reader gives the answer immediately: the
first note in chronicles about Moscow is dated by 1147 A.D.
     Because the Bible speaks about  Gog,  the  chief  prince  of
Meshech  and  Tubal,  N.A.Morozov   formulated   an   interesting
     "Is  it  true  that  the  Russian  MUZHIK  (man,  fellow)  =
Rosh-Meshech was reflected in this famous biblical  fragment,  as
the founder of Russia-Muzhikovii ? Then, after the filtration  of
the sound ZH through the Greek  language,  where  this  sound  is
transformed into S, this word was returned again into  Russia  as
"Russia-Moscow".' ([19],vol.2,p.579).
     Morozov  wrote:  "Any  kind  of  interpretation  for   these
fragment from the Bible leads you  to  the  historical  epoch  of
Mongolian period in Russian history, i.e., to the epoch  starting
from 1227, when Mongol Batu (Batyi) becomes the ruler  (king)  of
Moscow. When we agree with this point of view,  then  all  things
become very natural..." ([19],vol.2,p.615).
     We realize that for the reader who is  not  acquainted  with
the history of chronological  problems  and  with  the  books  of
Morozov  [19],  Fomenko  [1],[24]   and   Fomenko,   Kalashnikov,
Nosovskij  [3],  some  of  our  ideas  sound  sometimes  strange.
Nevertheless, from the other hand, as can  see  the  reader,  all
these ideas are produces by the formal logical  analysis  of  the
old English chronicles.
     Thus, if we return to the Galfridus chronicle, we are forced
to formulate the corollary: during the landing on  the  coast  of
Byzantine Empire in 11th  c.A.D.  the  Brutus'  army  meets  with
several large nations, and among them  are   Goths,  Mongols  and
Russians. It is quite natural  for  11th  c.A.D.  because  of  an
important role which play these nations at this time in  medieval
Europe and Asia.

       5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering
                      of Britain = Albania?

     Let us remind that the Brutus' epoch is  simultaneously  the
Julius Caesar's epoch. If so, the military operations  of  Brutus
should  be  reflected  in  the  texts  speaking  about  the  same
operations but from the Caesar's camp.
     Galfridus, when finishing the  Brutus'  story,  and  passing
several centuries along  time-axis,  comes  finally  to  Caesar's
epoch. Then he started to repeat the same "Brutus'  story",  but,
of course, from different point of view.
     Galfridus: "As it was mentioned  in  Roman  history,  Julius
Caesar (after  victory  in  Gallia)  appeared  on  the  coast  of
Rutheni. Looking from there on the island Britain, he asked  his
fellows, - what about this country and which nation  lives  here"
     It is quite clear to the trained reader that,  according  to
the opinion of modern  historians,  Galfridus  again demonstrates
here his  medieval  ignorance.  The  modern  commentary  to  this
fragment of Galfridus' text is as follows: "Rutheni are the  Gall
nation  lived  in  Aquitaine  (southern-western  Gallia).  It  is
impossible  "to  view"  Britain  from  there,  and  consequently,
Rutheni appeared in Galfridus text erroneously" ([9],p.238).
     Who are Rutheni? The reader can take again the dictionary of
medieval names and their duplicates (see Matuzova  [10])  and  he
will obtain the answer immediately:
                      Rutheni are Russians.


     Susie,                              Russii,
     Russie,                             Dogi (!),
     Ruissie,                            Rugi (!),
     Rusia,                              RUTHENI (!),
     Russia,                             Rusceni.

     It is well-known that Russian army several times  took  part
in the military operations on Byzantine territory, in particular,
they attacked  the  Constantinople.  Thus,  in  the  Middle  Ages
Russian forces really occupied some Byzantine regions. And it was
quite possible "to view" the Albania = Britain = Byzantine Empire
from there.
     Thus, our conjecture is as follows.
     Rutheni mentioned  in  old  English  chronicles  during  the
Julius Caesar's conquest of Albania = Britain - are the  Russians
of 10-12th cc.A.D.
     Later these Rutheni were shifted along the geographical  map
in Western direction, when the old English chronicles were  taken
from Byzantine Empire into modern island England. As a result  of
such artificial displacement (shift) the name Rutheni appeared on
the map of Gallia (in France). Consequently,  real  Rutheni  were
"doubled, duplicated". Then the  initial,  original  location  of
real Rutheni was forgotten among the English chroniclers.
     Let us note the important idea.
     When the Byzantine chronicles were transported from the East
to the West (and were inserted in the history  of  modern  island
Britain), this shift also generated the "geographical  shift"  of
many names and titles which were initially located  in  Byzantine
Empire and around it. Rutheni (= Russians) are only one of  these
examples. We will demonstrate below some another examples.
     Let us return to Julius Caesar in Galfridus' description.
     The fleet of Caesar invades into Albania = Britain. Here  he
starts the battle with Britts ([9],p.38), then defeats  them  and
conquest the country. Let us  stop  for  a  moment  and  ask  the
question:  who  are  Britts  in  10-12th   cc.A.D.?   Traditional
explanation is as follows: Britts are the descendants of  Brutus.
This "explanation" explains nothing. Basing on our experience, we
can suspect that "Britts" of 10-12th cc.A.D. is some real  nation
of Middle Ages living in some part of Byzantine Empire. We do not
need to search too long. The answer is on the surface.
     An important part of Roman-Byzantine  Empire  is  Romania  =
Rumania, and also Bulgaria. Here you can see the well-known river
Danube with large afflux Prut = PRT (without vowels) or = BRT. In
the epoch of crusades the Byzantine Empire was the collection  of
several feudal states. One of the important  nations, which  were
represented here (as crusaders), were Germans and Prussians. Let
us put the question: which name  was  used  by  medieval  English
chroniclers for Prussians? The immediate answer is given  by  the
same dictionary by Matuzova [10]:

                        Prurenia (!),
                        (P-Rutenia = P-Russia),
                    PRUSSI (Prussians):

     Thus, the medieval sources call the Prussians as  Pruteni  =
PRTN. It is possible that here we see the medieval BRT = Britts =
Brits, described by Galfridus. Thus, it is possible  that  Julius
Caesar  was  at  war  with  medieval  Prussians  =  Pruteni.   In
particular, Britain = BRTN (in 10-12th  cc.A.D.)  coincides  with
RRTN = Pruneti = Prussia ! Thus, one  of  the  large  regions  in
Byzantine Empire, namely, - occupied by Prussians  =  Pruteni,  -
gave the name for Britain = Prutenia.
     But another answer is also possible.
     According to the Abglo-Saxon Chronicle, the British language
is the language Welsh ([2],p.3). But Welsh is evidently Vlachi  =
Blachi and, according to the Matuzova's dictionary,  denotes  the
Thurki = Turci = Turks. If so, in some cases the  Britts  can  be
identified with Turks (at least in some medieval chronicles). But
this identification again leads us to the Byzantine Empire as the
location of early English history.
     We hope that we gave the reasonable answer  of  the  natural
         With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering
                      of Britain = Albania?

       5.10. Where was London located in 10-11th cc. A.D.?

     Trained reader waits with answer because suspects (and it is
reasonable) that correct answer can be completely unexpected.
     And we continue to read the  old  English  chronicles  which
give us the correct answers on the all  such  questions.  But  we
need to read "what is written" and not "what should be  written".
The second formula is sometimes  the  point  of  view  of  modern
historical Scaliger's tradition which is in the basis of a modern
textbook on ancient history.
     "When finishing with the division  of  the  kingdom,  Brutus
decided to built a new town-capital... He founded  the  town  and
called it NEW TROY (! - Auth.).  The  town  preserved  this  name
during many years and then, because  of  distortion  the  initial
title, the name  was  transformed  into  TRINOVANT.  After  this,
Lud... who fighted with Julius Caesar,...  ordered  to  call  the
town CAERLUD which means "Town of Lud"  (the  word  Caer  =  Cair
means simply "town", see details below - Auth.). It was the cause
of a great conflict between Lud and his brother Nennius,  because
Nennius was not agree with Lud who  wanted  to  forget  the
initial name TROY" ([9],p.18).
     And then: "The title was distorted and was transformed  into
Caerludein, then  into  Lundene  and   finally,   into   Lundres"
     The modern commentary: "Trinovant is today the city  London"
     Thus, the old English chronicles states that:
                            New Troy =
                           Trinovant =
                              Lud =
                            Lundene =
     Here we recall that according to the analysis  in  [1],[24],
the NEW TROY of 10-11th cc.A.D. is New Rome = Constantinople.  As
we have mentioned above, the most known historical version states
that "the Troy of Homer" is "somewhere near" the Constantinople =
Istanbul.  Schliemann  wrongly  spent  a  lot  of  his  time  for
senseless "excavations of the Troy" (he discovered not the Troy).
It was sufficient simply to point out  on  the  Constantinople  =
future Istanbul.
     This idea is in a  nice  correspondence  with  all  previous
results which give the Byzantine location for initial old  events
of English history.
     Thus, Galfridus possibly tells us about the 1st  crusade  of
1099 A.D. As the result of crusade, the new capital was founded -
NEW TROY = future Constantinople.
     Let us attract the attention of the reader to the  following
remarkable fact.  There  exists  a  well-known  town  TYRNOVO  in
Bulgaria. But this name is similar  to  the  name  TRINOVANT  and
means simply TROY NEW, i.e., TROY NEW = TyrNovo. It becomes clear
that the name  Trinovant  was  initially  appeared  in  Byzantine
Empire, on the Balkan Peninsula, in the Slavonic region  and  its
initial meaning was NEW TROY. In English the word new  means  the
same as Slavonic nova or new. Thus,  one  the  initial  names  of
LONDON was TROY NEW (its trace is Tyrnovo  in  Bulgaria).  It  is
interesting that Galfridus states the  same,  when  he  tells  us
about transformation of the name  NEW  TROY  into  TRINOVANT.  In
reality,  this  is  not  a   transformation,   but   simply   the
transposition of two words: Troy and New inside the joint title.
     It is clear also, that "town Lud" means simply "town LD"  or
"town LT", i.e. = "town of Latins" = "Latin town". The appearance
of the name LT in old English chronicles is quite natural: in the
epoch of crusades in 1204 A.D. the new LATIN EMPIRE was  appeared
on the territory of Byzantine Empire. Latin Empire gave its  name
to the capital: LATIN TOWN,  i.e.  Caer-Lud (Cair-Lud).   Nennius
tells us that word "Cair" means in old  Britts'  language  "Town"
     Identification of New  Troy  =  London  with  Constantinople
follows also from the following fact. As we  saw,  New  Troy  was
called later Cair-Lud  or  Caer-Lud.  But  Caer  or  CR  (without
vowels) sounds also, for example in Slav languages, as ZR because
of often oscillation between C and Z. Thus, CR or ZR is evidently
ZAR (czar = zar which means "king", "ruler"). Slavonic name  for
Constantinople was ZAR-GRAD, which means "king-town". Thus,
                       CAER-LUD = ZAR-LUD,
i.e. "king-town of Latins" (Latin king  town).  This  is  exactly
Constantinople = ZAR-GRAD in Slav language.

     Trained  reader  expects  that  the  whole  this  story   of
Galfridus (about origin of London's name) the  modern  historical
science claims as wrong and erroneous:
     The Galfridus' information about the history and  origin  of
the name London (from the name of  Lud)  is  wrong.  The  antique
authors (Tacitus, Ammian Marcellinus) call this town Londinium or
Lundinium. The real history of the name of London is  disputable"
     Thus, after the 1st crusade in  1099  A.D.  some  chronicles
called the New Rome as NEW TROY. Then, after  the  foundation  in
1204 A.D. the Latin Empire the capital was called  also  (or  was
renamed?) LATIN TOWN, i.e., Caer-Lud and  finally,  LONDON.  This
name was then  transported  into  island  England  when  some  of
Byzantine chronicles were moved in this direction (after the fall
of Constantinople in 1204 A.D. or 1453 A.D.).
     Nennius listed in his chronicle  "the  names  of  all  towns
which exist in Britain, and their number is 28" ([8],p.190).  The
modern  commentary:  "Cair  means  Town  in   Britts'   language"
([8],p.283). We can note here that the capital of Egypt is Cairo.
Consequently, we see again, that in Britts'  language  the  clear
"Eastern trace" was remained. May be,  this  fact  indicates  the
Eastern origin of initial old English history.
     Galfridus tells us that New Troy ( = London) was founded  on
the Thames river ([9],p.18).  We  think  that  initially  "Thames
river" was one of the name for the Bosporus, where Constantinople
is located. The Bosporus sound  (strait)  is  really  very  long,
sufficiently thin, and was represented on  the  old  geographical
maps as large river. Schliemann, by the  way,  decided  to  place
"his Troy" also in this region, namely - in the  end  of  another
long and thin strait (sound) - the Dardanelles, which is close to
the Bosporus.
     Today the name of the "London river" is Thames. But  because
all these events are happened in the East, we  need  to  remember
that here some  people  read  the  text  in  opposite  direction:
from the right to the left (in  Europe:  from  the  left  to  the
right). The word SOUND (= strait) without vowels is SND and after
opposite  reading  is  DNS.  Because  D  and  T  were   sometimes
equivalent, and the same is valid to M and N,  we  see  that  the
following conjecture (equivalence) is possible: DNS =  TMS,  i.e.
"sound" = "Thames".
     From the other hand, Thames is  practically  identical  with
Themis. But Themis is the name of  well-known  GREEK  goddess  of

  5.11. Who were scots in 10-12 cc.A.D. and were did they live?
           Where was Scotland located in 10-12 cc.A.D.?

     Scotland = Scot + Land = the Land of Scots.  Scots  live  in
Scotland - this is well-known fact.
     But  sufficiently  less  is  known  that  in   old   English
chronicles the Scots sometimes are called Scithi,  i.e., Scyths !
See, for  example  the  manuscript  F  of  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle
([2],p.3, comment 4).  Thus,  one  of  possible  answers  on  the
question in the title of present section is as follows:

                         Scots = Scyths.

     In other words, Scotland = the Land of Scyths = Scithi-Land.

     Scyths lived in Scythia, which is partially identified  with
some regions  in  modern  Russia.  Old  English  chronicles  call
Scythia also as Scithia, Sice, Sithia, Barbaria (see  [10]).  Are
there some "traces" of medieval name Scots (for Scyths) in modern
Russia? Yes! It is known that Scyths are considered partially  as
the nation which  cultivated  the  cattle.  But  before  now  the
Russian term for "cattle" is  SCOT.  Our  conjecture:  the  Scots
mentioned in  old  English  chronicles  of  10-12th  cc.A.D.  are
Scyths  =  Scithi  which  lived  near  Byzantine  Empire  on  the
territory (partially) of modern Russia.
     It was in 10-12th cc.A.D. Then, after transport of Byzantine
chronicles into modern island Britain, the  name  of  Scyths  was
also automatically shifted in modern England. And today we see in
the modern England the Scyth-Land as Scot-Land.
     And we see again that the  old  English  chronicle  tell  us
about the real Byzantine history, because really Scyths of 10-12th
cc.A.D. lived near Byzantine Empire.
     Nennius, in the section with title "About  Scots  when  they
captured Hybernia", informs us:
     "If somebody wants to know when... Hybernia was uninhabited,
desert, then the most informed among SCOTS told me the following.
When the people of Israel went  from  Egypt,  the  Egyptians  who
haunted Israelits (according to the Bible), were sank in the Sea.
Among the Egyptians was one noble man from SCYTHIA  (!  -  Auth.)
with many relatives and  with  many  servants.  He  was  expelled
(banished) from his native kingdom  and  we  was  in  Egypt  when
Egyptian army was sank in the Sea... Then the survived  Egyptians
decided to expel him from the Egypt because they afraid  that  he
can captures their country and to establish his power  in  Egypt"
     Then, as a result, these Scyths were  expelled  from  Egypt,
and then their  fleet  conquered  the  Hybernia.  This  event  is
considered (in Nennius' opinion) as conquest of Hybernia by Scots
([8],p.175). Thus, here we see that Nennius was sure  that  Scots
were descended from Scyths.
     It is possible that here the name Hybernia  was  in  reality
applied to the Hyberia = old name of modern Georgia (or,  may  be
to the medieval  Spain).  It  is  supposed  today  in  historical
science that medieval Hybernia = Ireland.
     As  we  expect  (and  this  is  really  true),  the   modern
historical commentary to this fragment from Nennius' chronicle is
very angry:
     "Which Scythia is mentioned here? Bede Venerable  calls  the
Scandinavia as Scythia. The  version  about  "Scyths"  origin  of
Scots was appeared  because  of  some  similarity  between  words
"Scithia" and "Scottia" "([8],p.272). The commentator here passed
over in silence  that  sometimes  "Scots"  were  written  in  old
English chronicles as "Scithi", i.e., "Scyths" and this  fact  is
well-known to the real experts in the  ancient  English  history.
See [2]. By the way, the replacement of  Scythia  by  Scandinavia
does not help, because (as we have demonstrated above),  the  old
English chronicles sometimes identified Cansie = Scandinavia  and
Russia (Rossie) (see [10]): "Cansie (or Canzie), and I think that
this is Rosie (in another copy  of  the  manuscript  -  Russie  -
Auth.)" (see the discussion above).
     If it was really  true  that  in  some  medieval  historical
period the Scithia was called as  Scotland  (in  some  historical
chronicles), then the great interest will  obtain  the  following
fact. As we saw,  the  English  chronicles  called  Russian  king
(ruler) Jaroslav  the  Sage  (Wise)  as  Malescold  (Malescoldus)
([10],p.58). Thus, his whole  title  (if  Scythia  was  Scotland)
should be Scottish (or Scoth) king Malescold (or  Malcolm?).  But
we know several medieval Scottish kings Malcolms  in  traditional
Scotland history. May be one of them is Russian king Jaroslav the
Sage who was "transported" into "island Scottish  history"  as  a
result of chronological and geographical shift?

        5.12. Five original languages of ancient Britain.
  Which nations used these languages and where did they live in
                         10-12th cc.A.D.?

     On the first page of  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  the  following
important information is presented:
     "Here in this island (i.e. in Britain -  Auth.)  are  five
         British or Welsh,
         Pictish, and
     Picts came from the south from Scythia  with  warships,  not
many, and landed at first in northern Ireland,  and  there  asked
the Scots if they mights dwell there... And the Picts  asked  the
Scots for wives...  A  part  of  Scots  went  from  Ireland  into
Britain" ([2],p.3).

     Is there any  contradiction  between  these  facts  and  our
identification of old English  events  with  events  of  crusades
epoch   of   10-12th   cc.   A.D.   in   Byzantine   empire?   No
contradiction! Moreover, here we see certain confirmation of  our

     1) Appearance of  the  name  Anglia  (English)  in  the  old
English history is quite natural - this is the evident reflection
of well-known dynasty of Byzantine  emperors:  Angels  =  Angelus

     2) The name Latin is  the  reflection  of  Latin  Empire  in
Constantinople (13th  c.  A.D.),  and  a  little  earlier  -  the
reflection of a group of Latins  who  came  in  Byzantine  Empire
during crusades epoch. Then they settled here and founded several
feudal states.

     3-a) The name British = BRT  (and  its  duplicate=equivalent
Welsh, see [2]) also  is  presented  in  the  medieval  Byzantine
history. This is the name of Prussians=Pruteni = PRT (see above).

     3-b) The English term Welsh is also well-known  in  medieval
Byzantine empire. It is  sufficient  to  look  in  the  table  of
Matuzova [10] to get an immediate answer:
   Vlach (or Blachi) = Welsh - this is Turci = Thurki = Turks.
                     Turks =
                             Vlachi = Blachi, Ilac, Blac (!).

     The name Vlachi=Blachi  or  Volochi  is  well-known  in  the
medieval Europe. Starting from 9th c. A.D.,  they  lived  on  the
territory of modern  Romania  =  Rumania  ([11],p.352)  and  they
formed the state Valachia. It is  remarkable  that  the  another,
second name for Valachia was Zara Rumanska, i.e. the  Kingdom  of
Romania (or Rumania). The most serious influence (on the fate  of
the whole region) Valachia had in 14th c.A.D.
     The history  of  Valachia  is  closely  connected  with  the
history of Turkey. The medieval Valachia several times was  in  a
heavy war with Turkey (with Osman Empire). In  the  end  of  14th
century and in the  beginning  of  15th  century  the  rulers  of
Valachia became the vassals of Turkey ([11],p.356). Consequently,
the names of Valachia (Welsh) and Turkey are closely connected in
the whole medieval history of Byzantine Empire.
     Moreover, the name Vlachi is well-known in  the  history  of
Constantinople. One of the main residences of Byzantine  emperors
was in Vlachern Palace ([25],p.226-229).  This  "Palace  was  the
favorite residence of Comnenus" ([15],p.137).  Greeks  called  it
     "Valachia (in the form Blakie) - is geographical  name which
is often used by  Robert  de  Clari  (and  also  by  Geoffrey  de
Villehardouin) for the territory of Eastern Balkan" ([15],p.135).
This region was called by Byzantine authors as Great Vlachia.  In
other words,  the  Great  Vlachia  is  the  part  of  the  modern
     Thus, the old English name  Welsh  points  out  on  Balkan's
Valachia of 9-15 cc. A.D., or on the  Turkey,  or  on  the  whole
Byzantine Empire.

     4) The original (preimage) of Pictish (Picts, Pict = PCT) in
Byzantine Empire is  quite  clear.  It  is  well-known  that  the
ancient name of Egypt was Copt (= CPT) or Gipt. Thus,  we  obtain
the immediate answer:
          Picts - are Copts or Gipts (i.e., Egyptians).

     By the  way,  Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  is  quite  right  when
speaking that Picts came (in Britain - Auth.)  from  the  country
which is in the South with respect to Scithia. Really,  Egypt  is
in the South with respect to the Scythia.

     5) And finally, what about the language IRISH ?  Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle states that some  part  of  Scotts  came  from  Ireland
([2],p.3). Besides this, at least in some  historical  epochs  we
     "Down to the time of Alfred this term Scottas refers  either
to the Scots of Ireland  or  of  the  Irish  kingdom  of  Argyll"
([2],p.3, comm.5).
     But this means  that  Ireland  is  the  part  of  Scot-Land.
Because we have possible identification of Scots of  10-12th  cc.
with Scyths, then we obtain the following conjecture:

            language Irish is Russian (RSH = Russia),

because without vowels we have RSH - RSS, "irish"  and  "russian"
sound very closely. Consequently, in  this  historical  epoch  we
               Ireland = Ire + Land is the Russia.

     We realize that this possible identification of Ireland  (in
some   historical   epoch)   with   Russia   (and   consequently,
identification of Scotland with Scythia), can generate a  certain
irritation and even indignation of some scientists. Nevertheless,
we are forced to repeat once  more  that  all  these  conclusions
follow from the text of old English chronicles,  when  we  read
them without the restrictions generated by traditional Scaliger's
chronology. By the way, may be not  all  readers  know  that  the
legendary English (British) king Arthur (who is one of  the  most
famous rulers of ancient  England  and  is  placed  traditionally
approximately in the 5th c.A.D.) was in direct contact  with  the
king of Russia ("and the king of Russia, the most severe  of  the
knights"). This is the report of Layamon (the beginning  of  13th
century) - the author of the poem  "Brut,  or  the  Chronicle  of
Britain" ([23], see also [10],pp.247-248). By  the  way,  in  the
time of the king Arthur the princess (or  queen)  of  Russia  was
kidnaped (see [23]).
     When speaking  about  nations  populated  the  old  England,
Galfridus tells us ([9],p.6):
     We spoke about Britts, Picts and Scots. Now - about Normans.

     6) Normans play an important role  in  Byzantine  Empire  of
10-15 cc. They took part in crusades. However,  it  is  possible,
that Normans are simply one more variant for the name Romans.  If
so, they are Romans -  Romei,  the  people  who  lived  in  Roman
(Byzantine) empire.

     7) Now - about Saxs (Saxons). "Saxs (Saxons) - German nation
lived in northern Europe, mostly on the territory near North Sea.
In 5-6  centuries  Britain  was  conquered  by  German  tribes...
Galfridus usually calls he GERMAN INVADERS  by  generalized  name
SAXS (SAXONS), but in some cases  speaks  about  Angls  (Angels)"
([9],pp.229-230). Let us compare with Byzantine  history.  It  is
well-known that Germans  took  part  in  crusades.  Consequently,
Saxons (Saxs) and Angls (Angels) were  among  the  nations  which
invaded into Byzantine empire in 10-12 centuries.

     Thus, finally we see that the old  English  chronicles  tell
here not about some small nations which, as supposed today, lived
many years ago on the modern island England, but about real great
nations, states and empires. These great  medieval  nations  were
well-known in medieval Byzantine empire and Mediterranean region.
If so, the old English chronicles describe  important  events  in
medieval world (crusades et cetera). (From traditional  point  of
view they speak about "local events" on isolated island).
     And only later,  after  the  artificial  transport  of  some
Byzantine chronicles into modern island England, this  remarkable
history of great events was artificially  compressed,  "decreased
in the size" and was transformed into "small"  local  history  on
sufficiently "small area" - on the one island.

      5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms
        Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
                        10-12 centuries.?

     The answer is given in the previous section.
     All these states (and nations) are real states (and nations)
of medieval Europe in 10-12th cc. They took part in the  conquest
of  Byzantine  empire  and  then  they  created  several   feudal
crusaders states.

     1) Britain - is, most likely, Prussia = Prutenia  or  Turkey
        (= Vlachia).

     2) Kent is, according to J.Blaire  [6],  the  Saxons  region
= Saxonia. Let us  recall  that  in  10-12th  cc.  on  the  German
territory there exists Saxons area = Saxonia.

     3) Sussex = South Saxons.

     4) Wessex = West Saxons.

     5) Essex = East Saxons.

     6) Mercia. Possible this is again Germany  or  some  of  its
part, because in the Middle Ages Germany was called  Moesia  and,
for example, town Marburg was called Merseburg, i.e. Merse + Burg
([10],p.263). It is also possible  that  chronicles  mean  Turkey
when speaking about Mercia (Mersia). See, for example, large town
Mersin in Turkey on the coast of Mediterranean sea.
     Anyway,  we  see  that  all  six  old-English  kingdoms   of
10-12th cc.  can  be  located  in  Europe  around  the  Byzantine
Empire  and  all  of  then  took  part   in   its   "feudal-state
organization" during crusades. And only later  all  these  states
and  nations  were  "transported"  into  island   England,   were
artificially "decreased in size" and were inserted  in  a  modern
textbooks, where they are considered today as the initial English
kingdoms of 5-8th cc.A.D.

     5.14. A shift of originally Byzantine map to the land of
         modern Great Britain resulted in duplicating of
                     many geographical terms

     Let us again return to an important book  of  Matuzova  [10]
and let us analyze the information  from  old-English  chronicles
collected in [10]. It turns out that on the  modern  geographical
map (which has its origin in medieval maps of 10-16th  cc.)  many
geographical names are DUPLICATED, i.e., are appeared  TWICE:  in
the West and in the East. There is an  impression  that  somebody
took the original geographical map, then shifted  it  in  eastern
direction (or, possible, in opposite  -  western  direction)  and
then overlapped the shifted  map  onto  the  initial  map.  As  a
result, we see the "duplication"  of  many  names.  Now  we  will
demonstrate the short table which represents this duplication  of
medieval geographical names.
     Our explanation is very  simple.  Part  of  the  names  were
transported from the West to the East when crusaders invaded into
Byzantine empire. They founded here several new feudal states and
took with them their own prehistory and part of  the  old  native
geographical names.
     Another part of the names was shifted in back direction from
the East to the West later when the descendants of crusaders were
defeated by Turks in 15th century  and  returned  from  Byzantine
empire in the Europe (the fall of Byzantine empire). Taking  with
them the survived documents, these people transported  also  some
geographical names. We need also to take into account the natural
psychological effect: when changing the place, people often  feel
sad and surround themselves by "old names". For example, you  can
see today on the modern map of America  the  names  of  many  old
European town: Moscow et cetera.

Danes = Daci =  Dani  =  Dacia  =  Denemearc  ----  Daneis
Galatia ---- Galicia,

Galli, Gallia (in France) ---- Galich (in Russia),

Danube (in Europe) --- Danai, Thanais, Tanais (in Russia),

Ruhr  area  and  mountains  (in  Germany)  ---   Riffeng   (Rifei
= Ripheis) mountains = Urals mountains (in Russia),

Bulgarians in Bulgaria ---- Bulgarians on the Volga (in Russia),

Al'bania = Albion = Britain ----  Albania  ----  Albania  on  the
coast of the Caspian Sea, then Albania as  a  province  of  Great
Asia, which is bounded by the Caspian  Sea  and  spreads  to  the
North Ocean, then Albania = Alania (in the Caucasus).

Rome ---- New Rome = Constantinople,

Troy (in Italy) ---- Troy in Asia ---- New Troy (Constantinople),

Scots (= Scithi) in England --- Scyths in  Russia  and  Byzantine

Hybernia = Ireland ---- Hybernia - Hyberia in Spain ----  Hyberia
= Georgia,

Ruthenia (Rutheni) in Aquitaine ----  P+Ruthenia  (Prussia)  ----
Rutheni as tribes in Celtic Gallia ----  Russia  =  Ruthenia  ----
Ruteni (Rutheni) or Rutia - the province in Mesia (= Germany),

Gothia = Gotia = Germany ---- Scandinavia = Gothia = Gotia,
Goths and Dani ---- Scandinavians, then Gothia (Gotia)  =  island
Gotland ---- Gotia as territory in Tavrida=Taurus, Goths lived in
the Crimea,

Rome-Romania ---- Rumania-Romei ---- Armenia ---- Normans,

Hungaria ---- Great Hungaria ---- Minor Hungaria ----  Hunia  (in
the East, Hunns) ---- Hungri = Great Bashkir,

Great  Greece  in  southern  Italy  ----  Great  Greece   (modern

Britain (= BRTN) ---- P+Ruthenia (Prussia) ---- PRT (Prut),

Germany = Maesia ---- Mesia in Asia Minor = Messina ----  Messina
in Sicily,

Genoa (in Italy) ---- Geneva.

     We interrupt the list because the reader can easily continue
it, using geographical maps and modern commentaries  to  medieval

  5.15. William I the Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066 A.D.
                 The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.

       5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine
                   Empire have the same origin

     Because luck of space, we  have  listed  above  only  a  few
"identification of events" between English and Byzantine history.
But it is impossible to finish the paper without  mentioning  one
more interesting parallel (identification):

     the English war of William I the Conqueror (about 1066  A.D.
     in traditional chronology) is the reflection  of  the   4th
     Byzantine crusade (about 1204 A.D.).

     We  describe  this  parallel  very  briefly  and  hope  that
statisticians and historians can continue this work.
     As we saw above in  the  Fig.1  (representing  the  dynastic
parallel between English and Byzantine history), the epoch of 4th
crusade 1204 A.D. is statistically identified exactly with  epoch
of William I.

      5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story

     Briefly speaking,  the  classical  history  of  William  (in
traditional version) is as follows (see, for example, [7],p.343).
     His full name is :

       duke William I of Normandy, the Bastard, Conqueror,

     See ([2],p.197; or [7]).
     Edward "The Confessor" died in 1066 A.D. without  sons.  One
of his dukes Harold II  "Godwinson",  king  of  Norway,  king  of
English; (see [2],p.196,197), was extremely  powerful,  took  the
kingdom and nobody  objected  (all  others  were  agreed  to  see
Harold as new king). But after some  time  appeared  William  the
Bastard, duke of  Normandy  and  started  to  claim  the  throne.
William said that Edward fixed him as  his  successor  (suggested
the throne). William addressed to Roman  pope  and  succeeded  in
attraction of the pope on his side. Then William sent ambassadors
in Germany and France asking for a help and support. As a result,
William collected "a great army  consisting  of  adventurers  who
came from France, Flandria, Bretan, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Apulia,
Sicily... They collected for the robbery of England" ([7],p.343).
William (Wilhelm) organized the large  fleet  for  invasion  into
England. It is interesting that in Baye there  exists  the large
ancient carpet (70 meters long and 50 centimeters wide)  of  11th
century, representing the fleet of William Conqueror. This carpet
contains about 1255 images of different persons and objects.
     While William waited the fair wind, the Norwegians landed in
the mouth of Humber river under leadership of Tostig (brother  of
Harold). Harold went to the  enemies  and  defeated  Tostig  near
York. But at the same day on  a  free  coast  the  huge  army  of
Normans was landed (near  Pevensey).  In  spite  of  his  wounds,
Harold turned fast his army in  back  direction.  He  hurried  to
started the battle without waiting the reinforcement. The violent
battle was happened near Hastings. Harold army was  defeated  and
he was killed. "This victory was one of the most important in the
history. The whole England was  conquered  by  duke  of  Normandy
(William - Auth.) who was crowned in London" ([7],p.344).
     The church anointment  transformed  William  into  real  and
legitimate king. He begins the terror, many people were  declared
as traitors, the landed property was  confiscated.  The  reaction
was immediate - revolts. But William suppressed  all  riots  with
extreme cruelty. His rule is considered today as  very  important
for English history, this  is  "turning  point",  many  pages  of
chronicles are devoted to William (see, for example,  Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle). William  starts  the  Norman  dynasty  (dynasty  from
Normandy) in England. The dynasty lasts until 1154 A.D. and  then
is replaced by new Anjou dynasty.

        5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's

     Let us recall now the traditional version of this  important
event following, for example, to [11]. The 4th crusade  1202-1204
A.D. was started with the call of Roman  pope  Innocent  II.  The
campaign was finished  by  the  conquest  of  Constantinople  and
complete change of ruling dynasty in Byzantine empire. The  forth
crusade is considered today as one of the most  important  events
in European  history.  There  are  many  survived  documents  and
literary  sources  about  this  crusade,  which   were   written,
allegedly, by the direct participants of crusade (see below).
     Crusaders asked Venice to give them the fleet. And very soon
the huge fleet with army came to the Constantinople. "The  ground
was the appeal of Byzantine prince Alexey to the pope and to  the
German emperor with asking the help. Alexey was the  son  of  the
Byzantine emperor Isaac II the Angelus, who was dethroned in 1195
A.D." ([11],p.209). Crusaders were supported by feudals of France
and German empire. Roman pope also helped to crusaders. From  the
other hand he  "forbid"  them  (but  only  verbal)  to  harm  the
Christian regions. "Thus, all powerful political parties  of  the
medieval Europe pushed the crusaders to the conquest of Byzantine
empire" ([11],p.209).
     It was created the special  Council  consisting  of  several
noble  leaders.  The  formal  leader  of  crusade  was   Boniface
Monferratio.  But  the  head  of  the  Council  of  crusade was
well-known   marshal   Geoffroy   de   Villehardouin.   He    was
"distinguished and well-known politician of crusade, he took part
in all important diplomatic  actions"  ([15],p.125).  When  today
somebody speaks about 4th crusade, then the first person which is
immediately mentioned, is Villehardouin. He is supposed today  as
the   author   of   well-known   chronicle   "La   Conqueste   de
Constantinople" [26] (see details in  [25]).  The  conjecture  is
that he dictated these chronicle in the end of his life.
     Crusaders besieged  the  Constantinople  in  1204  A.D.  and
restored on the throne the emperor  Isaac  II  the  Angelus.  But
cannot pay them the whole amount of money which he  promised  for
their support. Enraged crusaders captured  the  capital  in  1204
A.D. and violently plundered the town. The large part of the city
was burned, the famous temple of Saint Sofia was  also  plundered
and its great treasures were  disappeared  (according  to  legend
were transported somewhere).
     Crusaders founded in Constantinople the new  state  -  Latin
empire (1204-1261). Thus, the last period  of  Byzantine  history
began in 1204 A.D. This epoch was named above as Byzantine empire
No. 3. The new Greek (Byzantine) dynasty starts from  Theodore  I
Lascaris (1204-1222). His coming to the power is a direct  result
of 4th crusade, of the war and conquest of Constantinople.

      5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from
                 Byzantine and English chronicles

 England (about 1066 A.D.)        Byzantine empire (about 1204 A.D.)
1. Big war in England, which was  1. Well-known war - 4th crusade
the "turning point" in the whole  of 1202-1204 A.D. One of the most
English history (1066 A.D.)       important events in Byzantine
2. In 1066 A.D. begins the        2. In 1204 begins the new Latin
Normans invasion into Anglia,     empire (in the part of Byzantine
which lasts until 1154 A.D.       empire), and also begins the
                                  new Nicaea empire
3. Normandian dynasty ends in     3. Latin empire ends in 1261 A.D.,
1154 A.D., i.e., lasts about 88   i.e., lasts about 60 years
It is clear from the Fig.1, that both dynasty (and corresponding
empires) are "very similar" and become "parallel" under rigid
chronological 100 (or 120)-year shift. This shift "identifies"
the Byzantine epoch of 1204-1453 A.D. and Anglia epoch of 1066--
-1327 A.D.
4. The center of these events -   4. The center of these events -
the English capital = London      Constantinople = the capital of
and its neighborhoods             Byzantine empire
The identification of London of 10-12th cc. with Constantinople was
obtained above. Consequently, we see that these two cities again
appear simultaneously inside a new chronological parallel.
5. Harold II - English king -     5. Isaac II Angelus - Byzantine
rules as legitimate heir. Harold  emperor. He rules as legitimate
is considered as Anglo-Saxon      king of the empire
king ([11],p.244)
6. He ruled about 9 months (no    6. He ruled about 1 year: 1203-
more that 1 year). This is -      -1204 A.D. This is his second rule
"the Second Harold". "The First   on emperor throne. The first time
Harold" (Harefoot) ruled before:  it was in 1185-1195 A.D. As we
1036-1039. The periods of rule    noted above, his first rule was
for Harold II and Isaac II        possible reflected in English
(about 1 year) coincide           history as the rule of Harold I
7. Number II in the title         7. Number II in the title of
of Harold II                      Isaac II
8. "Anglo-Saxon" = Angelus SX     8. "Angelus Isaac" = Angelus SC
(Sax) or Angelus SC (SK)
Practically the same titles included in the complete name. About
the name Harold we will speak later
9. William I (1066-1087) -        9. Theodore (Tudor ?) I Lascaris
English king, beginning the new   (1204-1222) - Byzantine emperor.
dynasty. He ruled 21 years. Both  He ruled 18 years and he also
rulers has the same number I in   started a new dynasty. Sometimes
their dynastic streams            as the 1st year of his rule is
                                  considered 1208 A.D.
     It is likely that English name Tudor (royal family that ruled
England 1485-1603) is the variant of Byzantine name Theodore.
     William accedes to the English throne as  a  result  of  the
war. The story of Theodore Lascaris is similar - he  accedes  the
Byzantine throne during the violent  epoch  of  4th  crusade.  It
turns out that in the beginning of written political biography of
William  I  were  also  inserted  the  facts  from  the  life  of
Villehardouin - the well-known person  of  crusade's  epoch,  who
acts in the beginning of  the  political  biography  of  Theodore
10. William the Conqueror - as    10. Villehardouin - the head of
enemy of Harold - begins the      crusaders Council - the enemy of
campaign against Harold to take   Isaac II Angelus. Villehardouin
the power and throne. He invaded  is, of course, the Conqueror, who
into England from outside as the  invades from outside in Byzantine
"enemy force" with great army     empire with a great army (with
                                  others leaders of crusaders)
     Let us comment the possible similarity and identification of
the names of these historical personages. It is quite clear  that
impossible to expect and to find here the EXACT identity  of  the
names. (In the case of exact identity, the traditional historians
certainly can identify the corresponding events).  But  here,  in
our case, we compare two groups of chronicles, which were written
about  the  same  event,  but  in  different  languages,   inside
different  historical  schools,  and,  possible,   in   different
geographical regions. It is likely,  that  the  authors  of  both
versions (created in 15-16th cc.) were not  the  eyewitnesses  of
this war. Each of them was based on some old documents  surviving
from the 13th century. These documents were written  in  a  brief
manner, without vowels, in primitive  old  language  and  it  was
extremely complicated to understand their sense and meaning.  The
later chroniclers of 15-17th cc. tried to  reconstruct  the  real
picture of ancient events basing on these old texts. During  this
restoration  the  individual  fragments  of  the  ancient   names
sometimes were mixed, sometimes go from one name to another an so
     In our case we have: William  the  Conqueror  and  Anglo-Sax
(Saxon) Harold II from one side, and  Villehardouin  and  Angelus
Isaac II, from another side (in Byzantine version). It is  clear,
that William is similar to Ville, and Harold - to Hardouin.  As`a
result, we obtain the following table:
                     William --- Villi
                   Conqueror --- Conqueror
                    Normandy --- Roman (?)
                      Harold --- Hardouin
                   number II --- number II
                   Anglo-Sax --- Angel Isaac.

     It is hard to doubt that here  we  see  the  reflection  and
duplication of the same real ancient names, but  distorted  after
filtration through the  language  of  different  chroniclers  (of
different  historical  schools).  Of  course,  these  "linguistic
parallels" cannot serve as serious arguments.  Nevertheless,  the
simultaneous appearance of extremely similar names  in  the  left
and in the  right  columns  of  the  table  points  out  on  some
important  effect,  because  (let  us  recall)  we  compare   two
historical streams using the rigid chronological shift,  and  the
discovered parallel lasts already several hundreds years!
11. The war begins from the       11. Crusaders arrived in Byzantine
invasion of large military fleet  empire on the fleet and landed
and from the landing of the army  on the coast of empire
on the coast of the country
12. Roman pope supported the      12. Roman pope agreed with crusade
invasion                          (but wordly, "asked to spare" the
                                  Christian relics
13. Appeal of William to the      13. Appeal of Villehardouin to
kings of Europe for the help. As  the ambassadors of different
a result, his army was collected  European countries ([25],p.160).
from the people of different      4th crusade was an "international
nations (see above) and is        action": the army was consisted
characterized as "the crowd of    of French, Germans, Italians and
adventurers"                      many others
     Commentary. By the way, the medieval sources of 4th  crusade
constantly repeat that it was "march on the Babylon" ([25],p.161)
(!). But,  according  to  conjecture  of  traditional  historians
(belonging to the Scaliger's chronological school),  the  Babylon
was completely destroyed many hundreds  years  ago  and  was  not
restored after this fall. Contradiction! The modern  commentators
try to find "the solution" (of this unpleasant  problem)  in  the
following way: "Here is meant (by the name of  Babylon  -  Auth.)
the Egyptian town Cairo, which was called in the West as Babylon"
([25],p.161). From the other hand, as we already  know,  Cairo  -
Cair = CR (without vowels) means simply "city", "town" in  Britts
language and is the evident variation of the name "King  Town"  =
"Tzar Town" = "ZR Town" = "CR Town", i.e.  CONSTANTINOPLE,  which
was called (it is well known !) also as Tzar-Grad =  Tzar-Town  =
CR-Town. But it is exactly the goal of  crusaders  -  to  capture
Constantinople. Thus, we  see  that  medieval  chronicles  called
Constantinople also as Babylon! The another confirmation of  this
identification see in [1].
14. Death of Harold II in this    14. Death of Isaac II the Angelus
war                               during the war ([15],p.164)
     In the end of our analysis,  let  us  note  one  interesting
identification. Morozov in [19] obtained an  astronomical  dating
for the horoscope  described  in  the  well-known  biblical  book
Revelation (Apocalypse). See details in [19] or [24]. He obtained
two astronomical  solutions:  395  A.D.  and  1249  A.D.  Several
arguments show that the second solution 1249 A.D. is better (from
astronomical point of view) than the first one.  It  is  supposed
today that this book predicts the Doomsday, Day of Judgment,  and
was written by John - the pupil of Jesus Christ  -  somewhere  in
Roman Empire. This book effected the great impression  among  the
population of empire.
     Now let us note that the  date  1249  A.D.  is  sufficiently
close to the beginning of Byzantine empire No.3. Consequently, it
is natural to expect that in old English chronicles, which (as we
see) reflect the events from Byzantine empire, will be  mentioned
some "book about Doomsday, Day of  Judgment",  possible,  in  the
epoch of William I.
     It is remarkable, that this our prediction is confirmed in a
very clear form. In any textbook in English history of this epoch
you can find the separate  chapter  or  section  with  the  title
something like: "The Book of Doomsday". For example, the  chapter
with exactly this title exists  in  the  textbook  [11].  In  the
monograph [7] you  also  can  see  the  section  with  the  title
"Domesday Book". Of course, today historians  try  to  assure  us
that this is  not  the  Apocalypse  Book,  but  quite  different,
another book - the general land-book which  registered  the  land
property in the medieval England of this time and was created  as
a result of general census in 1086  A.D.  But  nevertheless,  the
same historians indicate  the  parallel  between  this  "Domesday
Book"  and  Apocalypse  =  "Doomsday  Book".  They  tell  us  the
following: "All people have in Domesday Book an open account,  as
in the Great Doomsbook,  the  Great  Book  of  Day  of  Judgment"
([7],p.345). Under  chronological  100-  or  120-year  shift  the
astronomical  date  of  creating  the biblical  Doomsday  Book  =
Apocalypse is transported from 1249 A.D.  approximately  in  1129
A.D., which is close to 1086 A.D. -  to  the  date  of  "Domesday
census of people in England".
     Thus, we can add one more item in our  table  of  historical
15. The Domesday Book in England  15. Apocalypse = Doomsday Book in
in 1086 A.D.                      1249 A.D. (Rome, Byzantine empire)

     In the end of our analysis we can say, that written  history
of island Anglia = England (we mean here documents which survived
to our time) starts in reality not from the brief and dim records
about  some  small  tribes (as  it  was supposed  in  traditional
history), but from the fundamental events in the  life  of  great
nations  of  medieval  world  on  the  territory   of   Byzantine
empire,  Europe  and  Asia.  In  particular,  the   old   English
chronicles tell us not about some unknown kings , but about great
rulers and emperors of large empires,  which  sometimes  were  at
violent wars and enriched each others in a peaceful time.

     5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English
      chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to
                    galats and who they were?

     The  following  important  corollary  follows   from   these
results. Now we need to look in a different way on  the  role  of
medieval  Russia  in  the  history  of  Europe  and  Asia.  After
chronological transport of events described in  the  old  English
chronicles from the "deep antiquity" into the medieval  epoch  of
10-14th cc. A.D., we see with some surprise that these  chronicle
very often speak about medieval Russia, about Scyths, about  wars
with Russian armies and so on. A lot of new information is  added
to the history of medieval Russia. Before this moment these  data
were artificially referred to another epochs, to another nations,
to another geographical regions.
     The reader who is acquainted with the paper  of  A.T.Fomenko
and G.V.Nosovskij "Chronology  and  general  concept  of  Russian
history", should realize that our  analysis  of  English  history
adds many new arguments to the ideas developed in this our work.
     Let us recall briefly, that the basic idea of  our  "Russian
paper" is as  follows.  In  traditional  history  the  so  called
Mongolian-Tatarian invasion is considered as the period when  the
Russia was conquered by foreign Mongols-Tatars (who came from the
East and Asia to  Russia).  In  our  opinion  "Mongolian-Tatarian
epoch" (or "Mongols-Tatars-yoke") was simply specific  period  in
the history of Russian state without any foreign  invasion,  when
several different Russian regions  were  united  (sometimes  with
wars) under the rule of one  Russian  dynasty  (which  was  later
called as Mongols-Tatars dynasty  and  was  wrongly  declared  as
"foreign dynasty  of  invaders").  In  this  specific  epoch  the
country was ruled by Russian-Horde dynasty. In the base  of  this
rule was military Horde - the professional Cossacks  army,  which
guarded the state and controlled the order  inside  the  country.
Besides  the  military  Horde,   there   was   also   the   civil
administration (princes, dukes). They leaned on Horde as  on  the
military force to protect the order. The name  "Mongolia"  is  in
reality a little distorted  Greek  word  "Megalion"  which  means
"great" ("Great empire", "Great state"). Among the population  of
empire were, of course, Tatars (as it is today).
     Then, in the epoch of great disturbance  and  civil  war  of
16th century, the old Horde-Mongolian dynasty  ("great  dynasty")
was defeated by new pretenders on the throne. As  a  result,  the
new Romanovs' dynasty was appeared on Russian throne. Their  rule
was  based  on  quite  another  political  principles.  Then  the
previous Russian history was distorted by historians of Romanovs'
epoch.  The  goal  was  clear  -  to  ground  and   justify   the
non-legitimate  usurpation  of  the  throne   by   Romanovs.   In
particular, the epoch  of  Russian-"Megalion"-Horde  dynasty  was
declared as the "epoch of bad foreign invasion", when, allegedly,
the power was taken by "bad Mongol-Tatars".
     The details of this concept see in the work of  Fomenko  and
     From this new point of  view,  we  can  conclude,  that  the
reports of many Western chroniclers speaking about Mongols-Tatars
are in reality the reports about medieval Megalion-Russian  state
and about its Megalion-Russian army which sometimes  was  at  war
with western neighbors.
     As we have noted, Russia often appeared in old English  (and
many others) chronicles as Ruthenia, or Rutenia,  or  Rusia  (see
above and [10]). "The interest to Russia in Anglia (England)  was
also induced by the  event  which  deeply  shocked  the  medieval
Europe - by the invasion of  Mongolian-Tatarian  hordes...  These
records about the appearance of some unknown,  terrible,  violent
and godless nation induced to the medieval chroniclers  the  idea
about God's punishment for the  human  sins.  The  name  of  this
nation interpreted as "the people from Tartar" "([10],p.10).
     It is supposed today that "the Mongolian-Tatarian yoke cutted
Russia from another European nations for many years. And  only  in
16th century the relations between Russia and Anglia was restored
again    and    these    country    "discovered    each    other"
afresh...Practically  all  records  about  Russia,   which   were
collected in English documentary sources before the end  of  13th
century, were forgotten... In geographical  chronicle  of  Rodger
Barlou (written about 1540-1541 A.D.), the location of Russia  is
described extremely dim and unclear,  somewhere  near  "Sarmatian
mountains" and "Gircania mountains" "([10],p.12).
     In our opinion, this "the wall of silence" can be  at  least
partially explained  by  the  deep  difference  between  European
principles of organization of the states and Russian structure of
Megalion-Horde state at this epoch.  This  difference  determined
also the military confrontation  between  Russia  and  the  West.
Besides this, there are arguments showing that all these  stories
of English chronicles about "bad Mongols-Tatars  who  invaded  in
Russia and threaten to the West", are of very late origin and are
dated, most likely,  by  16-17th  centuries.  At  this  time  the
distorted version of Russian history was already established  and
was appeared "the theory" which declared  the  epoch  of  Russian
Megalion-Horde dynasty as "foreign yoke".
     Let us take the medieval English chronicles and  read  them.
What  they  tell  us  about  Russia  =  Ruthenia?  For   example,
Bartholomaeus Anglicus writes as follows (our translation):
     Ruthia, or Ruthena is the province of Moesia (Mesiae) and is
located on the boundary of Asia Minor,  then  it  is  bounded  by
Roman area in the East, by Gothia in the North, by Pannonia in the
West, and by Greece in the South.  The  land  is  huge,  and  the
language is the same as for Bohemians and Slavs. One part of this
land is called Galacia (Galatia) and its people  were  called  in
the past as Galats (Galaths). One speaks that Apostle  Paul  sent
to them his message ([28]; see also [10],p.85).
     Here the original Latin text:
     "Ruthia, sive Ruthena, quae  et  Mesiae  est  provincia,  in
Minoris Asiae confinio constituta Romanorum terminos  est  habens
ab oriente,  Gothiam  a  septentrione,  Pannoniam  ab  occidente,
Graeciam vero a meridie. Terra quidem est maxima  concordans  cum
Bohemis et Sclavis in ideomate et lingua. Haec autem quadam parte
sui  Galacia  est  vocata  et  eius  incolae   quandam   Galathae
vocabantur, quibus dicitur Paulus Apostolus direxisse  epistolam.
Quaere supra Galacia." ([28]; also [10],p.77).
     This  well-known  medieval  texts  was  commented  by   many
scientists. It is supposed today  that  Mesia  -  Moesia  is  the
medieval Germany ([10],p.93), and that Ruthia -  Ruthena  is  the
Russia (see above). Besides this, it is  known that  "under   the
name   Galacia   (Gallacia)    Bartholomaeus    Anglicus    means
Galicko-Volynsko-Russia" ([10],p.91). But, the report of this old
chronicle about the message Apostle Paul to these Russian  Galats
living  in  the  Galicko-Volynsko-Russia  (Galaths),  immediately
induces the  explosion  of  a  fair  indignation  of  the  modern
historian. And it  is  quite  clear!  About  one  thousand  years
(according to traditional Scaliger's  chronology)  separates  the
evangelic Apostle Paul from these medieval events  (described  by
Bartholomaeus Anglicus). As  the  strong  verdict  (without   any
hesitations) sounds the following formula-sentence:
     "New  Testament  really  contains  the   "Message   to   the
Galatians" of Apostle Paul, but of course  this  message  has  no
relation with Galicko-Volynsko-Russia" ([10],p.93).
     In our short statistical chronology this  situation  becomes
very natural. The epoch of Jesus Christ  is  11th  century  A.D..
Consequently, the Galatians  of  the  New  Testament,  i.e.,  the
addressees of Apostle Paul, certainly can be  the  inhabitant  of
     The next record of 13th century in the  Annales  Melrosenses
(South Scotland) is considered today as most earlier (in  English
sources) report about "Mongols-Tatars-invasion":  "Now  at  first
time the rumor appeared in our Land, that the  godless  horde  of
Tartari many countries ruined..." ([29]; see also [10],p.98-99).
     Here is the original Latin text:
     "Hic primo auditur in terra nostra, quod nefandus  exercitus
Tartareorum multas terras vastavit..." ([29]; also [10],p.98-99).
     By the way, we see again, that some  English  chronicles  of
13th  century  (for  example,  the  Chronica  Monasterii   Sancti
Edmundi) are sure that Russia is an ISLAND: "The  godless  tribe,
which is called Tartarins,  and  which  was  rushed  up  from  an
ISLANDS, filled the whole surface of the  earth,  ruined  Hungary
with neighboring areas" ([30]; see also [10],p.101).
     Here is the original Latin text:
     "Gens nafanda dicta Tartarins que nuper de insulis ebulliens
superficiem   terre   impleuerat   Hungariam   cum   adiacentibus
regionibus deuastat" ([30]; also [10],p.101).
     But we  discussed  above  the  idea  that  most  likely  the
chronicles mean here simply Asia-Land. This name certainly can be
applied to  the  Russia  (from  the  point  of  view  of  western
chroniclers). By the way, the name ASIA is possibly  the  variant
of the name Jesus = Isa. In  this  case  Asia-Land  means  simply
Jesus-Land = Isa-Land.
     What we can think about the following records in English and
European chronicles, devoted  to  well-known  Mongolian  ruler  -
Chingiz-Khan:  "Under  the  name  Chirkam  (in   Latin   text   -
Cliyrcam...) ... was mentioned Chingiz-Khan,  called  in  Russian
chronicles as Chanogiz and Chigizakon, and  in another   European
sources called also as Gurgatan, Cecarcarus, Zingiton, Ingischam,
Tharsis, DAVID, PRESBYTER IOHANNES and so on ([10],p.185).
     This is the commentary to the English chronicle: Annales  de
Burton (13th century A.D.).
     We hope that our reader will think about this really strange
(in the frame of traditional chronology) fact that old chronicles
named famous Chingiz-Khan as DAVID and PRESBYTER IOANNES !
     It is impossible to quote here all fragments from  many  old
English chronicles speaking about menacing danger which arose over
the Europe from the side of Mongols-Tatars-Horde [10].
     Let us restrict ourselves by the following final fragment.
Aethicus = Ethicus Istricus, who lived in 3rd  c.A.D.  (according
to conjecture of modern historians), "tells us about the  godless
nation which was originated by Gog and Magog. And  Alexander  the
Great Macedonian fight ed with Gog and  Magog.  "This  nation,  -
continues Aethicus, - will produce a  great  destruction  in  the
epoch of Antichrist and will call him as the god of the  gods"  "
([10],p.221). Aethicus stated that this nation "was locked behind
the Caspian gates".
     Let us now the reader: Thus, when  lived  Ethicus  Istricus?
Is it really 3rd century A.D.? And  also,  the  second  question:
When lived Alexander the Great Macedonian if he fights  with  Gog
and Magog, i.e. - with Mongols, Goths and Tatars?


1.  A.T.Fomenko. Methods for Statistical Analysis of Narrative
         Texts and Applications to Chronology. (Recognition and
         Dating of Dependent Texts, Statistical Ancient Chronology,
         Statistics of Ancient Astronomical Records). - Moscow,
         Moscow Univ.Press, 1990.
2.  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Translated and edited by G.N.
         Garmonsway. 1990, Everyman's library, J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd:
3.  A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov, G.V.Nosovskij. Geometrical and
         Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations.
         Dating Ptolemy's Almagest. - CRC Press, 1993.
4.  A.T.Fomenko. Investigations in the History of Ancient World
         and Middle Ages. Mathematical Methods for Analysis of
         Sources. Global Chronology. - Moscow, 1994 (in print).
5.  A.T.Fomenko. Criticism of Traditional Chronology of Antiquity
         and Middle Ages. In which Century We Live ? - Moscow,
         1994 (in print).
6*. J.Blair, Blair's Chronological and Historical Tables from the
         Creation to the Present Time etc., G.Bell & Sons, London,
6.  J.Blair. Chronological Tables. Russian translation: Moscow, Moscow
         University, vols.1,2. 1808-1809.
7*. C.Bemont and G.Monod, Histoire de l'Europe au Moyen Age. Paris,
7.  C.Bemont and G.Monod, Histoire de l'Europe au Moyen Age.
         Petrograd, 1915.
8.  Nennius. Historia Brittonum. In the book: Galfridus Monemutensis
         - "Historia Britonum". - Russian translation. Moscow,
         Nauka, 1984.
9.  Galfridus Monemutensis. "Historia Britonum". - Russian
         translation. Moscow, Nauka, 1984.
10. V.I.Matuzova. English Medieval Sources. - Moscow. Nauka,
11. History of the Middle Ages. - Editor: S.D.Skazkin. - Moscow,
         Vyschaya Schkola. 1977, vol 1.
12. M.P.Alexeev. About Anglo-Russian relations in the epoch of
         Jaroslav the Wise. - Scientific Bulletin. Leningrad
         Univ.Press, 1945, No.4, p.31.
13. Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedone, ed. W.Stubbs. - RS,
         N 51, vol.II. London, 1869, p.236.
         English translation: The Annals of Roger de Hoveden,
         comprising the history of England and of other countries
         of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201. Tr.H.T.Riley,
         vol.1-2. London, 1853 (Bohn's Antiquarian Library).
14. Ancient  Laws  and  Institutes  of  England...,  ed.B.Thorpe,
         vol.1. London, 1840, p.198.
15. Robert de Clari. The Conquest of Constantinople. - Moscow,
         Nauka, 1986.
16. J.Sunderland. Holy Books in the Light of Science. - Severno-
         -Zapadnoye izdatelstvo, 1925 (in Russian).
17*.E.Bickerman. Chronology of the Ancient World. Thames & Hudson,
         London, 1968.
17. E.Bickerman. Chronology of the Ancient World. Russian
         translation: Moscow, 1975.
18. I.A.Kryvelev. Excavations in Biblical Countries. -
         Sovetskaya Rossiya, Moscow, 1965 (in Russian).
19. N.A.Morozov. Christ. (The History of Human Culture from the
         Standpoint of the Natural Sciences). Moscow and
         Leningrad. 1926-1932. vols. 1-7. (In Russian).
20*.Gregoras, Nichephorus. Byzantinae historiae. In J.P.Migne
         Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca, t.148,149.
         Paris, 1857-1886.
20. Gregoras, Nichephorus. Roman History. Peterburg, 1862. Russian
21.  Alexandria: Romance of Alexander the Great. Leningrad, 1966.
         (In Russian). (According to the Russian chronicle of
          15th century).
22. Benoit de Sainte-Maure. Chronique des ducs de Normandie par
         Benoit, publee... par C.Fahlin, t.I. - In: Bibliotheca
         Ekmaniana universitatis regiae Upsaliensis, 55. Uppsala,
         1951, p.8-11.
23. Layamon. Brut, or the Chronicle of Britain. Ed. F.Madden,
         vol.II. London, 1847, pp.525-526, vv.22589-22602.
24. A.T.Fomenko. Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material
         and its Applications to Historical Dating.
         Volume 1: The Development of the Statistical Tools.
         Volume 2: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records. -
         Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1994. The Netherlands.
25. M.A.Zaborov. History of Crusades in Documents and Materials. -
         Moscow, Vyschaya Schkola. 1977.
26.  Geoffroy de Villehardouin. La conquete de Constantinople. -
         Historiens et chroniqueurs du moyen age. Ed. A.Pauphilet.
         P., 1963.
27.  The Concise Columbia Encyclopeadia. - Avon Books. 1983.
         Columbia University Press. USA.
28.  Bartholomaeus Angicus. - De proprietatibus rerum. Apud
         A.Koburger. Nurenbergi, 1492, lib.XV, cap.CXXXI.
29.  Ex Annalibus Melrosensibus Ed.F.Liebermann, R:Pauli. -
         MGH SS, t.XXVII. Hannoverae, 1885, p.439&
30.  The Chronicle of Bury St.Edmunds, 1212-1301. Ed. A.Gransden.
         London-Edinburgh, 1964, p.10.
31.  Peter Hunter Blair. Roman Britain and Early England, 55 B.C. -
         - A.D.871. - The Norton Library History of England.
         W.W.Norton & Company. New York. London. 1963.
32.  Christopher Brooke. From Alfred to Henry III, 871-1272. -
         The Norton Library History of England. W.W.Norton &
         Company. New York. London. 1961.
33.  A.L.Morton. A People's History of England. Lawrence & Wishart
         Ltd. London. 1979.

Last-modified: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:56:31 GMT