And who built the first one? Where and by whom was the first tractor built? Improvements to the future capital
In the section Other things about cities and countries to the question Where and by whom was the first tractor built? given by the author Christina the best answer is The question is - built or used in practice? I will briefly dwell on both options.
With the advent of the steam engine, the construction of steam carriages, cars and tractors began. The first wheeled steam tractors appeared in England and France in 1833.
Our compatriots made a significant contribution to the development and improvement of tractor designs. The first prototype of the tractor - the “people's stagecoach” for off-road work - was built in 1817 by V. P. Guryev. Even earlier (in 1791), I.P. Kulibin invented a “scooter cart”, in which he used a whole series mechanisms and devices found in a modern tractor: gearbox, steering, roller bearings, brakes, flywheel, etc. In 1837, D. A. Zagryazhsky patented a “carriage with moving tracks” (a machine on crawler), but the invention was not evaluated and the patent was revoked. In 1879, F.A. Blinov patented and in 1888 built the world's first tractor with metal tracks, each of which was driven by its own steam engine, thus solving the problem of turning tracked vehicles. Y. V. Mamin designed an internal combustion engine that ran on heavy fuel, and in 1903 received a patent for it, and in 1911 he built a tractor with an engine of his own design. However, there was practically no Russian tractor manufacturing industry of its own, and tractors were mainly imported from abroad.
English locomobile 
Blinov's endless rail car
In Russia, interest in tractors appeared only after the revolution of 17, during the period of inventory of the country. The first Soviet tractor, after Lenin's decree on the preparation of production for the production of tractors, was created by Mamin Y.V. and was called Gnome. The tractor had a power of 11.8 kW and was equipped with a petroleum internal combustion engine. Subsequently, a decree was even issued recognizing tractor manufacturing as a matter of national importance. After the decree was issued, Soviet tractor manufacturing moved to a new level; the country spared no money for the production and invention of tractors. So, in 1922, the Komsomolets-1 tractor designed by engineer E. D. Lvov entered the fields of the Soviet Union, and then the Zaporozhets tractor, designed by engineer L. A. Unger. At the Kharkov Locomotive Plant in 1924 they began producing the Kommunar tractor and in the same year the designer Mamin introduced into production the Karlik tractor, with a power of 8.8 kW, in two modifications - three and four wheels. The production of the Fordson-Putilovets tractor was mastered at the Leningrad Krasny Putilovets. Subsequently, a tractor was created at the same plant, which was first in demand abroad Soviet Union. The Universal tractor, produced in 1934, with a kerosene internal combustion engine and iron wheels, gave the Soviet government this opportunity. 
Soviet tractor Kommunar
Viktorich
Supreme Intelligence
(248779)
Please!))
The time when the Moscow Kremlin was built should be known to every person, loving Russia. Because it is not only the heart of Russia, the soul of the great and largest country in the world, but also one of the most beautiful complexes in the world.
Ancient settlements
Excavations have shown that settlements on the territory of the Kremlin existed 5,000 years ago, and in the 6th century AD Slavic tribes already lived here. In the center of Moscow itself, the remains of a settlement belonging to the Dyakovo culture were found.
Dyakovo settlements, as a rule, were located on river capes. In ancient times, for reasons of convenience and safety, the hills on the banks of the river were the first to be settled in the area. It is advisable at the mouth, so that the water fences the settlement on both sides. The waterway served as a route of communication with neighbors and allowed for more intensive trade, and the hills were not so accessible to enemies and provided an overview of a large area.
Birth of Moscow
And when the Moscow Kremlin was built, surrounded on both sides by the Moscow River and the Neglinnaya River flowing into it, as well as the settlement located on its top, they turned into an impregnable fortress. The first mention of the Kremlin dates back to 1147. At that time there were not even walls built in wood. They appeared only 9 years later - in 1156. The heart of Moscow was first mentioned in connection with Yuri Dolgoruky’s invitation to the newly erected mansions of his ally Svyatoslav Olgovich, the prince of Novgorod-Seversk. The arrival of a future relative (their granddaughter and son - the famous Igor and Yaroslavna - will get married) to the feast is considered the date. This is exactly the time when the Moscow Kremlin was built.
Great Builder
After the construction of the walls, the Kremlin becomes the administrative center for the surrounding and nearby villages. Here the inhabitants of these settlements found shelter during the invasion of enemies. Gradually the importance of this fortress increased, and the territory expanded. And now, under Prince Danil Alexandrovich (1261-1303), the ancestor of the Moscow princes, the city that grew up around the Kremlin became the capital of the small Moscow principality.
At the time when the Moscow Kremlin was built, Yuri Dolgoruky founded Pereyaslavl-Zalessky and Yuryev-Polsky. This prince, who ruled the Rostov-Suzdal principality all his life and died there, was engaged in active urban planning. In addition to the above cities, he founded Dubna, Kostroma, Dmitrov, the village of Senyatino, which was flooded during construction, and, according to one legend, Gorodets. In addition, he built many fortresses and fortified areas. So, when the Moscow Kremlin was built (year 1147), other points were laid strategic purpose. And nothing said that it was from this fortress that the capital of the largest state in the world would grow.
Improvements to the future capital
And Moscow was built and expanded. Prince Ivan Kalita (1283-1341) built the first white stone cathedrals. And under him, in 1340, the old ones were replaced by powerful oak ones. And his grandson Dmitry Donskoy (1350-1389), son of Moscow Prince Ivan II the Red, replaced the oak walls with white stone ones. This was the reason for calling Moscow “white stone”. This is exactly the beauty depicted in the painting painted in 1879, entitled “View of the Moscow Kremlin from the Stone Bridge.” The capital of Russia, a city with an amazing history, cannot but arouse increased interest. Any main city in the country is loved and respected by its residents. But Moscow is something much more for a Russian person. And it is quite natural to want to know the details of the origin of the city, how it began, how and when the Moscow Kremlin was built, the year of its foundation and under which prince this miracle was built.
First literary mentions
One of the first descriptions of the origins of the great city is in the story “The Tale of the Murder of Daniil of Suzdal and the Beginning of Moscow.” The Ipatiev Chronicle is considered the first reliable source that mentions the town of Moskov - the place of a great feast in honor of the meeting of friends and allies of the Rostov-Suzdal and Novgorod-Seversk princes. There are several answers to the question of what year the Moscow Kremlin was built. You can indicate a specific date in connection with which the Kremlin was first mentioned - on the day of “Heel in Praise of the Virgin Mary,” that is, on Saturday, April 4, 1147. And you can talk for a long time about how the Kremlin was built over the centuries. Is it possible to imagine this complex without the Assumption Cathedral or the Bolshoi
The Kremlin was built and rebuilt
The answer to the question of what year the Moscow Kremlin was built will depend entirely on what is meant by this name - a modern hulk, the residence of the President of the Russian Federation, or a small wooden structure from which it all began. There is not enough page to simply list all the chambers, cathedrals, buildings, squares, gardens and monuments of this main socio-political, historical and artistic complex of Russia, which occupies an area of 27.5 hectares. The Kremlin territory resembles an irregular triangle.
One of the pearls of the Kremlin
The Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin deserves special words. It was built in 1479. The history of the beginning of its creation dates back to 1326. The Great Moscow Prince Ivan Kalita, together with St. Peter, laid the foundation for the first stone cathedral in Moscow this year. The capital city (namely, Moscow had this status) was obliged to have the main temple of Holy Rus'. It is Saint Peter who plays the key role in Moscow becoming the first throne. Therefore, after his death, the first Metropolitan of Moscow was buried in the still unfinished main cathedral of Rus'. His relics and the copy of the icon “Our Lady of Petrovskaya”, the original of which was made by the Apostle Peter himself, are one of the main shrines of Russia. The cathedral was rebuilt. This happened during the reign of the unifier of Russian lands under the rule of Moscow, Grand Duke Ivan III. Under him, a large construction project was launched in the Kremlin - all buildings were rebuilt in stone. And in this case, answering the question of when the Moscow Kremlin was built, the year can be called completely different - 1485. During the decade (1485-1495), unique battlements were erected, which are the hallmark of the great complex.
A priceless treasure of world architecture
As noted above, Dmitry Donskoy rebuilt the original wooden building in stone (as the Kremlin was also called in Rus'). Actually, he built a new stone “kremnik”, and the year of completion of construction, 1367, can also rightfully be considered the date when the Moscow Kremlin was built. Later, during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, who became the first Russian Tsar (he took the title in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin), the complex itself was also intensively completed.
And the decoration of Cathedral Square is the Ivan the Great bell tower, without which it is difficult to imagine the Kremlin, since for many years it was the most tall building Moscow, was generally erected during the reign of Boris Godunov. However, the first Moscow Kremlin was built in 1147 by decree of Yuri Dolgoruky. The fortified part of the city was also called “krom”, which is more suitable for a wooden tower surrounded by a wooden fence. The one and only, legendary and impregnable, the Kremlin is the personification of the power and uniqueness of Russia.
1. When, by whom and for what was the Colosseum built in Italian Rome
By far the most striking symbol of Italian Rome in the view modern man is the famous COLISEUM, fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3. In the light of the New Chronology, many ideas about ancient history change greatly. And, naturally, the question arises - when and by whom was the Colosseum built in Italian Rome? What is this - an ancient original or a late prop? And if it’s a prop, then what ancient prototype were they trying to reproduce in it?
Rice. 1. Colosseum. Photo from 2009.
Rice. 2. Bird's eye view of the Colosseum. Taken from, p. 23.
Rice. 3. Colosseum Arena. Photo from 2007.
In our book “The Vatican” we talk in detail about the fact that many supposedly “ancient” monuments of Italian Rome were not built in antiquity, as is usually believed, but much later. They were erected in the 15th–16th centuries by the popes, who appeared in Italian Rome relatively recently - only around 1453. The first popes of Rome were, apparently, fugitives from Constantinople, the capital of the Roman Empire, defeated in 1453 by the Ottoman Turks (today it is the Turkish city of Istanbul). Most of the supposedly “ancient” buildings of Italian Rome were built by fugitive popes as imitations of the original buildings that stood in their former homeland, in Constantinople-Istanbul. And the Colosseum is no exception. One careful look at it is enough to notice that it was built FROM THE VERY BEGINNING as “ancient ruins.” Traces of its later construction are very clearly visible.
It is known that “The Colosseum was built of stone, concrete and brick”, volume 21, p. 604. Isn’t it strange that CONCRETE was used in such a supposedly very ancient structure? Historians may argue that concrete was invented by the “ancient” Romans more than 2 thousand years ago. But why then was it not widely used in medieval construction? In our opinion, all supposedly “ancient” concrete buildings are of much later origin than historians think.
Let's take a closer look at the brickwork interior walls Colosseum, fig. 4, fig. 5. We are not talking about restored areas here. There are no traces of REAL restoration in the Colosseum at all. All the brickwork in it looks approximately the same and is made of uniform bricks. The bricks are neatly trimmed at the edges in many places. It is clearly visible that the bricks were covered BEFORE THE MASONRY, and not after it. In other words, during the construction of the Colosseum, the supposedly centuries-old wear and tear of the building was immediately ARTIFICALLY DEPICTED.
Rice. 4. The brick wall of the Colosseum arena is made of brick with specially upholstered edges. Moreover, almost all of the brickwork of the Colosseum arena is exactly like this. Photo from 2007.
Rice. 5. Brickwork of the Colosseum arena. It can be seen that the edges of the bricks are covered in a very orderly manner and the upholstery was done BEFORE the laying, and not over the course of centuries (as they tried to depict). The bricks are held together with a composition very reminiscent of 19th-century cement. Photo from 2007.
The same can be said about areas of allegedly “collapsed” brickwork. They are inside the Colosseum. These areas are also clearly made artificially, immediately in their current “collapsed” form, Fig. 6. If the brickwork had really collapsed, then its exposed interior bricks would be located ALONG the original surface of the walls, and not at an angle to it. In addition, a significant portion of the bricks in the fault would have been chipped off. There is nothing like this in the Colosseum. The collapsed sections of the walls were laid out immediately in their final, “collapsed” form from whole bricks. Most of the bricks are deliberately turned at an angle to the surface of the wall to depict a supposedly chaotic chipped surface. However, the masons, accustomed to laying bricks evenly, were never able to achieve real chaos. There is clearly an orderliness in the masonry of the “landslides”.
Rice. 6. Brickwork of the Colosseum. A section of the wall that supposedly collapsed “from antiquity.” However, for some reason the exposed bricks are located not along, but at an angle to the surface of the wall and are laid in a fairly orderly manner. Most likely, this is a remake “to resemble antiquity”. Photo from 2007.
The alterations and re-arrangements found within the walls of the Colosseum are also not at all like the real thing. The neatly laid out “remains of the old vaults” look strange on the immaculately smooth brick walls of the Colosseum, Fig. 7. It is clearly visible that all these “rearrangements” were made immediately during the initial construction in order to depict “antiquity”. The real re-lining of vaults, windows and doors, inevitable in old buildings that go underground, look completely different. In Fig. 8 we provide a photo for comparison external wall Cathedral of Saint Irene in Istanbul. Numerous traces of GENUINE shifts are clearly visible there. Please note that the upper sections of the walls of St. Irene look significantly NEWER than the lower ones. The lower sections, on the contrary, are older and have more alterations. But in the Colosseum, the masonry is amazingly the same in novelty at ALL LEVELS, fig. 7.
Rice. 7. Brickwork of the Colosseum. An antique prop. On the surface of the wall there are neatly laid out “traces of ancient vaults”, as well as “a trace of an ancient collapsed staircase”. Photo from 2007.
Rice. 8. Brick wall of St. Irene's Cathedral in Istanbul. Numerous, heterogeneous, overlapping traces of re-lining the vaults and windows are visible. The lower part of the walls (below the growing grass) is in an excavation made around the temple. Photo from 2007.
Further, in genuine old buildings, the lower part of the building is usually underground or in an excavation. For example, the Cathedral of St. Irene stands in an approximately 4-meter excavation, Fig. 8. But there is NO EXCAVATION around the Colosseum. There are no visible signs of any significant immersion into the ground. Is it really possible that in the 2 thousand years that supposedly elapsed from the time of construction, a cultural layer visible to the naked eye has not grown around the Colosseum? This is very strange.
Let us note that the completion of the Colosseum continues to this day. In the photograph shown in Fig. 9, you can clearly see how the work on the superstructure is progressing brick wall The Colosseum is an “ancient” white stone. This is done openly, in full view of tourists, with the help of mobile scaffolding.
Rice. 9. The walls of the Colosseum are still growing. The photograph shows how the brick wall of the Colosseum is being added to with modern white stone “looking like antiquity” with the help of mobile scaffolding. Photo from 2007.
So when was the Colosseum actually built? It turns out that this is not particularly hidden in the Vatican.
For example, in the Vatican Palace there is a fresco on public display depicting how the JUST DESIGNED COLISEUM comes off a sheet of paper and becomes reality, fig. 10. Moreover - IMMEDIATELY IN THE FORM OF RUINS (!), An angel with a compass and a construction angle is drawn nearby. He helps build the Colosseum. But to whom? Really - a pagan emperor (which would be inappropriate for an angel)? Not at all. The name of the builder, as well as the year of construction, are directly indicated on the fresco. Next to the image of the Colosseum, we read: “THE SEVENTH YEAR OF POPE Pius VII” (“PIVS.VII.P.M.ANNO.VII”), fig. 11. Since Pope Pius VII reigned from 1800 to 1823, we are talking about 1807 AD. e. (!)
Rice. 10. Fresco in the Vatican Palace. The Colosseum comes off the designer's paper sheet and becomes reality. It is directly stated that this happens under Pope Pius VII (1800–1823), in the 7th year of his reign, that is, in 1807. Photo from 2007.
Rice. 11. Fragment of the previous drawing. Tablet with the date "PIVS.VII.P.M.ANNO.VII", that is, "THE SEVENTH YEAR OF POPE Pius VII". This is 1807. Photo from 2007.
The same year is repeated once again in the inscription under the fresco. The following is written, Fig. 12:
AMPHITHEATRVM.FLAVIUM
A.PIO.VII.CONTRA.RVINAM.EXCELSO.FVLCIMENTO.SOLIDATVM
ET.PLVRIFARIAM.SVBSTRVCTIONE.MVNITVM
Rice. 12. A large marble plaque with a cross hanging above the entrance to the Colosseum solemnly announces that the “restoration” of the Colosseum (“FLAVIAN AMPHITHEATATER”, AMPHITEATRVM FLAVIVM) was completed under Pope Pius IX in 1852, in the 7th year of his reign. Photo from 2009.
We will give a literal translation into Russian, using the Latin-Russian dictionary of I.Kh. Butler.
FLAVIAN AMPHITHERATER
PIUS VII, THE RUINS RESTING EXTREMELY ON A STRONG AND, ABOVE, ON MANIFUL FOUNDATIONS, THE BUILDER
Without delving into the subtleties of the translation, we note that Pope Pius VII is clearly named here as the BUILDER OF THE RUINS (RUINS) OF THE COLISSEUM. Moreover, it is said that the start of construction - or perhaps only the approval of the project - happened in 1807.
So, in the Vatican Palace the construction of the Colosseum is frankly depicted IMMEDIATELY AS AN “ANTIQUE” RUINS IN 1807 AD. Moreover, it is shown that the matter began with drawing up a project. Which probably means that in 1807 the Colosseum was just beginning to be built.
But who then FINISHED its construction? The answer is probably contained in the ceremonial marble plaque hanging just above the entrance to the Colosseum, fig. 11. The name of Pope Pius IX (1846–1878) is written here in large letters. The year of completion of the “restoration” of the Colosseum is also indicated. This significant event occurred in 1852, in the seventh year of the reign of Pius IX. Which, most likely, is the REAL DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE COLISEUM CONSTRUCTION. This is 1852, that is, the middle of the 19th century.
After its construction, the Colosseum was heavily advertised. And on July 7, 2007, it even made it onto the list of the so-called “new seven wonders of the world,” taking second place there after the Great Chinese wall.
But if the Colosseum was built in the 19th century, then on what basis was it attributed to Emperor Flavius Vespasian, who supposedly lived in the 1st century AD? e.?
Let us turn to the generally accepted history of the Colosseum.
“The Colosseum is the largest of the ancient Roman amphitheaters and one of the most remarkable buildings in the whole world. Located in Rome... on the site where there once was a pond... The construction of this building was begun by Emperor Vespasian, after his victories in Judea, and completed in 80 AD. Emperor Titus... Initially, the Colosseum was called, after the names of the mentioned sovereigns, the Flavian amphitheater; its current name (Latin Colosseum, Colosaeus, Italian Coliseo) was adopted for it later.
… For a long time The Colosseum was a favorite place for entertainment for the inhabitants of Rome... The invasions of the barbarians led it to desolation and marked the beginning of its destruction. From the 11th century until 1132, it served as a FORTRESS FOR NOBLE ROMAN Families... especially the Frangipani and Annibaldi families. The latter, however, were forced to cede the Colosseum to Emperor Henry VII, who donated it to the Roman Senate and people. Back in 1332, the local aristocracy organized a BULL FIGHT here (in 1332, the bull fights most likely took place not in the current Colosseum, but in the city theater of Italian Rome, which was later converted into the Castel Sant'Angelo, see our book "Vatican" - Auto.), but from that time on the systematic destruction of the Colosseum began... So, in the 15th and 16th centuries, Pope Paul II took material from it to build the so-called Venetian palace, Cardinal Riario - for the Palace of the Chancellery (Cancelleria), Paul III - the Palazzo Farnese (Colosseum nothing to do with it - just the stone and brick of the old city of the 14th century were used for papal buildings of the 15th–16th centuries, AFTER WHICH the old part of Italian Rome turned into ruins, see our book “Vatican” - Auto.). However... a significant part of it survived... Sixtus V intended to use it to set up a FLOAT FACTORY, and Clement IX actually TURNED THE COLISEUM INTO A FACTORY FOR THE EXTRACTION OF SALTPETE. The best attitude of the popes towards the majestic monument... DID NOT BEGAN BEFORE THE MIDDLE OF THE 18TH CENTURY... Benedict IV (1740-1758) ... ordered a HUGE CROSS to be erected in the middle of its arena, and a number of altars to be erected around it in memory of the torture, the procession to Calvary and the death of the Savior on the cross. This cross and altars were removed from the Colosseum only in 1874 (probably, they too strongly contradicted the imaginary antiquity of the Colosseum, giving it an overtly Christian appearance, which is why they were removed - Auto.)", article "Colosseum".
So, under Clement IX (1592–1605), a cloth factory operated on the site of the Colosseum, and before that there was probably just a POND there. There was most likely no trace of the Colosseum in those days. Probably the first person to think of erecting the Colosseum was Pope Benedict XIV (1740–1758). But he clearly intended to erect not an “ancient monument”, but a monument to Christian martyrs. However, his successors took things in a different direction. It was under them that the actual construction of the modern Colosseum began, portrayed as an allegedly “easy restoration of an ancient monument.” Here's what the Encyclopedic Dictionary says:
“The popes who followed Benedict XIV, especially Pius VII and Leo XII... reinforced with buttresses the places of the walls that threatened to fall (read: they built the walls of the Colosseum - Auto.), and Pius IX corrected some of it internal stairs(read: built the inside of the Colosseum - Auto.). The Colosseum is protected with even greater care by the current Italian government, by order of which, under the leadership of learned archaeologists... curious excavations were carried out in the arena, which led to the discovery of basement rooms that once served to bring groups of people and animals, trees and other decorations into the arena , or fill it with water and raise the ships up when the naumachia appeared”, article “Colosseum”.
Particularly absurd is the idea of historians about “naumachia” - naval battles presented in the water-filled arena of the Colosseum. At the same time, no intelligible explanations are given - how exactly and with the help of what mechanisms water could fill the Colosseum arena? Where are the drain and fill pipes? Water pumps?
Waterproof walls with traces of water filling? There is nothing like this in the Colosseum. Below we will explain the true background of these legends about “naumachia”.
But - they will tell us - if the Colosseum was built in the 19th century, as you say, then, consequently, the authors of the 17th-18th centuries did not yet know anything about it. Is this true?
Yes, apparently that was the case. To check this, we turned to the sources we had from the 17th century, which, apparently, should have mentioned such a wonderful structure as the Colosseum, if they knew anything about it. But it turned out that not a single word was said about the Colosseum in any of these sources. Let us give two of the most striking examples.
First of all, let's open the FACE CHANNEL - a detailed presentation of world and Russian history, usually dating back to the 16th century. By the way, in our opinion, the Facial Vault was made not in the 16th, but in the 17th century, but in this case this is not important. For a long time, the Facial Vault was completely inaccessible for study, but in 2006–2008, the Moscow publishing house "ACTEON" released a complete facsimile edition of all 10 volumes of the Facial Vault. The second and third volumes describe in detail the history of ancient Rome. Moreover, which is fortunate, especially much space is devoted to the reign of Emperor Flavius Vespasian, who, according to historians, founded the Colosseum, see above.
Let us note that the Facial Chronicle is far from a simple chronicle. First of all, it is VERY DETAILED. Secondly, it was intended for the king and his entourage, and therefore was written especially carefully. Huge amounts of money were spent on its production. “The front vault of the 16th century is the largest historical illustrated work in Russian literature,” p. 27. Some volumes of the Litsevoy vault were in the library of the Moscow kings and belonged personally to Peter I, p. 15–21. The facial vault contains more than sixteen thousand beautiful color drawings, including many drawings depicting the city of Rome. Therefore, if EVEN THERE there are no mentions of the Colosseum - neither in the text nor in the drawings - then we have to conclude that in Moscow in the 16th–17th centuries they STILL KNEW NOTHING about the Colosseum. It is amazing that there really are NO such references.
But maybe the Facial Vault is silent about the Colosseum simply because it does not concern the buildings erected by Emperor Vespasian in Rome at all? No, that's not true. The Facial Vault tells in sufficient detail how Vespasian, having returned to Rome from the Jewish War, immediately began the construction of huge and amazing buildings. But the Colosseum is not mentioned among them. And in general, nothing is said about the theater. We only talk about temples, treasuries, libraries. By the way, the Facial Vault depicts in detail what exactly Vespasian built in Rome. See fig. 13. Carpenters with axes are shown constructing various buildings. There is no theater among them, fig. 13.
Rice. 13. Emperor Vespasian, upon returning from the Jewish War, builds an “altar to the idol” in Rome. But this is by no means the Colosseum, but temple buildings with a “golden idol”. Curtains and books. The Colosseum is not depicted at all and is not mentioned in the text of the Facial Vault. Taken from, book 2, p. 2850.
For completeness, we present an excerpt from the Facial Vault, which speaks about Vespasian’s buildings in Rome. As we have already said, Vespasian conceives them immediately upon his return from the Jewish War.
“Wespasian sought to create an altar to an idol, and soon this and more than human thoughts passed away. And all the valuable stench and sight, all the invisible and unattainable things were collected. Sharing them, people go all over the world, toiling and eager to gain the vision of a. Hang up that Jewish katapetasm as if boasting of it, and all the garments made of gold, even the laws of the book, were commanded to be kept in the coat”, book 2, p. 2850–2851.
Translation into modern Russian:
“Vespasian thought about how to create an altar to an idol and soon erected something that surpassed all human imagination. And he put all the valuable garments there, and everything wonderful and inaccessible was collected there and placed in plain sight. For all this, people all over the world travel and work, just to see it with their own eyes. [Vespasian] hung the Jewish curtains there, as if proud of them, and all the gold-embroidered vestments, and ordered the books with the laws to be kept in the chamber”, book 2, p. 2850–2851.
As you can see, the Facial Vault did not fail to talk about the remarkable buildings of Vespasian in Rome, erected after the Jewish War. But the Colosseum is not mentioned among them.
The Lutheran Chronograph of 1680, a world chronicle describing Roman events in great detail, also knows nothing about the Colosseum. It, just like the Facial Vault, reports only on the construction by Vespasian of a certain “temple of peace” at the end of the Jewish War: “The year of Christ 77, the temple of peace is being built, in which the decorations of the temple of Jerusalem are placed, including the vessels of Judean gold. The law and the scarlet veils were preserved in the chambers by the command of Vespesian”, sheet 113.
This is where the description of Vespasian's buildings ends. The Lutheran Chronograph is completely silent about the Colosseum - and in general, about any theater built by Vespasian in Rome. Moreover, in the detailed index of names and titles given at the end of the Chronograph, the name “Colosseum” is not present. There are no similar names either. It turns out that the Lutheran Chronograph, like the Facial Vault, KNOWS NOTHING about the Colosseum. Although it was written in 1680 and, it would seem, its author should have known about such an outstanding structure as the Colosseum. And call it exactly “Colosseum”. After all, this name, as historians tell us, has been assigned to the Colosseum since the 8th century AD. e. , article "Colosseum". Why is the author second? half XVII century doesn’t know him yet?
It turns out that in the 17th century they really didn’t know anything about the Colosseum.
But let's turn now to the “ancient” writers. What do they know about the greatest building of ancient Rome, the grandiose Colosseum?
It is believed that Suetonius, Eutropius and other “ancient” authors wrote about the Colosseum. The opinion is also expressed that the Colosseum was allegedly sung by an “ancient” poet of the 1st century AD. e. Martial. And he even tried to classify it as one of the seven wonders of the world, amazingly anticipating the decision of contemporary historians (in 2007) to classify the Colosseum as one of the “seven new wonders of the world.”
But were the “ancient” writers really talking about the Colosseum in Italian Rome, and not about some other amphitheater? After all, as we have shown in our works on chronology, the genuine “ ancient rome"has nothing to do with modern Italian Rome. See our books “Tsarist Rome between the Oka and Volga rivers”, “Vatican”. But then, maybe the real Colosseum is not in Italy, but in some other place?
And one more important question. When, by whom and where were the supposedly “ancient” works that are generally known today and talking about the Colosseum discovered? Isn't it in the Vatican? Moreover, AFTER it was decided to build the Colosseum in Rome and it was necessary to find “primary sources” that “confirmed” its existence in the past?
Let's take the book of Suetonius as an example (the others write about the same thing). Suetonius reports on the construction in Rome by Emperor Vespasian, upon his return from the Jewish War, of several structures at once:
1) Temple of Peace,
2) another temple,
3) some nameless amphitheater in the middle of the city.
Suetonius writes: “He also undertook new buildings: the temple of Peace near the forum, the temple of the divine Claudius on the Caelian hill, begun by Agrippina, but almost completely destroyed by Nero, and, finally, an amphitheater in the middle of the city, conceived, as he learned, by Augustus.” , With. 257.
Modern commentators believe that Suetonius is talking here specifically about the Colosseum, p. 843. But Suetonius by no means calls the amphitheater the Colosseum and, in general, does not report any details about it. He writes simply about the “amphitheatre.” Why does it have to be the Colosseum? There is no evidence of this.
Eutropius in his " Brief history from the foundation of the City" attributes the construction of the amphitheater to Emperor Titus Vespasian, the son of Emperor Vespasian. But he also does not provide any data allowing us to identify the Amphitheater of Titus specifically with the Colosseum. It is only sparingly reported that Titus Vespasian “erected an amphitheater in Rome, during the consecration of which 5 thousand animals were killed in the arena,” p. 50.
Another “ancient” historian, Sextus Aurelius Victor writes in the “History of Rome” that under Emperor Flavius Vespasian “in Rome, the restoration of the Capitol was begun and completed... the Temple of Peace, the monuments of Claudius, the Forum and much more: a huge amphitheater was created”, With. 86. But even here there are no details that would allow us to identify this amphitheater specifically with the Colosseum. It is not said what size the amphitheater was (“huge” is a loose concept), nor how it was built, nor in what place in the city it was located. And again the question arises: why is this the Colosseum? Maybe Aurelius Victor meant a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AMPHITHEATHEATR?
As for the “Book of Spectacles” by the Roman poet Martial, where he is believed to have glorified the Colosseum, there is also nothing in it that would clearly point specifically to the Colosseum. And this book itself may turn out to be a fake, since, as has long been noted, it is suspiciously different from the rest of Martial’s works. “From him (Martial - Auto.) a collection of 14 books of epigrams has reached us, NOT CONSIDERING IN THIS NUMBER A SPECIAL BOOK OF POEMS, ALSO CALLED EPIGRAMS, BUT RELATING EXCLUSIVELY TO THE AMPHITHEATTER GAMES UNDER TITUS AND DOMITIAN”, article “Martial”.
And even if Martial’s “Book of Spectacles” is original, then where is the evidence that it refers to the Colosseum? There is no such evidence. It may well happen that Martial and Roman historians are not talking about the Colosseum in Italy, but about ANOTHER AMPHITHEATHEATR. Moreover, the ruins of a huge Roman amphitheater that fits these descriptions REALLY EXIST. But this is by no means the Colosseum in Italian Rome. Unlike the Italian Colosseum, this other, GENUINE Colosseum is not touted by historians at all. They surrounded him with deathly silence and are trying to pretend that he does not exist.
However, in reality it exists. Not in Rome, but in Istanbul.
From the book Empire - I [with illustrations] author8. 1. About Italian Rome of the 15th century According to our reconstruction, Italian Rome was founded only at the end of the 14th century AD. If earlier than this time there was some small settlement on the site of Rome, then it in no way played the role of a capital. And so, “in several handwritten collections
From the book Newest book facts. Volume 3 [Physics, chemistry and technology. History and archaeology. Miscellaneous] author Kondrashov Anatoly Pavlovich1.1 About Italian Rome of the 15th century
From the book Tatar-Mongol Yoke. Who conquered whom? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1.1 About Italian Rome of the 15th century According to our reconstruction, the Italian city of Rome arose no earlier than the 14th century. If before this time there was some kind of settlement on the site of Rome, then it in no way played the role of the capital of a large state. It turns out that “in several handwritten
From the book New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome author Nosovsky Gleb VladimirovichBiography of Pope Hildebrand. When did the papal throne appear in Italian Rome? Despite the fact that almost everything that was connected with Christ “went” in the Scaligerian chronology to the beginning of our era. e., yet in the 11th century there were quite a lot of traces of the gospel events. One of
From the book Rus' and Rome. Revolt of the Reformation. Moscow is the Old Testament Jerusalem. Who is King Solomon? author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich5. When was it built? famous temple Hagia Sophia in Istanbul? The huge temple of Hagia Sophia remains. Which we have previously identified with the temple of Solomon, that is, Suleiman. Our reconstruction is as follows. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent erected a majestic
From the book The Secret of the Colosseum author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1. When, by whom and for what purpose was the Colosseum built in Italian Rome? Of course, the most striking symbol of Italian Rome in the minds of modern people is the famous COLISEUM, fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3. In the light of the New Chronology, many ideas about ancient history
From the book Forgotten Jerusalem. Istanbul in the light of the New Chronology author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich1. When and by whom was the Hagia Sophia built in Istanbul? The Hagia Sophia is the most famous historical monument in Istanbul. Today it is believed that it was built in its modern form Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD. e. It is further believed that when in 1453
From the book History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages author Gregorovius Ferdinand3. Vitalian, pope, 657 - Emperor Constant II visits Italy. - His reception and stay in Rome, 663 - Lament for Rome. - Condition of the city and its monuments. - Colosseum. - Constans sacks Rome. - Death of Constans in Syracuse Eugenius died in June 657, and was consecrated pope on July 30
From the book Book 1. Empire [Slavic conquest of the world. Europe. China. Japan. Rus' as a medieval metropolis Great Empire] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich8.1. About Italian Rome of the 15th century According to our reconstruction, Italian Rome was founded only at the end of the 14th century. If earlier than this time there was some small settlement on the site of Rome, then it in no way played the role of a capital. Whatever it was. And now “in a few
From the book Book 2. We change dates - everything changes. [New chronology of Greece and the Bible. Mathematics reveals the deception of medieval chronologists] author Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich15. When was the famous Parthenon built and why was it called the Temple of the Virgin Mary? We already talked about this in the book “Antiquity is the Middle Ages,” ch. 1. Let us briefly recall the essence of the matter. F. Gregorovius reports: “THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY has already begun a victorious struggle with the Ancient
From the book Vatican [Zodiac of Astronomy. Istanbul and the Vatican. Chinese horoscopes] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich3.1. When and by whom the Colosseum and other Istanbul amphitheaters were destroyed Judging by the old maps and drawings given above, by the end of the 16th century the Istanbul Colosseum was already in a half-destroyed state. About a third of it was dismantled, and others began to grow inside
From the book Tsarist Rome between the Oka and Volga rivers. author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich19.2. When was the “ancient” Colosseum, shown to tourists today, built? In Fig. 1.144 shows an ancient plan of Italian Rome supposedly from the 13th century. But there is nothing on it that looks like the modern “antique” Colosseum! Only a few medieval castles and battlements are depicted
The first ship in human history was built by the Russian carpenter and navigator Noah Ivanov (Noah's Lodya) in Lodeynoye Pole near St. Petersburg 20 centuries ago.
Coat of arms of Lodeynoye Pole.
"The age of the first settlements in the Lodeynoye Pole area, confirmed by excavations, is 5 thousand years BC. Bronze production in the Urals and Altai is 7-8 thousand years old. It’s hard to believe that, people who know full cycle production of bronze jewelry and gold products, did not have ships. The main roads back then were waterways. Wood rots quickly, otherwise all the banks of rivers, lakes and seas would be littered with their remains. If people settled in this place 5,000 years ago, then the Russians couldn’t have sat on the shore for 3,000 years and dreamed of heavenly pretzels! Of course they built ships, boats, and fished." Alexander Kiselev.
The Russians built Drakars, Russian boats, Zaporozhye seagulls, Viking ships and Varangian strong sailing ships from their own timber. Let the Dutch and English show the forest from which they built their Armata.
The fleet was Russian and the Russians saved everyone from time immemorial.
Of course - everyone expects out of habit that the Russians will save the World this time too
It was the Russians who built Noah’s Ark.
St. Petersburg was the Capital of Europe.
Medal for the conclusion of the Peace of Nystadt 1721 Northern War, which lasted more than twenty years and pulled several European states into its orbit, was repeatedly compared by contemporaries to a flood. For the fireworks to celebrate peace in Moscow on January 28, 1722, as well as for the composition of the front side of the commemorative and award medals, an image of Noah’s Ark was taken. On the medal above the ark there is a dove, in the background - the capitals of the two powers - St. Petersburg and Stockholm, connected as a sign of peace by a rainbow. At the bottom there is an inscription: “In Neistat after the flood of the Northern War 1721.”
It was in St. Petersburg that there was the Jordan and the very famous Jordan Stairs in the Hermitage along which the Sailors fled in 1917 to overthrow the criminal Provisional Government, which was deliberately leading the Empire to collapse.
The path from the Varangians to the Greeks was carried by land, so Vyshny Volochok remained and ships on all icons are depicted with wheels...
Drakkar city of Vyborg
Galleon "San Martin" of the indestructible Armata under the Russian Flag. 1588
But the Ancient Rus buried their ancestors, burning them on ships, and then built new ships. therefore, practically no old ships, ancient ships and the Russian sailing fleet have survived. The masters were taken abroad during the revolution, who then built a fleet in Germany and Belgium. And in Russia there were constant wars, in which for some reason it was the Fleet that was flooded and destroyed. For example, during the Crimean War, how was it possible to deliberately destroy the magnificent Fleet in Sevastopol Bay in 1855?
I can't wrap my head around this...
And in the Japanese War, why were ships sunk? They could and should have been beaten back. My great-grandfather died there.
St. Petersburg is the most mysterious, most beautiful and most beloved city by all of us.
Everyone knows that they rewrote History under Peter I. The city of Peter was built by Peter I in a swamp, on the very border of the Empire, and is it only 300 years old? The city of Peter I, or the city of Petra, where Petra is a stone in Greek. Capital of the Great Greco-Russian Eastern Empire. Everyone's favorite meander pattern is found on almost all St. Petersburg buildings and fences.
7524, if not for Peter I, for some reason they lower our History to - for seven and a half thousand years, Russian people walked around the world with bears and balalaikas, drank vodka and picked their noses. Who will believe this?
Old maps and engravings were taken out of Russia long ago, chronicles were burned, just as the Library of Alexandria in Russian was burned. (Because no one could read what was written there, transliterated Russian words in Latin letters)
To destroy the memory and destroy the Rus, who carry the genes of free people, we organized constant wars to stop the development and destroy the fleet, including. The Russians probably have the longest and most ancient history of their fatherland, the largest number of wars, it’s impossible to count them all, so they kindly tried to reduce the school curriculum to a minimum.
Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword, but all the same, they still strive to gather together, once every hundred years, and attack the Russians and receive 3.14* lei.
Even those who always attacked us initially spoke Russian too! Etruscans are Russians. 
Now it is becoming more and more difficult to get to the Truth; observant people are increasingly stumbling upon inconsistencies in History and asking themselves questions.
Residents of St. Petersburg see every day how, when laying pipes and tunnels, removing a 2-meter cultural layer caused by the Great Flood, old buildings are exposed. During the construction of the 400-story Skyscraper, opposite the Smolny Cathedral, an Old Russian settlement was opened. and the builders tried to bury the oldest fortress in the history of mankind under the colossus of Gazprom. If the Russian people had not resisted and stood up to defend their history. The fortress would not have been saved. It now stands open and continues to rot. We urgently need to build a protective cap over it.
It’s interesting how, in just 300 years, as much as 2 meters of cultural layer could grow? And the old tuff foundations indicate that the City stood before the flood.
Our ancestors were wise, understood the importance of the city and defended St. Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad - the Capital of the Empire, as best they could. It is in vain that they are now trying to denigrate the Soviet period in the History of Russia. In the First World War WWI, only with the help of the Red Army it was possible to stop invaders of all stripes and prevent the capture of the Country. It is not for nothing that more than half of the career Russian officers trained in the Academies went over to the Red Army. They understood who was really saving the Fatherland and Motherland - those who started the Civil, fratricidal War.
During the Second Patriotic War (Second World War WWII), during the Siege of 1941. our grandfathers and fathers, at the cost of their own lives, saved their beloved city from complete destruction. They themselves died, died of hunger, but the city did not surrender to the enemy for complete destruction. And we will not give up and keep it. 
According to the Barbarossa plan, Leningrad was supposed to be blown up and razed to the ground, as the cradle of three revolutions. In 1941, bridges and factories, factories and palaces were mined; everything would have blown up even during the retreat. And the Germans had a plan to mine the Parade on Palace Square and blow up the entire city, as they had already destroyed Peterhof and Pushkin by that time. because this is the city of Stalin, and this is the city of Peter
Leningraders did not leave the city, so the city remained intact. Now, many do not understand the significance of this Main City of the Country. And I know for sure that if Leningrad had been surrendered then, the Second World War would have been lost, for sure. Thanks to the courage of the defenders and residents of the city of Leningrad, the city survived and will survive now.
Of course, Leningrad had to be completely restored and houses rebuilt, magnificent Palaces that had been destroyed down to the foundations restored. Few people know that in the besieged city, blockaded in the winter of 1942, the tram was launched again and the city came to life. The cultural capital held concerts, wrote Symphonies, schools and kindergartens operated, factories produced tanks and shells, and sewed military uniforms. Our ancestors preserved the beauty that is now being deliberately destroyed by the barbarians who destroyed Rome.
Northern Venice is being destroyed. 
Many palaces destroyed by the Nazis have still not been restored - the Shuvalov palace is being destroyed, New Holland is already overgrown with trees. Now, there is a crisis again and there are not enough funds... We should force Germany to help us. If they destroyed so much, let them pay us compensation too. Let the Russian families who lost their breadwinners in the War be provided for, not just the Jews. Why does no one ever protect or help Russians? The country has not yet recovered from the troubles caused by the Second World War, and new ones are being prepared for us. People still live very poorly. Every day, as in war, they are starving, barely, barely making ends meet. Grandparents, who as children and schoolchildren saved and restored the City of Leningrad from ruins, now live on meager pensions and are forced to work, having lost their health, simply to survive and not die of hunger. Why do the rescuers of the World from fascism, the Winners of the Great Patriotic War, now live beyond the borders of human survival and sleep from hand to mouth?
Why are unemployment benefits for the winners of the War now 850 rubles = $12, this is 10 times lower than the subsistence level, while all jobs are given only to foreigners? There are no more jobs for Russians. Overboard, a new crisis played out for us, according to the scenario, we know who is the next crisis that started the Third World War, again against Russia, in which we can only survive by uniting, helping each other.
Brothers, you are all ordered to survive!
Now, the main thing is not only to survive, but to tell and show our children who we are, that we are the descendants of that very Great Empire.
Before the Decembrist Uprising of 1825, Russia was called the Great Empire.
Before the Revolution of 1917 Before the division into republics, Russia was called the Great Greek-Russian Eastern Empire.
The empire was divided, new languages were introduced, but initially everyone spoke Russian; it was the international language that united the World. The main slogan of the Country and the Capital of the Empire has always been Peace-Peace!
Just like in Venice, the lion has a sword and Peace is written on the book! ;-) Venice and Northern Venice - it was one Country. Why do they misinterpret both us and Venice? real story?
How we almost realized in the 80s that there is one country, when Sanremo sounded in all homes, until Albano and Ramina Power made a film about St. Petersburg. Their girl disappeared in St. Petersburg and the couple broke up.
St. Petersburg 757
It has already been explained to modern young people on the Internet that the Russian Fleet is only 300 years old, celebrating precisely this unconfirmed Date, while keeping silent that the Russian Fleet has always been the most advanced fleet in the World and began to be built 5000 years ago.
Funeral of noble Rus." Henryk Semiradsky.
Previously, the Russians burned their princes on ships. The custom of burning the dead remained in India.
The age of the first settlements in the Lodeynoye Pole area, confirmed by excavations, is 5 thousand years. Bronze production in the Urals and Altai is 7-8 thousand years old. It is hard to believe that if people who know the full production cycle of bronze jewelry and gold products do not have ships. The main roads back then were waterways.
Drakkars and Viking ships that spoke Russian, Lithuanian princes who are depicted on the Monument to the Millennium of Rus' in Novgorod, Swedish kings wrote in Russian in Latin - the buried speech of Carolos the Eleventh 
Which only Russians can read and understand, I have already written about this several times
and in Stockholm there was and still remains Verkhny Novgorod, Then Mr. Veliky Novgorod and Nizhny Novgorod..... Yes, yes, that’s what it says in modern map- NOVGOROD, you can look for it yourself, I don’t think it’s been erased yet. I posted an article on LiveJournal - I’ll find it and give you a link.
Afanasy Nikitin “went across three seas” to India in 1462, but discovered America. He wrote that he discovered the West Indies, Indians and non-Indians. Then, having rewritten history, they made him a wanderer on foot, out of harm’s way... It turned out that the Russian Merchant was carrying loads on his ridge, well, who will believe it?) And on the monument to Afanasy Nikitin in Tver, in his homeland, he is walking, following by ship. The foreign customers apparently did not know that Russian ships actually sail on water, and do not swim. They left the ship's rostra, we must pay tribute to the courage of our ancestors.
The Russians have had a fleet from time immemorial, and now they would
would have remained the most advanced if they had not now deliberately stopped our plants and factories, taking over the Country, cutting off the military, not paying them salaries for years. If it weren’t for another sabotage by the British - the successfully carried out “Perestroika” and Russia’s rollback back to the feudal system and undeveloped capitalism with the destruction of all Russian industry, the Russian military fleet, which developed in the USSR at a faster pace, would still remain the most powerful in the World. Now the former power of industry no longer exists, but even at the beginning of the 20th century it was Russia that sent 2000 Russian engineers to America to create industry there. In 1913, Russia - just a hundred years ago, Russia was the most developed Country in the World, with the most modern industry and the most productive agriculture, which provided Europe with grain and oil.
It’s time for us to remember our Great roots as a Great Country, urgently raise our own domestic industry, create our own additional intellectual property and, due to this, become a Mighty Power again. The most important thing is to remember your history, without false statements that Russians are drunks and lapotniks and therefore can create anything themselves. They can and how! If only they wouldn’t interfere with our work, and left-handers are not extinct in Rus'. The Russian people have always been the most advanced sober nation in the World, which is why they won all the wars. That is why we still have the largest territory in the World, which gives no one peace. Why did Holland with their advanced fleet huddle on islands reclaimed from the sea, and if the Dutch had such a fleet, then why did the entire territory end up with the Russians and how did they quickly deliver goods throughout the country without roads, if there was no Fleet.
Thanks to Pushkin, it was still not possible to burn his works and the merchants who traveled all over the world traded both silks and sables.
It was we who had the most advanced fleet in the World, therefore, that the Russians were lazy, we had no roads, out of harm’s way, so that all sorts of Napoleons would not walk around the Country and get stuck immediately on the side of the road. But we have always had excellent sea routes.
Yes, Russians do not and never have had roads - that’s a fact. :-)
“There are two troubles in Russia”... - like Nekrasov. But the Russian people, in principle, did not need roads, so they were not particularly built - trouble always came along them from the West. The Lithuanians built the roads and where is Lithuania now - in NATO. It is faster and easier for Russian people to build canals, cover embankments with granite and float cargo on water. Numerous rivers and canals, reservoirs, dams and locks allowed ships to sail throughout the vast territory of Russia and raise ships by raising water for convenient loading.
Northern Venice alone is worth it! Bregas dressed in granite... The canals were filled in with the cold weather, only lines remained, instead of canals there were arrows of Vasilyevsky Island.
There is no such exquisite beauty as in St. Petersburg anywhere else in the World. This has been honed over centuries, cutting off everything that catches the eye. Everything unnecessary was cleaned, hidden. All the houses echo each other and create a single ensemble that is still maintained.
St. Petersburg, Northern Palmyra, Northern Venice, New Holland, the New Capital of Europe - all this is one city. St. Petersburg is the Naval Capital of the Great Empire. The capital of the great Admirals. Their houses are located on Bolshaya Morskaya, Malaya Morskaya, on Nevsky Prospekt - the building of the Baltic Bank opposite the Anichkovsky Bridge, the Journalist's House, Nevsky 70...
Of course, after the division of the Empire, the fleet was split up under different flags.
But the Russians did their duty, and silently
From time immemorial, it was the Russian people who restored order throughout the Empire and went home.
They drove out and pacified the Chinese, built the Great Wall, star fortresses, left their patrols and went home.
We paraded through Berlin and went home. Since October 9, 1760, “without the knowledge of Russia, not a single cannon in Europe dared to fire” Berlin capitulated to the Russian corps of General Count Z.G. Chernyshev and the keys to Berlin are still kept in the Kazan Cathedral during the First World War and the Great Patriotic War the Germans failed to take them back, not to mention the three-headed eagles of the Roman Empire.
Suvorov brought order to Europe in 1799, paraded through Milan, jumped over the Alps and went home, because home was better.
The Russians drove out, Napoleon was restored to order in Europe, they paraded through Paris in 1814 and went home, because houses were better and more spacious.
They drove out and pacified the Nazis, paraded through Berlin in 1945 and went home to restore their homeland.
Russia, Mother Russia, has survived all the most terrible Wars in the world and despite this, it still remains the Greatest Country, because we have the best, wisest and kindest people on Earth, which unites around itself the best of the best.
And as long as our Great City stands Saint Petersburg- Great Mother Russia, who saved the whole world from troubles, stands and will stand. It’s not for nothing that we have a sword in our coat of arms with three-headed eagles. So everyone is waiting for the Russians to save them. And we cannot relax.
1. When and by whom was the Hagia Sophia built in Istanbul
Hagia Sophia is the most famous historical monument in Istanbul. Today it is believed that it was erected in its modern form by the Byzantine emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD. It is further believed that when in 1453 the capital of Byzantium - the city of Constantinople - was captured by the Ottoman Turks and renamed Istanbul, the main temple of the Orthodox Christian world - the Church of Hagia Sophia - was immediately converted into a Muslim mosque.
However, according to new chronology, this temple could not have been built earlier than the 14th century AD. Moreover, it bears numerous signs of construction from the 16th century, that is, already from the era of the Ottoman atamans.
But how could the Ottomans, being Muslims, build a Christian temple? The answer is given by a new chronology, according to which the religious division between Orthodoxy and Islam arose only in the 15th century AD. (and not in the 7th century, as the Scaligerian version claims) and finally ended only in the 17th century. Therefore, in the 16th century, Christian churches could still be built (and were built) in Turkey, and in Russia - churches that were indistinguishable in their decoration from Muslim mosques. Like, for example, St. Basil's Cathedral on Red Square in Moscow, volume 6; .
Let us recall the main points of our reconstruction related to the Church of Hagia Sophia. Which, in the course of our chronological research, we have long supposedly identified with the temple of Solomon - Suleiman the Magnificent -.
According to the new chronology, the biblical Solomon and the Byzantine emperor Justinian, who allegedly lived in the 6th century AD. - this is one and the same historical person, see -. In this regard, it is worth noting that Justinian and Suleiman bore almost the same name-nickname. The very name "Justinian" means JUST. And Sultan Suleiman was called Suleiman the LEGISLATE, p.242.
Documents say that one of the most outstanding deeds of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent was the construction of a huge mosque in Istanbul. Today it is believed that this is the so-called “Suleiman Mosque”. Allegedly, it was built in 1550-1557 by the architect Sinan on the orders of the Sultan, p.59. See Figure 1.1. This is the largest mosque in Istanbul. Moreover, it is the center of a whole complex of buildings. Due to its excellent engineering performance, it stands out among other mosques in Istanbul, but, according to the new chronology, this is a much later construction, most likely not earlier than the 18th century, 200-250 years after Suleiman, volume 6. Which is indirectly confirmed by the fact that that the central dome of this mosque, it turns out, “WAS DESIGNED IN THE 19TH CENTURY by the Fossati brothers,” p.60.
But why was it necessary to attribute the later mosque to Suleiman the Magnificent? And what, in this case, was Suleiman actually building? If we “take away” the “Suleiman Mosque” attributed to him today, then what will remain?
This is our reconstruction. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent built the gigantic Church of Hagia Sophia in the middle of the 16th century, Fig. 1.2, Fig. 1.3, Fig. 1.4. This was the FIRST temple of such a huge size. Previously, such large buildings had not been built in Tsar-Grad. Therefore, engineers did not yet have sufficient experience in megalithic construction. Of course, they tried their best. However, the building soon began to crumble under the pressure of the monstrous mass of the dome. And here we are surprised to learn that the next Sultan after Suleiman the Magnificent - Selim II - in 1573 was forced to strengthen the walls of Hagia Sophia with the help of huge stone “bulls”, which took on the load of the dome that was bursting the walls, p.64.
Thus, the following picture emerges. Apparently, in 1550-1557 Suleiman actually built Hagia Sophia. This is the first experience in building huge temples. The experience was not entirely successful. After about twenty years, the temple began to spread to such an extent that Selim II had to strengthen it with “bulls”. It’s hard to imagine that the Church of Hagia Sophia was built or “restored” in the 6th century AD, stood there until the 16th century, and only supposedly a THOUSAND YEARS later began to crumble under the load of the dome! But if the temple was erected in 1550-1557, then the picture becomes quite clear.
Next. The Church of Hagia Sophia is made of BRICK, p.111. The question is, when did brick come into use for buildings? We cannot give an exact answer, but in the course of our analysis of ancient and medieval history, we have already expressed the idea that brick correct form, in the form of a parallelepiped, began to be widely used for buildings only in the 15th-16th centuries. Before this, they were made of stone. The very first bricks of the XIII-XIV centuries still looked like cobblestones that did not have a specific shape. For example, it is from these SHAPELESS BRICKS IN THE FORM OF COBBLES, mixed with ordinary stones, that the ancient walls at the base of St. Peter's Cathedral in Geneva, dating back to the 11th century by historians, were made. According to the new chronology, this is most likely the XII-XIV centuries.
Only later did the builders come up with the idea that it is very convenient to build buildings from small standard parallelepiped bricks. From this point of view, the construction of Hagia Sophia FROM BRICK in the 16th century also looks quite natural.
2. Why is it today believed that a 15th-century artist “wrongly” depicted the siege of Tsar-Grad by the Turks
2.1. Hagia Sophia in a 15th-century drawing
The book contains a wonderful color medieval miniature of the 15th century, depicting the siege of Constantinople by the Ottoman atamans in 1453, p. 38. See Figure 1.5. The miniature is taken from the 15th century book: Jean Meilot, "Passages d'Outremer", kept in the National Library of Paris. It is believed that this is a rare image, CONTEMPORARY with the event itself. And what do we see?
Look how Tsar-Grad is depicted. IN GENERAL - VERY CORRECT AND COMPETENT, as modern commentators note. His geographical location, the Golden Horn Bay, the shore of the Sea of Marmara, the fortress wall of the city, the position of the hills, the pontoon bridge thrown by the Ottoman atamans across the Golden Horn, cannons, siege works, etc. - EVERYTHING IS DEPICTED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE. And historians themselves admit that in general the miniature quite accurately reflects medieval reality, p.39. With two exceptions.
FIRST. In the center of Tsar Grad we see the Church of St. Sophia. There is no doubt that it is he. Since the temple is provided with a clear inscription S.Sophie on the miniature, Fig. 1.6. But the view of the temple is amazing! What we see is by no means what we see today in the center of Istanbul. The miniature shows a MEDIEVAL GOTHIC CATHEDRAL! The same architecture as ancient Russian churches, see, volume 4, chapter 14:47, and many Catholic cathedrals in Western Europe. An elongated silhouette, tall narrow Gothic windows, a round window with stained glass on the front wall of the cathedral. Two side high Gothic towers. Central, narrow and high spire. THIS GOTHIC TEMPLE HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF MODERN HAGIA SOPHIA.
SECOND. The weapons and clothing of the Ottoman atamans storming the city walls are strikingly different from the ideas instilled in us by Scaligerian historians. In particular, there are no images of turbans. The warriors are either clad in iron and wearing iron round helmets of the simplest form, or in high Russian caps. By the way, it is in such Russian Cossack caps that the Turks storming Vienna are depicted on the medieval plan of the city of Vienna, given by us in Volume 6, Chapter 5:11. The engraving with the city plan of Vienna, by the way, is also old and contemporary with the events depicted in the 16th century.
What happens? Contemporaries portray the Ottoman atamans of the 15th-16th centuries just like Russian Cossacks or like knights clad in heavy armor. And current commentators, based on LATER Turkish images, which appeared, apparently, no earlier than the 18th century, assure us that the artists of the 15th-16th centuries “understood nothing” and were “grossly mistaken” in depicting contemporary reality. But rather, on the contrary, it is the old images of the 15th-16th centuries that must be trusted first of all if we really want to understand what was happening at that time.
This is how N.M. Karamzin describes this bright event: “The chronicle says that Oleg PUT HIS SHIPS ON WHEELS and, by the power of one wind, with open sails, WALKED BY DRY PATH WITH THE FLEET TO CONSTANTINOPLE. Maybe (Karamzin quite rightly points out the parallel - Auth.) HE WANTED TO DO THE SAME WHAT HE DID AFTER MAHOMET II: ORDERED THE WARRIORS TO DRAG THE SHIPS ALONG THE SHORE TO THE HARBOR (that is, to the Golden Horn - Auth.) in order to approach the city walls,” vol. 1, chapter 5, column 79 Karamzin noticed everything correctly here. I just didn’t understand the real meaning. Since the capture of Tsar-Grad by Oleg and the capture of Tsar-Grad by Mohammed II are, apparently, the SAME event. And “both of them” therefore roll their boats over land ON WHEELS. As far as we know, this story is unique and is connected specifically with the capture of Constantinople.
By the way, commentators do not always write that Mohammed II put his big boats ON WHEELS. Sometimes they say that the Ottoman atamans dragged their boats along pine planks, volume 1, chapter 5, note 309. However, Turkish historians, such as Celal Essad, describe this event in the 15th century as follows: “They laid thick wooden ROLLERS, greased with lard and oil, and in one night more than 70 ships of various sizes were dragged along this road with the help of people, horses and oxen. Loose and inflated with a fair wind, SAILS made this work very easy... The next morning the galleys stood in the Golden Horn, on the other side of the chain,” p.48.
Thus, not only Russian chronicles talk about SHIPS ON WHEELS. Celal Essad talks about this because the ROLLERS are apparently the same wheels. MODERN GUIDE GUIDES to Istanbul also talk about this, for example. “Residents of Constantinople saw... the troops of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II, who were dragging warships ON WHEELS over the hills,” p.5.
Thus, the messages from Russian chronicles about Oleg and Turkish sources about Mohammed II practically coincide here.
And the artist of the 15th century quite openly depicted BOATS ON WHEELS in the army of Mohammed. Exactly like the Russian Oleg from the supposed 10th century. Chronological shift by 500 years.
