Part III

Under the Sign of the Cross and Crescent

 

ARIAN EUROPE

 

            … Certain descendants of the Kipchaks protested against Catholicism in a different way – they moved to the North with their families, far from the Roman Empire, over Rhine. Their spirit of freedom had been living there from the times of Attila, which is witnessed by historical monuments of that epoch and the campaign of Attila himself in 435. In the European North he founded new khanates.

            Those monuments remained in a rather good state; they are different. And they are not silent at all, as it is common to think now; those are barrows and stones with runic writings which can be read.

            And besides, that is not forgotten but at the same time not properly read folk epos. And of course the people – the bearers of traditions or genetic and “anthropological” material which it is impossible to fake. It is in Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Iceland… In a word, in nations that surrendered to Rome and accepted Catholicism not all at once. For them, for these countries, late in the Middle Ages a wearisome war was waged; Rome managed to knock out the spirit of freedom with difficulty.

            From the IV century its own culture and policy was being formed there since they started to confess another European religion there – another branch of Monotheism. Not Christian. Scientists called it “Arianism”; it is a unique sign of the medieval epoch – it was a rival of Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. Its vivid trace is Protestantism which still determines the life of millions of people.

            And it is the result of the Great Nations Migration, another fruit of the Turkic culture given to Europe by the East.

            Today the Europeans do not know Arianism; they have forgotten it and call it paganism. In that not well-known word even experts see the heresy of the Egyptian priest Arius, which is absolutely wrong. The Northern Europe, its old belief, had nothing to do with Egypt, with Arius; it was too far from Christian passions that were taking place in Constantinople, Alexandria and Rome starting from the IV century. That was a region free from the spirit of the “Greek belief”, an independent territory which had only certain outward signs of similarity with the religion of the Near East… They had the same source!

            Here, in the European North, from the times of the Great Nations Migration people were aware of and retained the Altaic teaching of Heavenly God but with a different, not Christian framing. They, those arising traditions, were interlaced into the canvas of the new European culture which was getting the right to live north from Rhine and Danube. That was being done by the “Germans” not by order of Constantinople or Rome. They were doing it by themselves. At their own discretion.

            Original culture of the Central and North Europe was being formed. New culture. European, but different one. Hence are “Arians”, “Aryans” – that is what the Christian clergy called the “Germans”, “barbarians”, i.e. the natives of Altai who settled in Europe and, of course, did not accept the “Greek belief” alien to them in everything. They did not recognize the supremacy of Byzantium in politics either. Of course, the Christians could not consider the Arians their coreligionists. On the contrary, they regarded them as the enemies. Rivals. Competitors.

 

            ● Confusion which was purposely created around Arianism in church and historical literature comes under notice. Two independent phenomena of spiritual life not connected with each other are represented as one and the same. The teaching is connected with the priest Arius forgetting that that teaching had existed long before Arius was born – at least five centuries before it happened. It was being developed in communities of Transcaucasia, Near and Middle East and resulted in the creation of the Armenian, Albanian, Coptic and other Churches which called themselves “Monophysite” and non- Chalcedonian in the IV century.

            While in Europe the subject of Arianism is absolutely different; it is connected with non-recognition of Christ as God, which means with non-recognition of “the Vicar of Christ”, i.e. the Pope. The problem of Arianism became important here because of the fight for ideological hegemony of the Church among “barbarous” nations (the Turki called the Goths, Vandals, Langobard, Franks, etc.) with which that teaching carried weight up to the IX – X centuries.

 

            That is what was happening in reality. Two feuding centers – North and South – appeared; they were speaking one and the same language but confessed different spiritual cultures. Hence, of course, another division into “nations”.

            It seems here it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the name “Arians”, or “Aryans” appeared not in Europe and even not in the Middle East. It was known in Tibet, in Persia, India long before the Common Era; the name related to the newcomers from Altai. In Tibet, for instance, there is a region called Arius where those very newcomers settled two and a half thousand years ago. And in Iran there is a region which modern name is concordant with the word Germany (Kerman, German) where from of old, from the times of Persia of Achemenids, the Turki have been living. In the Bible that remote eastern country called Ariil is also mentioned.

 

            ● In Tuva, for instance, there is a famous royal barrow Arjan of the VII – VIII centuries B.C.; it contains about 70 burial frames with horses skeletons, arms and other items. This is perhaps the most ancient “trace” of the culture connected with the Arians. Such connection is confirmed by the name of the barrow. The name “arjan” had a literal meaning – “heather”, “juniper” used for fumigation and purification from evil spirits; it is concordant with the Turkic “aryg” (saint, pure, noble). Hence is the word “Arian”.

 

            European and Asian Arians had the same totemic signs; they are likely to be the copies of each other – these are adji (equilateral iron cross) and mandala (ark, reliquary). That is the only way it could have been there; these are the signs of Altai which, according to a legend, referred to the “keepers of the Universe”, the preachers of Monotheism.

            Of course, European Arianism, in defiance of needless insistence of modern theologians, had nothing to do with Christianity since it (its traditions!) had been living before the Common Era, i.e. long before the Emperor Constantine approved of the Christian religion. Arius himself, from whom Arianism is derived, was the native of “Indian communities” of Egypt; hence his “Altaic” knowledge. And non-Egyptian name! It had not been met on the banks of Nile before the coming of the Turki as against Tibet, India and Kushan khanate. It was used by those called “Hanifs” or “Nestorians”.

            It is a foolish thing to deny Arianism as an independent teaching. And it is even more stupid not to see the traces of the East in it but to see the conspiracy of certain antichristian forces. What heresy and conspiracies can be in question if the “Greek belief” was nothing in the times of Arius? There was no need to fight with it; it was weaker than a squeaker. And it is beyond dispute that the Arians, and not only them, were the rivals and competitors of the Christians. The Arians (the same as Moslems later) defended the purity of Monotheism; there was nobody except for the Most High above them.

 

            ● The “Priscillians”, the followers of the teaching which was getting stronger in Spain and other southern countries, are an example. It was a sort of composition of provisions of Manichaeism, Gnosticism and local beliefs. And their teaching was directed primarily against the Christians, but the interests of the “Iranian” policy in Europe are found in it. That was its “Trojan horse”. The Christians failed to rebut it in terms of ideology; they did not have enough knowledge. Theological dispute was settled by the secular arm in 384; the Priscillians were accused of magic and preaching immorality, which was punished by a death sentence.

 

            That was their truth. The Arians were living with it. Firmness in belief, spiritual purity gave their culture and themselves a unique singularity.

            Ulphilas (311 – 383), one of the founders of that belief in Europe, its patriarch, had immense authority. At least it is known that he accomplished the same spiritual feat as his contemporaries, Saint Jerome, Augustine and other “doctors” of the Catholic Church. They were learning and growing in one cultural area. Ulphilas gave the Arians his own “Vulgate”, i.e. unchristian Bible. It is evident that that was, and the same went for the Catholics, the translation of a Turkic service book with different comments. There, for instance, was no book called “Kings” where feats of arms Biblical characters are described; it seems those feats were known to the Goths from other sources… This “incomplete” text later became the basis of the Arian teaching which was strengthening in the north of Europe.

            Catholicism and Arianism, by all appearances, were born at one time; they were growing like twins. They were fed from the same hands with the same food…

            That “northern” Bible has gone for good the same as Arianism; the inquisition decided their fate, but certain fragments and “Skeirihs” comments to that Bible remained – that is a very strange document. It is mentioned in the book “Christianity of the Goths” which saw the light more than a hundred years ago. Who was the author of those comments it is not clear; and the author of the book paid attention to abundance of “words and expressions not peculiar to the Gothic translation [of the Bible]”. Here is an impenetrable mystery… It seems, the same as in Persia, Byzantium and Armenia, in the Northern Europe there was the language of those initiated into the mysteries of religion – rulers and clergymen used to speak it – and there was the language for the masses. Hence is striking discrepancy between “Skeirihs” and the text of the Bible; hence is fierce fight for destruction of Arianism in the north of Europe: some khans were inclined to Catholicism, others, as Gibbon mentioned, “were urgently burning those who denied to worship God of their ancestors together with their tents and families”.

            As a matter of fact that was all about the text which clarified the teaching of Heavenly God, which is seen in the title… if it is translated from the ancient Turkic language.

 

            ● By the way, the beginning of the second Gothic prayer “Our Father” was pronounced as “Atta Unsar…”. The word “atta” meant “at first the head of family and later the head of tribe and was the root for a modern German expression “Adel”, nobility”. If gemination which appeared with a later tradition is discarded, we see a Turkic word “ata” (father). With that ancient word the prayer of the Germans and the roots of the German language started. It also contained the source of European Arianism which will be later scornfully called “paganism”.

            It turns out, in a small “ata”, like in a magic mirror, the intimate history of the Germans is reflected.

 

            Another thing is also “strange”; late in the IV century, as we know, intense competition concerning elaboration of the “European” ceremony of divine services was taking place between Catholicism and Arianism. At that time the bishop Ambrosius wrote first Christian rhymed hymns which were later introduced into the tradition of the Catholic Church. Those hymns were read with singing accent; they appeared, according to the chronicles, in order to “compete with the Arians” in the trueness of the ceremony.

 

            ● Historians have different opinions about whether Ambrosius was the originator of European poetry. They also name Prudentius who, it seems, was elder, although they lived during the same epoch. His verses are presented as an example of antique poetry but with new heroes that joyfully shake the dust of the old world off their feet… A strange conception, is it not?

            If there was no antique poetry, were there its “old heroes”?.. Let alone hermits praised by the author of “Peristephanon” – they are not lone persons but a host which fights, perishes in order to rise again victoriously. As a matter of fact, that book praises the Great Nations Migration with which the Western Europe was in contact at that time.

 

            It is interesting, is it not? Although “to compete” is not the most precise word since that was all about the accordance with divine services of the Arians and the Turki of Altai. 

            By the way, from those hymns, as it was marked by the experts, European poetry began! Those were the first rhymed lines that the Latins heard… However, this might be wrong. Time retained other examples of the Turkic poetry; certain lines are more than two thousand years old – they were cut in runes on stones of Altai. Immortal epitaphs.

            For example these outstanding lines were put together not by a beginner:        

 

                        God created the world of hollows and the world of tops,

                        To make the heavenly dome always turn there,

                        To make the stars fly there, -

                        The night changes the day there without fail there.

 

                        God made the sky the color of turquoise,

                        Threw the nephrites of stars in the sky,            

                        He threaded the Libra constellation, -

                        And the night changes the day there without fail.

 

                        The Runner of Destiny galloped over the world -

                        He stroke fire and was burning

                        The grass world: it became hot, smoky, scarlet…

                        And the flame is still flaring.

 

            It is possible that early in the Middle Ages the Europeans heard the following verses:

 

                        God's benevolence – they say it is a gem,

                        God's benevolence – there is nothing more precious.

                        But more precious than sapphires is my God – you,

the powerful hero.

                        But more precious than rubies is my powerful hero –

                                                                                                          my God.

 

            The verses have not faded away; they still have their beauty after centuries… they have just been forgotten.

            … Speaking about the times of the Catholic Church establishment, should we forget that the Emperor Valens (364 – 378) who had been reigning before Theodosius I came to Rome, was a “strong Arian”? The traditions of Altai were not alien to him, according to his biographers. And what is more, Valens exiled the adherents of the “Greek belief”, whom he could not stand, from Rome… That is the true Roman history without faking.

            And it seems it should be mentioned in this connection that the Catholics under Theodosius and Arians under Ulphilas performed the ceremony of consecration into belief (baptism) the same way – in a baptistery by putting into holy water three times. Both of them repeated ary-alkyn which they were taught in Derbent. Only under the Pope Gregory the Great the Catholics altered that Altaic ceremony, of which the Pope notified Leander, the Bishop of Seville, in 591. His letter remained.

            It is possible to say that Gregory was the last Pope of the “Roman” world; he made Catholicism rich declaring the slogan which ran “permission and fastening” with which, as a matter of fact, the deviation from the former social values and appropriation of new, i.e. Turkic ones, began. That was performed during the epoch of Carl the Great. The Pope Gregory, by the way, wrote his proclamations in “low Latin”; he really knew the Turkic language well. His sobriquet – Dvoeslov (in Russian it literally means that he knew two languages) – speaks for itself.

 

● History has plenty of surprises. Carl the Great (742 – 814) from the dynasty of Charolings, who is considered to be the founder of France and the one who united medieval Europe, is a Turki according to his family tree and his tamga – he belonged to the family of Balts. His real name is Charla-mag (Charlemagne), which is translated as “call for the glory”. A very popular name.

In order to conceal the historical truth, the Europeans deliberately made the names of many historical characters sound in a Latin way, so that the events loose their coloring. Let us remember that the name of the famous knight Carl the Brave was Temiraire. There are many similar examples. Double names were common in Europe; one of them sounded in the Turkic language… But that is another evident trace of the Great Nations Migration.

Thus the name of the father of Carl the Great was Pippinus Brevis. Or, more precisely, Pippin Der Kurze, which in Turkic means “Pippin that became important and respectable”. The name appeared in 572 when he, the mayor, became king… What has “Brevis” to do with it (the name means “short”)? Hence, by the way, are “prince-electors” who by the XIII century had been creating their board in the Holy Roman Empire. 

“Reformers” of the truth were acting rudely; they changed a couple of characters in the name and “respectable” turned into “short”, “brave” – into “bald”, “divine” – into “devil” and so forth. Thus, for instance, the father of William the Conqueror, Robert Magnificent or Divine became Robert the Devil (Diable), although his name came from Dev – Heavenly God, which is mentioned in an ancient saga.

 

            The Turkic culture was coming to European towns through different gates. It was coming from the south and from the north. And it was being established…

            Later, after the Northern Europe was conquered by the Catholics, the words “Arians” and “Arianism” were given the meaning that was too far from their original one by theologians and politicians: at that time the dead were being turned into the living and the living – into the dead. Which can be explained; the colonization of the East was beginning and the “Turkic trance” in the history of Europe was being destroyed. The Western Church became the master of life; it did not need any rivals.

            And declaring the inquisition it started the campaign against Monotheism.

            Modern history was being written by them – by the winners; in their lips ancient words were obtaining new sense. And the world was turning upside down. The Turki did not find the place for the Turki in those writings; brothers did not see each other. In the religious frenzy of Europe people were distinguished not according to relations but according to religions. That was akin to an epidemic. At that time appeared “nomads”, “pagan Tatars” behind whom, according to the Catholics, there was nothing but savagery and debauch.

            What religion is in question here? What beneficence? What Monotheism? Blood brothers became enemies just because they were looking at the world differently…

            However, angels in the sky were recording what was being done by small men in robes. They will not avoid the justice of Heaven – they, the winners who knew that Arianism was not heresy, not paganism but the “white belief” of Altai to which picture were added certain features of the ceremony which had existed with the northern Europeans (Celts) before the coming of the Turki. It was a religion to the same extent as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Manichaeism.

            The boundary between the Arian and Christian Europe was certainly felt; it divided the continent into two different worlds: one of them was living and natural and the other – invented and ceremonious. Black and white. If one looked from the north, the south seemed dark, and if one looked from the south, the north was obscure. The Arians accused the Christians of worshipping three gods and aberration from Monotheism; the latter defended themselves as they could; in defending themselves they turned to theological abstractedness which were being composed by diligent “warriors of Christ”.

            Belief and its purity was the distinguishing feature of the North Europe as compared with South Europe.

            These spiritual contradictions resulted in everlasting fight, that deadly enmity of the “Germans” and their neighbors which was not interrupted in the Middle Ages and later. That is the history of the king Chlodwig and the family of Merovingis; that is the history of the Principality of Geneva; these are dozens of other histories with which medieval Europe is sodden like with blood: by force or by cunning the Turki imposed their belief and their truth to other Turki. And that is perhaps the most striking thing in their secret history.

            In that contradiction the position of the Arians was more honest. They were not physically destroying the Catholics; on the contrary, in all their towns and countries they let them confess Christianity without restraint. The Catholics were acting in a different way; conscience of their supremacy which, it is possible, had its roots in their Roman imperial past, weighed upon them, and they did not trouble themselves disputing inevitable in a religious war.

            They forced their way counting on arms, not on words.

The enmity reached its climax under Carl the Great who was aggravated because of independence of the Arians: by the Pope's will he started that legendary campaign against the citadel of Arianism in the North Europe and gave Arianism if not the deathly than a baneful wound.

            People in robes that are correcting history are aware that since 336 Arianism as a religion was dominating on the continent. The Emperor Constantine, the founder of the Christian Church, repented his errors and granted all the rights not to Christianity but to Arianism which was a belief distant from politics. Constantine's children gave Arianism the dominating position in the teaching of the Church that was being formed then. These facts are set forth in the Christian encyclopedia. Mentioning them we do not open something new. We only repeat what we know.

            If it had not been for Theodosius I, a great politician – for the sake of the Catholic doctrine or, more precisely, in order to strengthen Turkic hordes in the West he disobeyed Constantine's decision – it is not likely that today anybody knew about Christ at all. With Christianity it could be the same as with Priscillianism.

            So many tragedies and sorrows could be avoided. However, they have not avoided them…

           

            When frictions were taking place in Christianity, certain Latin Turki, putting on a belt of happiness and not willing to confront with the clergy, were changing favorable South for comfortless North; they left for it with their families so as to retain freedom. There, to the northern lands, they took their knowledge and skills, for instance, to raise horses, turn up the soil, which the aborigines certainly could not do. The same as they did not know iron metallurgy, ironmongery, brick building.

            Arian Europe was rising slowly. It had no potential and the experience of power which existed in the countries of the former Roman Empire, the same as it had not similar population. Its climate was different. But nonetheless. It had natural resources which the Christians – the Byzantines and the Romans – did not have. That changed political milestones dramatically; the northern world was becoming attractive.

            Iron deposits in Norrland and the Turki being able to smelt it by the IX century were forming the political face of Scandinavia which became the leader of Arianism. 

            … When the Altaians appeared there at first, a union of the nations had been established there. They were called the Goths. And apart from that participants of that union were called Vikings, Normans (in Russia – Varangians); in the history of the world they were mentioned for the first time in 839, when the embassy of the northerners came to Constantinople. Those were not the beginners in politics; not savages covered in furs. Their reputation horrified the Greeks and simultaneously it attracted them. Of course, those were the enemies of the Catholic Rome conquering its colonies in the north of Europe one after another and the Pope was not even objecting. Alignment of forces was in favor of the northerners.

 

            ● The Prologue of “Heimskringla”, the book containing sagas of the Normans, is indicative. According to the Scandinavians, that is a sort of encyclopedia of the North Europe describing legendary times up to the last quarter of the XII century. The time of the Vikings, according to the saga, began after the ruler Freyr “was buried in a barrow in Upssala”- that was the first barrow in Scandinavia. Before that was the “century of burning” when the dead were burnt. “And after Dan the Proud, sea-king of the Dane, ordered to raise a barrow and bury himself in it in battle armor together with his horse and the whole harness and other goods, a lot of his descendants started to do the same, and the century of barrows began in Denmark while the Swedes and the Norwegians still had the century of burning”.

            Let us add something to what was said: the burial ceremony is perhaps the most conservative one; it is changed only after coming of a new spiritual culture. From the time when barrows appeared, “presence” of Altai in Scandinavia became clear. Barrows, horses, stone stelaes and other signs of Altai could not appear there by themselves.

            Another thing is also indicative; it is clear from “The Song of Nibelungs” – appearance of the title “chagan” is in question. Chagan, chegni… This title, as far as we know, was borne only by Turkic rulers. It could not appear in Scandinavia by accident either. Haakon became a proper name.

 

            The Greeks, trying to be closer to the Romans, offered advantageous economic projects to them, namely trading for which they organized “the route from the Varangians to the Greeks”… New political union was being planned; it was revealed not all at once. In Scandinavian sagas, in these unique poetic chronicles, much was said about the Normans and their life at that time: the “kings” of northern seas, discoverers of lands. A courageous nation. Rulers used to ride horses there; they had different clothes compared with the masses – high hats bordered with fox-fur, boots making their owner look eminent. Trousers. Short caftan… But this is the national clothes of the Turki; they were the only ones who used to wear it! 

            Indeed, other members of Norman society had different clothes and walked on their feet; they were afraid of horses. They were prohibited to ride, which is witnessed by a saga about the knight Orvar-Odd; he was the first Scandinavian who took horse late in the V century. And that was not a success. And Norman rulers, on the contrary, setting sail, took horses on board; they were not able to make a step without them… In sagas a great many interesting details emerge; unfortunately ethnographers have not mentioned them yet.

            Astonishing details… Indeed, how did steppe animals – horses – appear in woody Scandinavia in the V century? And the rulers – khans?

            It is clear that the history of Persia, Caucasus and other regions where Turkic tsarist families were invited to reign repeated here. It is possible that the same happened there – in the North. Unfortunately, certain details are not clear; much has not been read. Some facts confirm this hypothesis; their number is great. The sagas open the past only to attentive people; one should just be able to read them – to read them according to Altaic rules. Otherwise one would never understand that the word “saga” is Turkic; it is a very ancient word – “savga” (tell the story, narrate).

            For instance, the saga about Wieland describes the life of a skilful blacksmith – the Turkic way of life. A great deal of ethnographic details and trifles emerge and it was impossible to invent them – even the “connection” of Wieland with Genghis Khan: both of them made a bowl for wine of their enemies' skulls. An ancient Altaic custom of which only the chosen were aware.

            And in the saga about Siegur (Siegfried) there are signs of Turkic symbolics; details concerning the heroes – “Nibelungs” are especially interesting… Page after page of the saga describe the way of life in which the Turki were dominating. Wise Altaians used to say in such cases: “an attentive person hears from afar”. And they were absolutely right.

            A great many Kipchacks settled in Norrland. Otherwise how could stone stelaes, the same as in Altai, appear there? Archeologists determined: stones or, more precisely, drawings and ornaments on them are identical on the banks of the Abakan river and in Scandinavia. They are the messages, parting words to a stranger. If you go to the left – you will meet this or that, if you go to the right – you will meet this or that. Left – right – milestones: north – south.   

            Altaic patterns (periapts) and dragons decorated the ships of the Normans. Signs of their new culture are well recognizable in the European North. For example, the Altaians, ancient Germans and Scandinavians had absolutely the same written language. They understood each other without a translator. Why? Later their language was called ancient Danish, which means nothing. Researchers recognize that at that time “differences between the languages of Scandinavian nations were not comprehended”.

            This recognition is worth much.

            It makes one want to ask: why are there so many “Eastern” dragons on the jewelry of the Northerners?... There silent Altaic symbols are everywhere; nobody understands their language. But they exist! They have not been invented.

            If one remembers that the Normans professed Monotheism, the same as Altaians, dragons and other ancient symbols recede into the background. Scandinavians called their highest God Donar, Dangyr, Tor. And these are the ways the Turki addressed to Tengri; they have not been forgotten yet, for instance, by the Chuvash, Khakasses and other nations – keepers of Altaic antiquities. That is how they pronounce the name of the Most High.

            Monotheism in ancient Scandinavia is a historical reality; it appeared on a sudden together with coming rulers. That is an undisputable fact!

            And it is indicative that the northern religion was “evolving” according to the same pattern as everywhere from Altai to Atlantic: the Turkic base to which certain peculiarities of local beliefs were added. The sagas show how themes from local legends were interlaced into the “biography” of religion. There existed an entire “program”; its result is evident – it caused the disputes in the scientific area. How did Monotheism appear in the outskirts of Europe? How could a religious teaching evolve there – far from civilized Rome and Constantinople?

            A puzzle? Far from that. Serious scientists have always agreed on one thing: Scandinavian sagas reflect real historical events… It is a different matter how they should be interpreted.

            For instance, a Danish historian A. Malle connected the appearance of the Normans and their religion with the Roman Empire; according to him, from there after victorious wars of Pompeius a tribe of the Goths left the banks of the Maeotis lake (Sea of Azov) for Scandinavia intending to create “in that refuge of freedom a religion and nation which was to become the weapon of its immortal yearning for avenge sometime”.

            This is of course an interesting thought. But it is absolutely groundless. It was easily confuted by E. Gibbon who fairly doubted that any tribe could have been the “abode of Gods”. It happens only in myths. Nevertheless Malle's viewpoint gained acceptance. However, if one complies with elementary logic, a contradiction is evident: a religion could be preached by a person being familiar with that religion; and in that case it was all about Monotheism of which people were unaware in the Roman Empire in the times of Pompeius.

            The sagas open one page of the past after another showing that even the consonance of the name of Tengri in Altai and Donar of ancient Germans was not accidental. And not because Turkic nations pronounce Tengri's name in their own way – Tengeri, Tegri, Ter, Tura, Deer, Tigir. The European Turki also could pronounce this name as they wished. Such conclusion is possible but it does not give much.

            Another thing is more important here – not the words consonance but the image of Tengri and Donar. It was the same for Altaians and Germans. The image! And the worship ceremony. And that is not a coincidence. That is the unity of culture based on Monotheism. Even if everything else is discarded (horses, iron, clothes, customs, written language), the unity is evident… It is possible to debate about rulers, their clothes, and even about the written language, but any dispute is empty: the aborigines of the European North during the Great Nations Migration deviated from paganism. They cognized Heavenly God. This is the fact that simply should be accepted.  

            Later the name Donar-Tor was replaced by Odin (Woden, Wotan) who was also called “North Mohammed” – there was so much in common between the belief of the “Germans” and Moslems. It comes as no surprise; those were the branches of one tree: Monotheism prevailed in the East and in the North of Europe. Heavenly God reigned there.

 

            ● Of course not all the Scandinavians accepted the belief in Heavenly God; some of them showed praiseworthy conservatism, which is well seen in the sagas of “Heimskringla”. In the legend about Leib Ericsson who in the X century set sail to the west on a ship called “Big Dragon”, it is said that he brought the first priest to Greenland… Not everybody treated his deed the same.

            It is indicative that in the north of Europe the institute of priesthood like Roman papacy has never existed. Belief expanded spontaneously. And that was the weakness of Arianism and, if one takes a closer look, also of the “white belief” of Altai and Islam. In religion organization they have been always loosing to the Catholics who created an excellent institute of power which was strong, aggressive and tenacious. As a matter of fact it was the decisive factor of the victories of medieval West over its ideological rivals.

 

            The Scandinavian religion is a phenomenon of culture and time which has been undeservingly forgotten in Europe; it was also a unity of two spiritual traditions of East and West. Thus, in consent, an alternative to Christianity (both Greek and Catholic) was being granted the right to life which northern nations had not had before… That is an absolutely incognizeable process – the birth of a new culture. Everything seems to be clear in it while it is not so.

            Perhaps one thing is indisputable – apart from the “Greek belief” in the West there was another counterbalance to Catholicism which had not been thoroughly investigated. Papal censorship was an obstacle!

 

            ● Censorship, indeed. Because “The Saga of Englings” says from where Odin came – from Asia, from the country lying east of Don (Tanais). He was not god; he was the messenger of Heavenly God. i.e. a prophet teaching the northerners the skills “they have known since then”. Odin, like a naga in India, had the ability of reincarnation: “… his body was lying as though he was asleep or he was dead while at that time he was a bird or an animal, a fish or a snake and in a flash he reached faraway countries where he had something to do”… As we know, Altaic kamas were the only ones who had these higher skills, which is witnessed by folk epos.

            In the North Odin introduced the laws that the Turki had. Because he came from the country which “lay south from the Great Sweden”, it was called the “Land of the Turki” as it is written in the saga… And from that line, by the way, the history of Russia begins. 

 

            The enmity between the North and the South had its reasons. The Germans' antagonism against the Catholics was reasonable; they had a different worldview and wanted to lead a different life. Everyone saw its sun in the sky… There are many facts confirming that; late in the XX century those facts called for a famous traveler, Thor Heyerdahl from Norway, to search for the motherland of the ancestors of Scandinavians. His expeditions to Azerbaijan and to Don were just a part of his way to cultural treasures of Altai. Not knowing much about the Great Nations Migration, he adjusted the routes of expeditions by intuition, not basing on his knowledge; that is why he failed to reach his desired goal – his native Altaic hearth. But the direction chosen by him was correct – the Turkic world.

            Heyerdahl declared: Scandinavia has “foreign roots”. But he failed to prove that; he just did not have enough time.           

            Its “foreignness” is primarily witnessed by Iggdrasil, the symbol without which it is impossible to understand the culture of northerners. That is a gigantic ash tree being the frame of the universe. The tree of life. In the consciousness of the Arians Iggdrasil determined the vertical projection of existence; different worlds came together in it (the earth, the sky, the underground world) giving an indication of not only the entirety, but also of the extent of the beauty. The standard of existence.   

            Nine different worlds were united in the Scandinavian Iggdrasil: by its roots was lying the dragon Nidhegg and the snakes, middle leaves were being nibbled by the deer headed by Eikturmir and on top of the tree there was a wise vulture with a molted hawk Vedrfelnir. The roots of the tree of life were nourished by liquid from Mimir source from which the destiny of every human being begins.

            The evergreen tree emitted sacred honey, as though it was amber pitch; gifts and skills were hidden in its grains (hence is “honey of poetry”!).

            Pages of sagas are dedicated to the vivifying tree which, apart from everything else, gave the Northern Europe Odin – Heavenly God: the sagas of “Elder Edda” and “Younger Edda” are convincing and categorical. Through the cognition of the tree of life one can understand how the Most High entered the world of the North… In the tree of life the Scandinavians saw the image of an equilateral cross; it was the sign of pre-Christian culture, which is witnessed by state flags. And artistic ornaments, of course.

            However, the same is witnessed by drawings on the famous runic stone of the Men Island (England). There, on a former Norman colony, - in written form – in runes! – thoughts about the tree of life were imprinted… It is striking – it was the same as in Altai. Even in details. Only its heroes were called in their own different way by Altaians.

            Some time ago the culture of the East was incogitable without the tree of life. And it was the same in the West.

            This is perhaps the brightest and the most distinctive detail (after belief, of course); it allows speaking about the unity of humankind culture and its indivisibility into East and West. Since nobody can tell or show where the former ends and the latter begins. After the Great Nations Migration the world changed – it became entire: it accepted Tengri's religion, i.e. Monotheism. And painted it in its colors – tinctures of belief are inimitable in every region. The same as nations there.

            Arianism may be little-known in Europe today. But it existed… And what if that religion has not perished? What if the traditions of Arians were continued by the Protestants? Their descendants? That is right to some extent. Protestantism is a spiritual world which went into the shade of Christianity. Strict and entire, with its past and future. Those are not “dissented” Catholics, as they are called; they have their own significant past which the Catholics had not have.

            In the Middle Ages the North of Europe had a… slightly broad face. Pure like Altaic Sky. And although it was blackened, it has not been lost. No.

            The Arians, tangling in the thinnest nets of papal politics, became Catholics, which happened late in the Middle Ages – in different countries it happened in different ways. They were forced to deny the belief of their ancestors and recognize Christ and together with him – the power of the Pope. That is what was happening… But in the new papal family peace lasted not for long. Another culture could not simply die in cold Roman vaults; it was to express itself. And it expressed. And for that reason it remained.

            The Northern Catholics found strength and performed the Reformation of the Western Church shaking it down to rock bottom.

 

            ● The “heresy” of the Bogomils, Cathars, Albigenses was continued in the north, in England; there it attained success perhaps for the first time. And that was due to William Ockham (1285 – 1349) and John Wycliffe (1320 – 1384), great theologians, philosophers and humanists of the Middle Ages. They were among the first Christians who managed, in terms of science, to express what was secretly born in souls of generations of the European Turki – the trueness of the “white belief”. Their thoughts were notable for ultimate clarity and attractiveness.

            “Temporal affairs of each and every human being”, including the monarch and the Pope, should be the means of service of God according to the spirit and the letter of the Holy Scripture. They suggested this thought, which made the Rome go berserk. Their “creativity” was more than “rural dreams” of the ancestors with whom it was unnecessary to struggle; it had an impact on Jan Hus, Luther and other adherents of the spiritual purity in the West.

            Apart from the fires of the Inquisition the Church failed to propose anything in return; and the fires meant nothing and could not change a single thing… The reformation became inevitable because of “heretics”.

 

            In a word, they attained recognition of views of their pastors. Their own, not papal ones! That was a successful step to the freedom of belief. But the way was over only by the XVI century.

            No doubt, a protest would have sooner or later united the northern Turki who at that time remembered the roots of the former culture, which has not happened. The Roman clergy turned out to be stronger and more elusive. So the “Protestants” did not express their ethnic relation and became a branch of Catholicism, although that is not exactly as it is. The project was born not in the depths of the Western Church, as western theologians assert; it was the protest of the people. The reformation revealed it; it made the secret out. But for a little while.

           

            ● The reformation opened the circuit of authorities which impeded a hypocrite to think in his own way and a slave – to say what he thinks. “From this minute the Popes, Church fathers and councils stopped playing a part of supreme and infallible judges of the whole world and every Christian learnt not to recognize any other law except for the Holy Scripture and no other interpreters of the Holy Scripture except for their own conscience”, - wrote E. Gibbon.

            The reformation was a breakthrough to a new cultural niche… Or the return to the old one? With the Protestants spiritual traditions of Altai returned to the north of Europe.

 

            When all the i's in the Reformation were dotted everything was suitable for everyone. The Pope got political power in the West and the Protestants obtained their “white belief” which, to tell the truth, was slightly changed. What was that? A bargain? Slyness? That is possible. But they brought peace and harmony to the West.

            The Calvinists and the Lutherans – the core of the Protestants – retained Christ in their divine pantheon, but they were allowed to restore ceremonies and communities which had existed before Christianity was accepted. They remained Christians having actually become Arians again. Or, more precisely, almost Arians. The Protestants deny mediators between God and men, i.e. the Papal Church and its clergy. Like the ancient Turki, actions are made the corner-stone of the believers' conduct. They abolished worship of sacred relics regarding it as paganism. They denied monkhood which is incompatible with the Church according to Altaic rules… In a word, they continued the traditions of Arianism not flaunting them…

            Is it not a mutually beneficial bargain?

            Becoming the Catholics they did not accept the Latin alphabet, as the Catholics were to do, but stubbornly kept on making a stand for Gothic writing which the Patriarch Wulfila left them. That script became the “national” script; experienced people found the unique image of German runes in it. And, in secrecy, they were proud of their unexpected discovery. The Pope with his omnipresent monks was powerless here: he could do everything, even lull peoples memory, but he could not deprive them of their ancestors, which means he could not inculcate his understanding of rectitude and the beauty in them. 

            Some time ago Arianism gathered part of the Germans into a nation (Normans) but later it divided them. “The Germans” have been different since then. The Swedes, Norwegians, Finns are the nations of one ethnic group; in the XI century they accepted Catholicism, in the XVI century they accepted Protestantism and split into small communities.

            Protestantism did not remind them of Odin and the tree of life. About the spirit of their ancestor, finally. The sagas were living by themselves and the people were living separately… The disruption of cultures had an echo in “The Saga about Olav, Triuggvi's Son”. There is an episode there when Odin, having become a one-eyed old man, offered the hero to eat a piece of horse beef and thus remember the past. Catholics, as we know, prohibited the parishioners to eat horse beef and drink koumiss calling this food “the essence of paganism”… Recollections of the past were disadvantageous for the Pope who used to divide and rule. The Protestant clergy had similar views.

            The cult of a horse peculiar to the Germans has gone for good together with Arianism. Although “The Saga of Kind Hakon” described joyful feasts for which “they slaughtered cattle, even horses”. Those were glorious days, the saga says.

            People certainly still feel the former “ancestral” unity and fail to explain it although the reasons are evident – they are in the forgotten past of which the whole Scandinavian art reminds; it keeps the spirit of that time. For instance, so-called skaldic verses are significant; they are almost sacred, they are close to the poetry of troubadours – that is the same style! The same mystery! The verses are simply to be read in order to remember the past.

            But how is that to be done? Nobody can translate into modern language and understand that ancient lines from that lost Time…

            Who knows, maybe the name of a Finnish town Turku which was previously called Abo (Abai) conceals the key to the mysteries of Christianity? Toponymy is a capacious science; several historical discoveries started from it. This name seems to be too strange for the North… But, the same as skaldic verses, it has a deep double and hidden sense.

            “Genetic” misunderstanding is peculiar to Belgium and the Belgians, who are also Arians conquered by the Catholics in the past. There are two nations in this country – the Flemish and the Walloons; neither time nor Catholicism made them relatives. The ancestors of the Flemish – the Turki, Attila's warriors, came from Altai in the IV – V centuries; their national clothes, customs, feasts, crafts and implements, decorations with sheared fox-fur, cookery in which garlic plays an important part, baths… everything is “Altaic”. Especially patterns and ornaments still noticeable in Flemish villages – on roots of houses an apex is obligatory.

            The Church made the Flemish forget their native language by about the XV century. Now they do not speak the Turkic language but they remember separate words and phrases; they remember they once had a native language. And that “Flemish” language could lead to a revolution in Turcology while it is now an abeyant relic to which they inoculate foreign roots.

            And it turns out that the Arian history of Denmark and Holland was also written in Turkic runes – on the stones, according to Altaic rules. Catholicism became established there late in the Middle Ages. The great inquisitor Dominic in the XIII century was astonished by “similarity of faraway Denmark with pagan Cumans”, i.e. with the Turki of Desht-I-Kipchak and demanded to baptize one more time that “dreadful country” that had denied Catholicism… But the Sun will return to the Danish Sky one day. What wonder when the sagas tell that that nation came from Don and was called the Dans. 

 

            ● One should pay attention to the fact that by the XIV century runes in Europe were fully replaced by Latin graphics and became the lot of European provinces. They were being in use in agricultural regions for a long time. In the XVI century runes were turned into the subject of interest of intellectuals of Scandinavia and later – Germany who remembered after the Reformation about their Gothic Bible written with runes. By the second half of the XIX century “ancient German” runes obtained “nationality”; the scientists were discussing, for example, ancient English, Sekel and other written sign systems which were allegedly peculiar to those countries early in the Middle Ages.

            Here the book “Runic Arts” by E. Weber is rather indicative; in it even Altaic runes (Orkhon – Yenisei) were mentioned – they are elder than any other European monument. The author did not see the history of runes farther from Europe and did not try to see it… Unfortunately, the “German conception”, the same as any other national conception, became determinant in studying runes in the West. Using this uncomplicated method politicians deepened the history of their countries and gave it national singularity. And… they entrenched upon the Truth.

            For them, for the politicians, the epitaph on a burial place (Sparlosa-stepen) of the IX century was written: “The one who spoils these signs will be a castaway weltered in vice known to everyone”. Some time ago the Scandinavians knew that “spoiling the runes” makes harm to the departed, but later they forgot it. The same as they forgot other Altaic rules. They turned the glory of their ancestors into their own dishonor.

 

            The Dutch and the Flemish remember their relation and certain things from the past, but they cannot explain its roots. They have forgotten about Attila, about Arianism and about themselves. They do not eat horse beef and drink koumiss there. They regard the barrows as “barbaric” wildness… But they still have much in common with what their ancestors had; for instance, famous kermises for which guests from all over the neighborhood gather together. What is that? In the Flemish language it means “fair”. Bur the fair which essence is expressed by the Turkic word “kerme” – a fair with bazaar, wrestlers and poets competitions, jugglers and jesters, horse races and masquerades. The fair where trade is not the main thing… In a word, a folk feast.

            The Flemish had another feast, the most important one during a year; it fell within the middle of winter and was called Yol. The day when the darkness started to diminish… after Christianization it was called Christmas and the etymology of the word “yol” which remained in Germanic languages was proclaimed unknown. Forgotten! But that is not right. The exact name of the feast is “Yol Tengri”, which in Turkic means “God of Destiny”. The feast of a fir tree; they decorated it, reeled around it and gave presents to each other… The fir tree shows the road to the Sky; this tree is still esteemed in Altai. 

            Also in full view of everybody there is the emblem of Holland – a tulip. And not many people know that it is a steppe flower which is the first to effloresce there. How did it appear in the European North? Maybe a tulip (Turkic “khan's flower”) reminds the Dutch of something remote? A nation is an orphan without the past. The symbol, the same as motherland, is not invented or chosen; people are born with it – it is the divine chime which only native congeners hear. All the rest is empty before it…

            People, forgetting of their ancestors, sometimes start unnecessary disputes, for instance, about Ruses and other alleged nations. Ignorance takes too far away. But should the disputes be started not considering what was deemed to be “Rus” in Scandinavia? And Rus was the name of the coast near Stockholm.

            The Normans also used this word to call their colonies opposite the Baltic; they did so by force of an old Turkic habit of giving old names to new acquisitions. In Desht-I-Kipchak that was taking place everywhere – geographical names were repeated rather often since they were a cliché to characterize this or that region. White Rus, Kievan Rus and other “Ruses” became the citadels of Arianism in the north-east of Europe, vassals of the Normans that were establishing a new European culture competing with Christianity, which it is customary to discuss now.

 

            ● V.N. Tatischev was the first and, it seems, the last one who said that. His “Gordoriki” and “Khuni” are “the land between the Lake Ladoga and Peipus, or Chudskoe Lake, where the main town was Aldenburg” (Altynbur?). The first Russian history did not conceal those toponyms; they were being discussed the same as peculiarities of the culture being their background. However later historiographers were freer in their undertakings… Toponyms, these important details of the past, turned out to be ignored.

           

            And it turns out the Russians had been living… in Altai before the Turki came to Europe, which is written in the book “Collection of Turkic Dialects” by a medieval scientist Mahmud Kasgar, the recognized expert of the Turkic world. “Ruses” were called the oarsmen, i.e. those “living with an oar” – people engaged in this hard trading. At that this word is “ethnic”, emphasized Mahmud Kasgar.   

            In this word or, more precisely, in the phenomenon being its background, there is an interesting correlation: in the eyes of the rest of the Turki the Normans turned into the “Ruses” since they were living with an oar and thus differed from their tribesmen. Yes, they took horses on board and rode them overland. So what?.. In a barrow the departed were put not with a horse but with a boat called “the horse of water”! This can be read in “The Saga of Englings” where barrows of Tun, Gokstad and the most famous one – in Oseberg – are mentioned. Those barrows of the IX century witness a lot…   

            Later the word “Rus” was given a different sense, distanced from Scandinavia and connected with a certain nation. However, the toponym “Gardariki”, or “Gardy” met in sagas of the X – XI centuries relates to Black Rus, to its capital Kholmgrad which was later called Novgorod. Those that are called the Swedes today were called the Russians at that time and dominated there. Take “The Saga about Olav, Triuggvi's Son” – it has the answers to all the questions concerning the early history of Russia.

            Olav calls himself Ali; he was a descendant of Norwegian sea-kings brought up by Valdamar in Gardariki – that very Valdamar known in Russia as the Grand Duke Vladimir “Red Sun”, the baptizer of Russia. “The Saga about Olav…” is full of details of the Turkic way of life which have been ascribed to the Slavs, it mentions “kanly” (blood feud) and contains other adats. There, in sagas, it is said even about how and to whom the throne was reposed, how the genealogy of the rulers was formed, how they were sacrificed in order to guarantee prosperity of the people… These are all true Altaic traditions. In Altai king was the bearer of the sacred origin.

            In the autumn of 865 “English Russia” was born; Arianism and Catholicism also collided in it. And again they did not become relative.

            The campaign of the Normans in England was a challenge to Rome. Since according to the rule established in the Empire, the lands westward of Rhine were deemed to belong to Rome; the Pope's power was recognized there all at once – the Catholics had been reigning supreme there from the times of Brunhilde. The Scandinavians started a war by their impudent invasion; it was important for them to prove their presence on the continent, which meant in geopolitics.

            Their army quietly landed on hazy islands; it was headed by two brothers, two sons of glorious Ragnar known as “Leather Trousers”. And the first thing the brothers did in England was getting horses. Icelandic “Saga about Ragnar “Leather Trousers”, an unedited chronicle, is about them… Of course a religious war began. Not land was to be divided then. 

            It is even possible that the Englishmen invited the Normans; this assumption is not occasional. A series of events allow asserting so.

            In England where aristocracy accepted Catholicism in 597 existed an interest to Arianism; the Normans felt it delicately. The former religion of the Englishmen can be described by chapels that stand there now. The ceremony in them is different from that of the Churches, i.e. the Catholic Church; it is similar with what Norman Arians had. And the Turki of Altai. For centuries people in England have been going to Churches and Chapels. To the former in the morning and to the latter in the Evening.

            There are two altars there; people worship them – this is the peculiarity of reticent Englishmen.

            Adhesion to the traditions retained the belief of their ancestors for the Englishmen (the Scots and the Welsh have nothing to do with it). The Anglican Church appeared when the Reformation began; that institute united to origins – Catholic and Arian… That is the essence of the Anglican Church. The Arians gave way to the Catholics there and retreated into their shadow. Since they did not have church organization – papacy; they were not adjusting their politics, their communities were living by themselves and acting as they wished. And they were always loosing… That is what Monotheism is. One community was to have one “professional” priest. And that was all. A pastor watching adherence to the ceremonies and parishioners morals.

            There were many differences between Catholic North and South. The clergy there was unaware of dazzling splendor which was almost obligatory for papal abodes; modesty and tranquil life of Altai took place there. The Protestants of England retained them. Rich Catholic cathedrals near low-key temples… On the Isles “everyone reads his own Bible” in his own way – that is the rule of the Anglican Church. Not everybody recognize there the mediator between themselves and Heavenly God not trusting the seal of confession and absolution to men of mould.

            Is this not classical conservatism?!

            Insular life could not have failed to affect the conduct of the Englishmen; for a long while the country was living in space of two worlds – Catholic and Arian – feeling pressure of the former or of the latter. The family trees of first kings confirm that; they were the relatives of Scandinavian rulers. And they were also sacrificed in case of misfortune… Everything was like in Altai, which is described in “The Saga of Englings”.

            For instance, in 1066 after the Norman invasion the Pope made the English aristocracy speak the Frankish language which remained the official state language for almost three hundred years. And the masses, regardless of the Pope's will, spoke their former language. This might be when the hatred of the Englishmen to the French began. And it becomes clear why the English Crown was among the first in Europe to altercate with papacy. Henry I and Henry II were not against religion but against the Pope whom they paid impost. On a sudden the Englishmen were displeased with the foreigners sent by the Pope; they owned the farms of the country and their income was higher than that of the English Crown.

            This circumstance is very important for an historian. The coming of the Normans to England made the Turki there stronger: the Anglo-Saxons were joined by a horde from Scandinavia. The Turki had temporal power and they started to protest against the Pope's colonization of the islands.

            England still keeps the spirit of that past. Take, for instance, the barrows found in Sutton Hoo, Suffolk – Altaic traces are in every item there. However it is not customary to compare the findings with Altaic items in England. Although the famous “animal style” was peculiar to Altaic culture which was traveling all over the world together with the Great Nations Migration and the Turki. Its trace can be seen even in the medieval English Parliament.

            Aristocrats were sitting on bags with fleece. Those were not just bags with fleece but attributes of power in the old England. It should not seem offensive, but the aristocratic title “baron” came from the Turkic “baran” (transliteration of the Russian word meaning “sheep”) – that humble animal was the measure of wealth. If one had more than lots of sheep (ten thousand) he was called “bay” or “baryn” (one who owns everything); he belonged to the nobility and was allowed to sit close to the khan on a bag with fleece.

            They – the barons with bags of fleece – were the first vassals of the king, his subjects. It is indicative that they used to sit not in a row but in a circle during the sessions of Parliament. The same as in Altai. “Baron” also means “master” in Turkic.

            And “intricate” English money is also the trace of that forgotten past. Nothing has disappeared. Their shilling is derived from “sheleg” (“not current coin” in Turkic); it consists of the same twelve small or current coins. Pence is from “peneg” – the monetary unit which the Turki called “sytyr” or “sytyrlig” and equaled twenty shelegs. Conservative Englishmen retained everything; they are proud of their ancient traditions. Thank goodness!

            The similarity of the Turkic “manat” and English “money” is another important detail; both these words mean “money”. This is a subject for an endless discussion… When did the first money appear? Where? Why did they mint the image of the king – the Lord's Anointed – on one side of the coins and an equilateral cross on the other? Or another symbol of the sky?

            Maybe the shape of the silver penny of Offa should remove all doubts? On the coin – the most ancient in England! – there are Turkic runes. That is what, it turns out, the written language of the Englishmen was in the VIII century; those were their coins. Ancient money – the exhibits of the British Museum in London – is present in historical reference books and albums but for some reason they have always been considered in a wrong way…

            And the golden coin weighting 72 grains of barley was called “mark” and cost 9 shelegs (sheliags)… That is a known fact too.

            There are traces of Arianism in Iceland, Greenland; they were diligently “missed” by science. Runic monuments have not been adequately investigated while they are the proofs of the boundaries of the Great Nations Migration. The boundaries of the Turkic world. However there are other sources of information confirming the geography of medieval Europe. For example, the ethnic history of Iceland is known from the Landnamabok. That is the saga about how in the IX century 400 settlers were forming first hamlets (pronounced as “hutor” in Russian, the word is derived from the Turkic otar!) on the banks of nonfreezing north rivers; the names of those hamlets remained. 

            The core of the settlers was formed by Norman rulers and slaves – the Celts and Britons. It is likely that the name “Iceland” was invented by somebody from among the rulers.

            Such conclusion can be made because of “ice-” – in Turkic it means “get warmer” – in other words “Warm Land”. Why not? The version of “Ice Land” is not convincing for Iceland: there are many ice lands in the Arctic Ocean and only one warm. There, near the town of Akureyri, green grass and flowers grow the year round. The island was found in the IX century by the Normans; it stroke them because of its warm climate – everlasting summer near the Polar Circle. This is strange, is it not? Hence is its “warm” name.

            The name of the Icelanders is pronounced as “Icelandigar”. Tengri's - Dangyr's – presence is seen with the naked eye. People of Altaic belief!

            And the state flag of Iceland. Is it not a marvel? The flag on which there is a heavenly cross and two stripes. Here is the flag – “tug” – under which Attila used to wage a war, under which the Normans headed by Turkic commanders used to fight, the same as ancient Altaians and troops of Genghis Khan… This is fantastic and everyone can see it. Everything is so near… Which other words are necessary in order to recognize reality as reality?

            Maybe the fact that on the national emblem of Iceland there is a dragon (lung), eagle (kushan) and bull (oguz) – the symbols of the reigning dynasty of the Turki?

            Or maybe the fact that the honorary dish for noble guests of north Icelanders is a sheep's head? Or that they, not dreading the prohibition of the Church, used to drink and still drink koumiss and ayran, used to eat and still eat kyzy, used to tend and still tend sheep, used to full and still full felt, used to breed and still breed horses, used to enjoy and still enjoy horse beef? And maybe it should be added that in the Icelandic language there are sonorous Turkic expressions – “Akkur-eiri”, for instance? Or that family trees there are similar to those of Altai – with the division into tukhums and adding fathers' names to sons' names instead of a surname? For example, Ericsson; “son” ending here means “posterity” in the ancient Turkic language… No, any example fades away in the light of a “tug”.           

            Tug is the place where Turkic spirit lives; it has been lost everywhere except for Iceland… And it also remained in Denmark!

            Even in America (Minnesota) medical Icelandic monuments were found. To tell the truth, they were declared a forgery more than once; those findings were too unexpected. But sooner or later the facts are to be analyzed in order to learn about the country called Winland discovered by Leif Eiriksson in 1000. That is what the aforementioned saga asserts.

            Leif was the son of Eirikr Raudi, the famous Norman. Together with him to the west sailed a man named Turok, not very god-looking person with a freckled face, round forehead and short legs. He perfectly knew the language of the “Germans” (in other words, he spoke fluent Turkic), was fond of handicraft and well-grounded in sciences. In America that Turok found wild vine (the Normans had never heard of it) and called the new country Winland.

 

            ● It is clear that more attentive and, which is important, quiet study of Scandinavian names is necessary. Many Turkic names are read in them. Or combinations of names and words which were possibly nicknames. The name Eric relates to them; in the ancient Turkic language it means “power”. The name (its versions) was widespread among the “Germans”; later Catholics equaled its meaning to the word “king” (rik, riga). Although it is directly connected with another ancient Turkic word – “aryg” – from which “noble Arians” are derived.

            It is not improbable that Eric is the European sounding of the word “Arian”. It was deliberately distorted the same as, for instance, the name Arnaut which was turned into Arnold. Or Ali into Olav. Or Balamir into Vladimir… That is the method of “historical reconstruction” common for the Catholics.

 

            Winland lay south-west from Greenland; it is marked on an ancient map where the Atlantic Ocean is called “Tengyr”. On the margin of that map there is the text about the stages of the travel written in runes. For a long time the map was being kept in Hungary; it is unique since it was made on paper the composition of which was known only in the Central Asia (in Samarkand). After that the map was taken to Vatican but in Hungary there is its copy.

 

            … Destiny was throwing the Turki willing to escape from tenacious paws of the Christian Church and retain Monotheism all over the world. The even discovered America long before Columbus – the only thing they needed was not to know the Pope. Freedom of spirit was more than life them… Leaving for the world of Arianism they were followed by the monks which were their shadow and at the same time – ears and eyes of the Pope. They expanded geography of the Christian empire taking it beyond the boundaries of Byzantium and Rome; because of them the interest area of the Church was growing – it was invading new lands and enslaving new nations. The Pope was getting information from everywhere; this information was analyzed and used in adjustment of politics.

            Thus a new distinctive shape of the West – colonialism – was being formed.

            Late in the Middle Ages the Pope was conducting the policy not of ideological expansion. More than that. The Church was becoming the first international institute of power. Not religion. It obtained a new feature which was unnatural for it – control over society. Economics, politics, courts – everything was controlled by it. The stages of that historical phenomenon were for the first time set forth in the work called “Church History of the Angels” by a monk from the monastery Yarou; his chronology starts from the VIII century. At that time monasteries of England and other countries of the north became the bulwark of Catholicism; from there they delivered poison for secret poisonings and daggers for an underhand blow. Lies were flowing there covering the Thames, lakes of Holland and backwaters of Denmark with ooze… The struggle with Arianism was very sophisticated.

            Monks used to murder, poison, slander. And they were serving the Church. At the same time. There was only one thing they had no time for – telling the truth; that was the condition under which religion is turned into politics.

            The early history of north countries – take, for instance, England – has not been studied yet. That is because of prohibitions of the Church that was making its own “history”. Violation of commandments did not embarrass it… “Love thy neighbor”, “thou shalt not bear false witness” – these are not only Christian testaments. The Arians also had them… That is what Rome was violating falsifying history and God's commandments.

            Due to politicians in robes good and evil were interlaced; now it is hard to distinguish them. But the history of England is a special case; here near dim fantasies of a monk there are books by Edward Gibbon, seven weighty volumes written in the XVIII century. That is a great work by a great Englishman, Jesuit historian by education and an honest Christian – Protestant by spirit. Nobody has described the Middle Ages more accurately. Describing details not peculiar to the western science, Gibbon angered the Church that wished to conceal them, for which he forfeited. “The past of Great Britain is so familiar to the most uneducated of my readers and so dark for the scientists themselves”, - acknowledged Gibbon with sadness. 

            Nothing has changed since then. In Altai people used to say in such cases: “The one with no enemies is inglorious”. The Turki have always had the enemies… The Turki themselves.

 

BULGARIAN SLAVDOM

 

Unfortunately traditions of distorting history are ancient; they started in the IV century from the fall of the Roman Empire and were demonstrated in a great many things, which was sometimes unexpected.

            The Greeks, for instance, accepting the federates, took a double eagle and a winged panther as the symbols of Byzantium but they did not become closer to the East. On the contrary, they grew to hate it even more. That is the lot of a slave who has not gained freedom but was granted it. Becoming the master and even a tyrant he hates the past in a special way and distorts it on occasions. In order to get higher… Slaves always pay with disdain for good.

            At first the Greek slander was whispering and than it started shouting. But what was it shouting about? Byzantine economics depended upon the Silk Route which lay on the lands of Desht-I-Kipchak: the riches of the East were being taken to Constantinople by the Turki. And later the Turki became dangerous enemies. In the VIII century another trade route – “from the Varangians to the Greeks” – was designed; it was also controlled by the Turki. But it also did not change the behavior of the Greeks; they were still conducting the policy of slander. They were not able to forget the impost which their great-grandfather used to pay… And maybe that was the reason of their desire to besmirch everything connected with the past?

            But those representing themselves as the masters and their history as classic and antique failed to understand that in the consciousness of slaves only slaveholders exist. Free people do not know this image. 

            In this way Byzantium was uncovering itself, its moods and character; it did not know that there were no bad nations but there were bad people… In the history of Byzantium there was perhaps only one period when its relations with the Turki were fair. It did not last for long. However, fairness is hardly in question here; that was all about politics which can never be fair.

            … The Isaurian dynasty came to the Byzantine throne on March 25^th, 717. It was exalted by the army. That was the point of no return; the Empire was hanging on a thread, the innumerable army of the Moslems was approaching the walls of the capital – the Byzantine army was not able to stand against it. There was no army, really. Something similar to a miracle was to be made in order to save Byzantium.

            That was the result of politics. Exorbitant imperial ambitions led Byzantine to a collapse; it lost the Middle East and North Africa where a new state – Caliphate – was rising. Western colonialism gave rise to Islam which became the enemy of the Greek Christianity. Adherents of Islam were successfully pressing up the Byzantines; that was the first victory of a national liberation movement in the Middle Ages.

            Millions of yesterday's slaves, calling themselves Moslems, were living under the blue flag of Islam. For them the Greek domination was over while the Byzantine policy was not.

            New Byzantine Emperor Leo III Isaurian was born in Syria, in the town called Germanicia; Turkic blood was in his veins although it was not of regal origin. That was felt in his policy: the ruler was standing on the tips of toes, doing everything on one's chinstrap and living to become famous for his deeds and feats. Not taking the crown off his head he showed the Byzantines what courage was.

            Such policy was above the Greeks' strength. But that was what the interests of the country required.

            Having just become the Emperor, Leo Isaurian took part in a raid beyond the walls of the surrounded capital. With a saber in his hands he headed the troops of avenge which filled the rival with consternation. But not that was the main thing in victory but new weapons that became history as “wildfire”. Before the astonished Moslems the Emperor set the sea on fire. And it was burning. The fire wiped out the Arab fleet standing in the bay of Constantinople ready for tomorrow assault. That was a miracle, a real miracle which saved Byzantium. The miracle brought from the Caucasus; it was made of oil from Baku… It seems not only silk was being brought to Europe on the Silk Route.

            Isaurians began with the victories. With famous victories. And they were helped by the army of Bulgarian Turki which came from the banks of Danube; that was the first meeting of the Emperor Leo with faraway tribesmen. Bulgarians killed thirty two thousand Moslems under the walls of Constantinople… They decided the fate of Byzantium and the Turki in it…

            The name of the native town of the Emperor is directly connected with the Germans; his real name – Conon – speaks for itself and the nickname of the Emperor's son only complements what was said: Isaurians were called “cavallians” and “horse amateurs”; from one generation to another they used to breed horses. For their love for riding they were called so. Fearlessness and unbridled vehemence showed that Isaurians were the Turki.

            Leo Isaurian was ably arranging the affairs of state; innovations were decided coolly and introduced with assuredness. He returned the world to the first days of his reign when he repulsed his rivals' attacks on a horse under the walls of the capita; the army became stronger and it started to act. After that they established trading; in a word the “golden time” began, as historians said. Under Leo Isaurian Byzantium breathed freely for the first time.

            Among his innovations were Law Codes in which courts and laws were being approved; that was like it had been in Desht-I-Kipchak before. “We have made earthly justice – the mediator with the sky – top of priorities; it is sharper than any sword in fight with the enemies…”. With these words the court in Byzantium started; the Turki also used these words to start their courts – from ancient times they believed in justice only of Heavenly court. State reorganization was necessary; the country wallowed in intrigues and was morally corrupted. Such reorganization is indicative due to the fact that in the Western Europe Turkic Law Codes were really successful – whole nations and principalities were living according to them.

            The Europeans, accepting the Turkic orders, comprehended new shapes of morals, ethics and conduct unknown to them – they were leaving the traditions of pagan Rome which had not disappeared in Constantinople before the new Emperor's coming. Social reorganization of Byzantium was in question; the rise of the law and court. One can safely say that Leo Isaurian was making a revolution; he expanded the horizons of the Empire so that the country could see the future. 

            The Byzantine dynasty was notable for an open interest to the Turkic world, to chaganats of Desht-I-Kipchak – Khazaria and Great Bulgaria. That was the base of its policy. The new Emperor, free from the inferiority complex, transferred the center of gravity of his diplomacy from the lost Middle East to the north-east of Europe, to the Turki, which was unexpected. Speaking fluent “Graeco-Barbarian” he succeeded in great affairs: the Byzantines were regarded as natives there; they made friends and became relatives with them. 

            A political union was being planned; none of its prospects were clear to anybody. Even to the Emperor himself.

            For the sake of such union, according to a Turkic tradition, Leo Isaurian married his son to the daughter of the Khazar chagan – her name was Chichak (Flower); after the Greek baptism she took the name Irene and became the world history with it. That was a woman with temper and delicate sense of right and wrong; her dignity was being enviously discussed in salons of the nobility. People loved and hated her; she herself gave rise to hatred.

            That was an insidious woman; with her Greek Christianity came to Desht-I-Kipchak; at first it was a stream washing the feet of the nobility. But soon there appeared rumors of acceptance of the Judaic belief by the chagan. The Turki of the Great Steppe were not famous for deep knowledge; for them the European religion was the continuation of their belief in Tengri: the words “Christian” and “Jew” were synonyms. Nevertheless everyone noticed the betrayal of belief of the chagan's daughter… And they forgave her.

            The Turkic world was leading the life of tolerance not understanding that in the hands of colonizers religion is weapons. Very powerful weapons which defeated not all at once. It slowly exhausted the soul of the nation making it powerless and dependent.

            “Rock fall in the mountains starts from the first rock”, - as the saying goes; and the rock thrown by Irene was not the first one. In the Eastern Empire from 449 there existed the Christian eparchy called Scythian; to tell the truth it had no weigh or influence – it was created by the Greeks just in case, for their settlements. So that was the case; pointers of political scales were moving: Byzantium's interest to Desht-I-Kipchak was increasing enormously. If formerly it had been of military character (the Geeks could not do without mercenaries), under Isaurians Khazaria and Great Bulgaria became trading partners for Byzantium and, more than that, their support in the struggle with the Catholics and Moslems. That was one of the key points in the relationship of two countries.  

            The change of political guiding lines in the European East and… the beginning of expansion of the Greek Church into the Turkic world was in question.

            The Byzantines were ready for any concessions wishing to implement their plans. They, the masters of Europe, could not do otherwise; in their inventory was religion, which gave them the model of conduct adjusted as far back as in the times of Constantine. Christianization allowed finding the way to Desht-I-Kipchak without a war and corrupting it from the inside… Before ending there their missionaries the Greeks included those lands into the Antiochian eparchy of the Greek Church.

            All in vain. Sermons did not interest the steppe inhabitants; the Christians kept meeting with failures over and over again.

            In the hands of the Byzantines there was a lot of money and not much immaculate wisdom; they failed to buy adherents of the “Greek belief” for words and for gold: they did not incline the Turki of Don, Itil, Caucasus to Christianity and called them “Hanifs”. Let us say again that the word meant not atheist but rather a recalcitrant who has never thought of changing his belief in his life. In a word, a “barbarian” piously believing in Heavenly God. Not an Arian, not a European – he was living according to Altaic traditions. The Eternal Blue Sky covered his world with a canopy; in that world Tengri reigned.

 

            ● There is an opinion that the consonance of the words “hanif” and “caliph” is not occasional. That is possible. At least in certain Arabic countries “caliph” meant the title of a ruler who had higher temporal and spiritual power. In the Ottoman Empire that title belonged only to clergymen (in Turkey it existed up to 1924 – the revision of Islam there). Another thing is also indicative here. The first caliphs – preachers of Islam and founders of Caliphate – were the descendants of Arshakids, which was reflected in the contradiction between the dynasties of Omeyads and Abbasids in the Arab Caliphate. That fight had its history connected with pre-Islamic Middle East; at that time the word “hanif” (i.e. monotheist) made a noise in the world.

            In caliphate under Omeyads hanifs were treated with reverence – those were the people that gave the Middle East belief in the Most High, which was marked in Koran (translation by Krachkovskiy) [3 60, 89 etc.]. However under Abbasids everything changed. In Arabic countries the word became mocking; it was turned into a nickname – something like an atheist, heretic, handicapped. That was probably connected with that internal and external fight which was beginning to tear the Islamic world apart: Manicheans and Jews secretly got there; they were the first ones who started to “reform” Islam, rewrite Koran and change its philosophy… That was an epoch of the fight. Its result is the split of Caliphate and humiliation of the hanifs. Enemies of Islam were not stopped by the fact that the Prophet also reckoned himself among the hanifs and only developed their teaching in his sermons.

            For instance in Koran issued in Kazan in the XIX century on page 47 in the note to 89^th ayat of the 3^rd sura it is written: “Hanif now means the same as Moslem”, i.e. an Islamite. That was the answer of the Turkic world to the new Arabic interpretation of the word “hanif”.

 

            It should be mentioned that Byzantine policy in the North-Eastern Europe was based on personal friendship, consent, dynastic marriages, hospitality, in a word – on humanity and not on monks and monasteries with their total espionage as it was in Rome. The Byzantine Emperor was getting information from the palaces of chagans… It is interesting, Isaurians, as a rule, used to marry “barbarian women” and the grandson of Leo III had the name Khazar.

            Leo Isaurian and his son Constantine V brought a lot of “Kipchak” into the culture of Byzantium and at the same time they themselves were devotedly fighting with the Turkic world. That was him, Leo Isaurian, who ordered to mutilate the icons with Tengri's image in reply to the reproach of their “barbarous” origin and because the Moslems had the same icons in their ceremonies. For the same “barbaric and Islamic” reason he launched a blow on the monasteries of Byzantium. And at the same time the Emperor was trying hard to take the best from Islam and the Turkic world, for which contemporaries accused him of “feeling with the Moslems” and the Turki.  

            It is possible that that was also a policy not clear to contemporaries…

            Son yielded to his father in nothing. Wishing to do away with the Greek intrigues in the capital he left not the ghost of a chance to his opponents. All he required was compliance with laws. And the rancorous Greek elite being deprived of power started to depict the Turkic Emperor as a panther born from a winged serpent and write fables about him which were getting more and more dreadful. The Emperor answered in a pure Turkic way: carried out more magnificent feasts to tease the Greeks. For evil he answered with evil.

 

            ● But were those fables really fables?.. A panther and winged serpent concealed a lot, which was known to the enlightened. It is possible in this way the enemies wanted to humiliate Isaurians emphasizing that they were “barbarians” not of regal blood? Or, on the contrary, Isaurians themselves ascribed foreign totems, i.e. family signs of Achemenids, Arshakids, Altaic rulers to themselves? These questions are too difficult to answer them now. But the pulse of the epoch is felt in their statement.

            A panther and dragon were the totems of the sea-kings of Scandinavia, consequently the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” could not have failed to appear; its creation was destined by the rise to power of the Turki in Constantinople. The union between Byzantium and Scandinavia was a matter of the nearest future.

 

            The Greeks called his reign “public beating of the men of family”; he would pardon nobody, indeed. Conspirators were blinded, their noses were cut off; at that he often did that himself. Executions and punishments he performed perhaps more often than prayers, sometimes two or three a day. Is it cruel? Of course. But was there another way to control the capital that was putrefied?.. The one that had not believe either in God or in devil long since?

            And there was another new thing peculiar for the court – debauches. Even ancient Rome did not know that abundance of pleasures of the body. Sweet sacrifices to the demons of passion lightened the palace every night…     

            A Turkic face was seen here too – in the fickleness of actions; his mood was changing as the weather in spring. But he did only what he wanted: Isaurians were destroying themselves and undermining their prestige by their behavior. They were desperately fighting for power with each other not yielding an inch. In their hankering after power sons would conspire against their fathers; they were blinded and their tongues were wrested… There was everything if, of course, one believes in what has been written. Private life of the rulers that used to astound the world has always been described contradictorily. Slander, as we know, is inclined to exaggerations.

            However, someway or other, those were Isaurians that laid the road from Byzantium to the north.

            … With the coming of the Byzantines European steppes were flaring like a huge fire; incomprehension covered Desht-I-Kipchak, treacheries were choking it. The Byzantines were dividing and ruling; a smile never left their faces – what they had failed to do in the Middle East they were doing in the Great Steppe. That was a massive ideological invasion. Its first attack that started by Isaurians was a reconnaissance; after it the Greeks proceeded to a real siege.

            Why is an ideological invasion so dangerous? Because it cannot be fast and invisible; like leprosy it lasts for years and decades, for a lifetime, affecting one body after another. The enemy is not defined; he may wear a mask of a friend and be the best adviser. He may stand near. His weapons are words turning into rumors, gossips, slander, enmity. And gold which clears the way for rumors, gossips, slander and enmity.

            The Greeks were trying the best they could as if they had the best motives. With good intentions by which colonizers used to explain all their undertakings…

           

            Real Christianization of Desht-I-Kipchak was started from the children; they were invited to study in Constantinople, which was in accordance with a Turkic tradition to send children to other families for upbringing there. Great Bulgaria succeeded here; Simeon, its envoy, was granted special distinctions by the Byzantines; he was being brought up like a future ruler – in the Emperor's palace with all the signs of attention.

            Christian worldview was inculcated in the youth as a matter of course. Or, more precisely, he was deprived of the Turkic one.

 

            ● Ethnic belonging of the Danube Bulgares (not to mix up with Bulgarians) is not worth discussing here. Those were the Turki believing in Tengri. Their way of life, appearance, and names were Kipchak, which is not denied by serious historians. For instance, E. Gibbon connects their past with the Volga Bulgares. That is generally right but such assertion was rather dictated by a toponymic similarity of the terms than by their common ethnic contents…

            The ethnography of the Eastern Europe of western historians is complex and confusing. Sometimes it is impossible to understand who is who since the number of “tribes” and “nations” taking part in the event is too great. Those nations would appear out of nowhere and disappear to nowhere. But opening “Gethica” by Jordan it is not hard to see: under the Bulgares he meant the Turki that settled on the coast of the Black Sea after they had come from the East. The ethnicons “Goths”, “Huns”, “Scythians”, “Bulgares”, “Turki” were not different early in the Middle Ages; that was one and the same nation. This is witnessed again by a phrase from a Byzantine document of 572: “At the time the Huns whom we usually call the Turki…”.

            The names of the leaders of Bulgares are even more expressive in our opinion. For example, Kubrat khan and his sons Barbayan, Kotrag and Asparukh. Or such family names of the “Bulgarian horde” as Kurigur, Ermi, Kuver, Katsagar, Dulo… Etymology speaks for itself here; it is evidently Turkic.

 

            Having become the chagan of Great Bulgaria that apprentice sort of forgot everything. More than once he troubled his teachers with military campaigns, destruction (it was not shameful for the Kipchaks to get military salvage). Simeon managed to get away with everything; everything inexcusable was forgiven to him. As though on purpose… And he was planning to conquer Byzantium; he found allies among the Moslems and was on the edge of laying siege to Constantinople. One more step and Bulgaria would have reached greatness.

            During a personal meeting with the Byzantine Emperor the young chagan dictated the articles of the peace. They listened to him and asked him quietly: “Are You a Christian? If you are than abstain from spilling blood of your coreligionists… And is it not the craving for wealth that has made You deny the benefits of the world? If that is the case put up Your sword, give Your hand and I will satisfy Your desires in full”. And the winner – chagan stopped short; he was not feeling himself a warrior or ruler any longer. He was feeling himself a secret subject of Byzantium; his soul turned out to have been sold long ago – the seeds of the foreign belief were in it and those seeds started to grow.

            They promised to fasten the reconciliation with family ties.

            Thus for a handful of gold and a couple of sweet words the Greeks saddled Bulgaria, the neighbor of Byzantium. Instead of a former chagan of Desht-I-Kipchak spreading from the Caucasus to the Balkans soon remained only a patch – modern Bulgaria which borders with itself; but that was a Christian country. To tell the truth while Simeon was alive and after his death Bulgares appealed to arms more than once; oppressive union with Byzantium weighed upon them but the way was ready: having learnt everything about the Bulgares, Byzantines found way into their life and were easily playing the master of their souls.

            … And, of course, it all started earlier, in 852, when the power in the country was taken by a khan Bogoris (Bogur), Simoen's father. He was a Turki, of course. How did he ascend to the throne? That is a shady story; that family had nothing to do with the reigning dynasty. Behind his back were the Greeks that knew that golden arrows always hit the target – they did not spare gold. In the heat of the race for power Bogoris (today known as Prince Boris) at the instigation of the Greeks performed a reform of Bulgarian society giving equal rights to all his subjects. He denied the estate division. Slaves and free men were made equal…

            There is not a better way to destroy a country. Liberty, equality and fraternity are always a tragedy which only gives an illusion of liberty, equality and fraternity. It can never happen in real life.

            Altai was teaching: “a nation will be ruined if the rich and the poor become equal”. The Greeks used Bogoris to hit the nation in its heart. “Democratization” of the Turkic chaganat deprived it of its national face. That was the only way for the Greeks to find way into a foreign country – when everyone was equal and powerless to the same extent… It turns out that peoples traditions keep society healthy. Or kill it.

            Division into estates was the protection for the nation.

            Bulgares replied to the Greek reforms with a rebellion, but Bogoris was ready; he found support among those who had formerly had no rights at all and for whom those reforms were advantageous. Among yesterday's slaves and plebs. And the rebellion died out. But the nation turned away from its ruler that had taken the side of farmhands; proud Bulgares were crushed by injustice collapsing on them… Their life took new rails.

            The former nobility was the first that felt lack of comfort in the country; failing to understand the language and actions of “Bulgarians” it was standing against their wild morals. Thereat the ruler beheaded the aristocracy: males of fifty two noble families disappeared during one night. And Bogoris had no more competitors; he became the master and tyrant. The traitor used the slaves in his treason, and he managed to get away with it.

            That was not even a revolution paid by the Greeks but the invasion of the country using ideological weapons – words. And bribery of course.

            Fyodor Ivanovich Uspenskiy, Russian academician, qualified expert in medieval history, accurately described those events as a “revolution as a result of which a Christian principality was formed from a Turkic khanate”. Everything that was happening is expressed in one succinct phrase: “acceptance of Christianity and the revolution that followed was a deadly blow to Bulgarian rights and institutions”.

            By the books written by Uspenskiy one can judge about the collapse of chaganat, titles of the Bulgarian nobility and its family trees! The titles “voila”, “zhupan”, “tarkhan”, “batagur” give an idea of the “principles of a retinue dominating in medieval Bulgaria”, - the academician wrote. In terms of the Turkic language his “principles of a retinue” meant “horde”… A common horde of which Desht-I-Kipchak consisted in reality.

            Also by the books one can judge about the appearance of Bulgares. They had special “haircuts”, which was in accordance with the rules of life of a horde. Some had to grow long hair and plait it; others, on the contrary, had to shave their heads, as the custom of his horde required. In a word, established traditions were being changed. They were being changed not thinking about the consequences: everyone was reduced to the same level. That is what distinguished that time! In Europe Turkic nationhood and belief were being destroyed; “Christian Slavic”, “Christian – Roman” and other principalities were being created. That was the sign of the epoch preceding the Renaissance.

            Official science is perfectly aware of Turkic roots not only of the Bulgarian “Slavs”. Perhaps every “Slavic” book mentions the relations of the Bulgares with the Serbs, Bosnians, Bohemians, Moravians, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and other “Slavic nations” which had not existed before Bogoris. The Turki, their hordes became “raw materials” for the Slavs production; they were being nipped off Desht-I-Kipchak in pieces.

            To be more precise we should say that Jordan, Latin historian of the VI century, was among the first who started to use the word “Slavs”; it was derived from the word “slave” – in the West it was used with that meaning. That is why the Byzantines called the subjects of Bogoris with that word; his court, i.e. administrative personnel, consisted of yesterday's slaves – the Wends taken from the bottom of society and the Turki from among the farmhands that had sold themselves,

 

            ● Slave, as it is customary to think, was derived from the Latin word sclavinus. Marc Bloc, analyzing this term in his “Apologia of History”, marked that it was established “only by the end of the first millennium at slaves markets where the prisoners (the Wends) were sort of example of full enslavement which had become absolutely customary for the slaves of the western origin”.

            In Bulgaria the Greek Church was bringing up the examples of “full enslavement”.

 

            The Wends is a nation that had been living in the Central Europe from of old, which was described by Tacitus and other antique authors. They all marked that they were the nomads and breeders leading their life according to primitive laws; they used to sew their clothes of furs and live in dugouts and huts. In a word, they were humble pagans. Richard Pipes, the professor of Harvard University that was engaged researching their history in the XX century writes: “From that insufficient knowledge we have about the Eastern Slavs it is seen that they were organized into tribal communities… a Patriarch ruled and he had plenipotentiary power over his tribesmen and their property”. There is nothing more evidential in the science about those ancestors of the Slavs. That was perhaps the most timid and backward nation in Europe.

            Professor Alexander Ivanovich Kirpichnikov in the book “Saint George and George the Brave” written in the XIX century said the same. “Researchers of those poor witnesses and remainders are generally people with passionate love for what they are doing, with ardent fantasy but due to lack of knowledge in the subject able for astonishingly unscientific strained interpretations. They do not complain about the lack of materials…”. That is why so much has been written on the Slavic subject; to tell the truth all that has been written has a rear peculiarity – total absence of scientific facts. Proofs are based on mere assertions and categoricalness as though the authors themselves lived at that time and saw it with their own eyes. And should one implicitly believe them?  

            That is a different question and the answer to it is connected with the readers' intelligence.

            Is it not indicative that science knows no findings confirming, at least indirectly, the ethnic history of the Slavs? The earliest monuments of their epigraphy relates to 993 – a headstone with an inscription found in 1888 in Bulgaria, near the settlement called German. If it had not been for Novgorod findings of Valentin Lavrentievich Yanin, among which Slavic ones are likely to be present, science today would have known nothing authentic about the medieval period of their history. Only myths.

            But science has always been aware of another thing. The motherland of the Wends is the Central Europe; that is where they were caught by the Normans to be sold for slavery. The word “slave” is derived from here. Those were proprietary goods of the Normans; they were supplied to slave-markets of Byzantium, Khazaria, Great Bulgaria, Central Asia. By the way, on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” the Wends were the lion's share of goods turnover. The unlucky were being carried by ships, taken ashore in crowds with lasts on their necks, which was described by famous authors of those times (Ibn Rusta, Gardizi, etc.).

            Slavdom began from the Slaves of different colors… It is striking that modern Bulgarian historians often mark with pride that: “… in the IX – X centuries slavery in Bulgaria was a rare phenomenon… at that time the number of slaves in Byzantium was really great”. It is not even slyness, indeed. This is either uncovered hypocrisy, or total ignorance.

            Where have all the Bulgarian slaves disappeared in a flash? Those that had been carried there by the Normans for years?

            They have become a “nation” – first Slavs of Bulgaria. Because in order to gain a footing in power and be through with the Turkic world khan Bogoris in 864 – 865 imposed Christianity on his subjects; baptism gave the slaves freedom… and a new master. Although how baptism was performed and who was performing it we know not. We just know the fact – the declaration of the Bulgarian Church and the abolition of slavery. And, of course, legends painting this fact rosy; without them the feast would be dull and lamentable.

            Boris needed not the Slavs and not Christianity but the Church – a spiritual institute controlled by him. It did not matter which ideology – Greek, Latin or Arian – it had. According to the Turkic laws a spiritual institute gave a chagan an autonomy in Desht-I-Kipchak and the title of “tsar”.

            It turns out vanity, not belief, was giving a nudge to the Bulgarian khan. Everyone understood that and played along as they could. Because with the title “tsar” Bogoris obtained a status equal to the Emperor, which the Greeks could not allow, that is for certain. They knew that a chagan becomes a tsar when an archbishop anoints him. That is why they did not appoint archbishop of the Bulgarian Church. They were in no haste.

            When Bulgarians were baptized they were given Greek names in order to forget the past more quickly. This might sound arguably, but that was the logical conclusion of the Great Nations Migration. The waters of the Altaic river were being absorbed by the lands of Bulgaria nourishing the roots of Slavic culture which was being originated there. On the ethnic field of Europe a new nation – Bulgarians – appeared. And a new country – Bulgaria. Another splinter of Desht-I-Kipchak… Later exactly the same happened in Serbia, Czechia, Poland, Ukraine; there they also changed the names of the Turki and called them the Slavs. That is the result of Christianization; the essence of the whole political action was in it.

 

            ● N.M. Karamzin is so accurate. Carefully, as though he was insisting on the official viewpoint on the history of Bulgarians, he was denying it in hid own notes; he was accepting risk so as not to kill the truth. “Bulgarians have different names in the Byzantine history; contrary to Nestorius many considered them to be the Slavs… but Bulgarians had been formerly speaking their own language. Their ancient proper names are not Slavic at all; they are similar with Turkish ones, the same as their customs”.

            If one knows the background of these words it is hard to add something.

 

            Bogoris became Michael in honor of the Byzantine Emperor Michael III, but that did not give him much. Khan's policy came to a dead-lock: the Bulgarian Church existed but without an archbishop it was as though it had not existed… The Greek cunning consisted in the fact that Christian Bulgaria became free from Desht-I-Kipchak. But according to rule 28 of the Council of Chalcedon it turned into a region of the Greek Church with all ensuing consequences. And in a colony the tsar is unnecessary, as we know it.

            The Greeks were paying with concessions in border disputes and trade. They gave Bogoris Zagorie – the lands which expanded the borders of the country. But for that he gave his consent for building Greek settlements in Bulgaria. That is perhaps all the Bulgarians had got; the Greeks were in no haste to deliver other promises. The game was over, which made Bulgarians turn to Arians and later to send an embassy to Rome with the same request to help with an archbishop. They meant they had a kingdom without king and a church without a patriarch… Bulgarians seemed to understand to what extent they had been deceived.

            The Pope Nicolas answered quickly; he sent monks headed by the bishops Paul Populonian and Formoz Portuganian. That was an open invasion into Byzantium and its politics. And what else could he do?.. But the Catholics were in no haste with the ordination of the archbishop for the Bulgarian Church, but, to tell the truth, for another reason. They wished to teach the Bulgarians Christian belief according to the Latin rule… In a word, a colossal scandal was taking place.

            The Greeks excommunicated the Pope and prohibited the Catholics to teach the Bulgarians; the Latins habitually stroke aside excommunicating the Greek Patriarch. The dispute was running high rapidly; it led to the final division of the Christian Church into its eastern and western wings. At least it was one of the main causes. But not the reason. 

            Not going into details of the scandal which are eloquent in their own way, let us turn our attention to the Pope's letter to the Byzantine Emperor Michael written in 865: “You are annoyed to such an extent that you are indignant even against the rules of Latin which you call barbarian and Scythian intending to pique those who use it. Such intemperance, having no mercy even on the language created by God, the language which was used together with the Jewish and Greek languages in the inscription on Christ's cross”.

            This is a striking revelation! I wish there were more of them.

            The comparison of Latin with the “barbarian and Scythian” language, i.e. with Turkic, is indicative in itself. But it is even more indicative that, according to the Pope, there is a Turkic inscription on “Christ's cross”. Indeed, under other conditions it should have been there; after all, the language of Monotheism was in question! The divine language of belief.

            Latin at that time was “barbarian” and “very Turkic”. Its reformation started later, in the XIII century, while the Greeks had reformed the “Graeco-Barbarian” language in good time, which gave them the reason to look down upon the Catholics… In this connection another detail is indicative: the Bulgares were no longer called Hanifs – “the bearers of the truth”, like other inhabitants of Desht-I-Kipchak. They were given the name “Slavs” which was in accordance with terminology of Europe of that time; it was considered that for their Church any “combined language” was suitable. Church Slavic, for instance.

            At that time the policy of the Greeks was more successful than that of the Latins; they were the first who turned their look to the Bulgarian children and started to bring them up leaving reeducation of the elder to the Catholics. That is why the future of the Bulgarian Church belonged to the Greeks. The Byzantines knew that not a sword and money have power in this world but those to whom peoples souls belonged. And they started the hunt for the souls of the new generation.

            King Simeon is the creation of that policy; his subjects were the first who exorcised Tengri in the east of Europe.

 

            ● Here a lot can be explained by the toponymy of Bulgaria – a bright page of history. The word “Bulgar” in Turkic means “combined”, i.e. “consisting of different nations”. And there are hundreds of similar examples, although Slavic politicians were trying hard to conceal them. For instance, Golden Sands on ancient geographical maps were called “Uzunkum” (long sands), the peak Vikhren – Eltepe (windy top), Zhyltets – Syrykaya (yellow rock), Vratnik – Demir-Kapiya (iron gates), Izvorets – Beshbunar (five springs), Lisa Planina – Sakar-Balkan (bold Balkans). The Balkans, as it has been already mentioned, in Turkic mean “mountains covered with forest…”. Everything is so evident and well-known that there is no point in going on with that; on this point a separate book can be written – the material is sufficient.

            Bulgarian toponymy, of course, had nothing to do with the Ottoman period of the History of Bulgaria; it had existed long before the Moslems came there. From the time of the Great Nations Migration which formed Desht-I-Kipchak and its chaganats, Great Bulgaria included. Reading ancient names one comes across Bunar, Akbunar, Ostria-Chatal, Kyrdjali, Kazanka, Kazanlyk, Balchik, Delioroman… And one of the most ancient Turkic toponyms of Bulgaria is the river Kibanlyk from which the chaganat began in the IV century. First settlements of the Kipchaks were there.

           

            The ink on sheets of paper with new Church Slavic names of the Bulgares had hardly dried when enlighteners – Cyril and Methodius – appeared on the threshold of the country; they were also Kipchaks of whom the Greeks were taking care. They were allocated a duty to teach the Bulgares the Skavic language, Slavic writing and Slavic history that had not existed in reality.

            These seem to have been made of haze; they are too miraculous. Take, for instance, the Slavic written language – Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabet; it is considered to have been invented by them. But that is wrong. Firstly, why did the Slavs need two alphabets? This is the first thing that comes to one's mind when one reads about them. And besides it is known that Glagolitic writing appeared in Europe in the V century; several documents were written in it – they remained in Italy and other countries. Cyrillic alphabet appeared after the brothers – enlighteners were dead; they had not even seen it.

            There was no Slavic language when they lived; what written language can be in question here? What could be written in it?

            The most ancient monuments of Cyrillic writings is the inscription of king Samuel made in 993, i.e. that is the monuments that appeared one century after the brothers had been dead. Only experts are able to distinguish Cyrillic alphabet of that time and Glagolitic alphabet. And they can do it just theoretically. In Glagolitic alphabet there are forty symbols – the number of phonemes in the Turkic language (adding hard and soft sign). In the Slavic language the number of phonemes is less, which means there are less written symbols. The brothers – enlighteners were required to change Glagolitic alphabet or, in other words, bring it into compliance with the standards of the Slavic language which was being created by the Church. Which, as a matter of fact, is what was done, but not by them…

            Their mission was different, which is to be discussed later.

            In a word, “enlightened” Bulgares forgot their native language calling it Proto-Bulgarian. Since then they have called khan Asparuh a Slavic prince not realizing that “khan” is the title of a Turkic aristocrat, their ancestor… Not in a flash the Byzantines conquered Bulgaria; enslavements of the chaganat lasted for decades and centuries. Time was necessary so that sabers corroded, bows withered and steeds grew fat in herds. So that not one generation was gone.

            Christianization was completed by the Greek Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonos. In 981 he gathered all the Byzantine forces and moved them to Bulgaria. But on his way to Sofia he was met by the tsar Samuel. Thank god sabers and helmets had not corroded yet, Bulgarians had not unlearnt to saddle horses; so they won.

            In summer of 1014 Basil II, again with an army – not with the Bible! – entered his church patrimony “beating the enemy with persistence of a hammer” (that is what Byzantine historians wrote about that campaign). The world had not known cruelty of that sort. Lots of corpses, burnt towns, ruined villages were left in the way of the Christians. “Burn, smash, devastate” was their motto. But they would smash not everyone but only the Turkic layers of the Slavic nation. The layer that hated the state Church and was searching for solace in the old belief.

            The Byzantines started persecutions against it. That is why in Bulgaria at that time Bogomilism was strengthening – it was growing into a popular movement. Apart from the Bogomils, other religious sects appeared, which is the witness of the agony of the Turkic culture in the Slavic area. Ancient belief was dying. It was being choked by homebred prophets preaching homebred truths in which Monotheism was being mixed up with Christianity and pagan conceptions of the Slavs.

            That was a chaos in which a new culture was being born…

            The Emperor Basil II Bulgaroktonos ordered to put out the eyes of those not betraying the old belief so that they could not see the sly, to cut their ears so that they could not hear the shepherds, to tear out their tongues so that they could not address Tengri. For every hundred of victims they left one sighted person – one man with one eye. And the young Turki were not mutilated; they were taken care of, hidden in prisons in order to take them away to slave-markets of Byzantium. However, judging by the works of Bulgarian historians, at that time slave-markets reappeared in Bulgaria. Not the Wends were being sold there…

            Fifteen thousand people at a time were thrown into darkness; blind and helpless, they were being baptized into the Greek belief and thus they became Christians, i.e. the Slavs… That is described in Bulgarian chronicles where, apart from description of horrors of those days, a testament for the grandchildren remained: apart from patience they were charged with an obligation to avenge for what had happened. Or at least to remember it.

            Up to the XIX century the Bulgarians remembered something of their past; after that they have finally turned into Slavdom connecting their destiny with Russia, another deceived country. However, thank God, the name of Tengri has not been forgotten in Bulgaria; some day it will lead the Bulgarians through the complicated labyrinth of their history… If, of course, God wishes so.

… In 882 the Byzantines' allies, the Normans, conquered northern lands of another chaganat of Desht-I-Kipchak – the Ukraine, where Ascold was reigning. That was an attack of Arianism on the east of Europe. Kievan Russia appeared and together with it – a new tragedy in free society of “Hanifs”.

            But is it right to call a tragedy what happened then? That was the growth of a new European culture: the fruit of the Great Nations Migration were getting through a tough selection. That was not a tragedy but real life in all its severity. East and West were checking each other for strength. Not a single major undertaking in the history of humankind has done without checking. Otherwise there would have been no progress. And no confidence in the future.

            Who was winning? That is the question… East or West strengthened by East? And was that a victory?

            It is not quite clear when the Ukraine appeared; it is likely that, the same as Great Bulgaria, in the IV century before the Normans came there it had been keeping the belief in Heavenly God in absolute purity. It was lying in patriarchal silence of Desht-I-Kipchak. The Normans came there by the example of the Catholic and Orthodox Greeks in order to cut a slice of the pie for them. Their coming expanded the orbit of European politics.

            The West was steadily winning; strengthened by the Turki it was more powerful.

            It is indicative that the Normans in Kiev did not meet with opposition. They “came, saw and conquered”; Kiev inhabitants themselves opened the gates and allowed to take them without a hand's turn. Why? Common sense is powerless here; the answer to the fundamental question of the history of Kievan Rus seems to be absent in literature.

            Was that because the chagan Ascold irritated the nation if it was not protected? Or there are other reasons? Unfortunately, Kievan Rus, its appearance, is perhaps the first mystery of the Russian history: did Russia start from Rus? However, if one reads Karamzin more attentively… Nikolai Mikhailovich was a skilful diplomat; he described the conquest of Kiev by the Varangians but did it in the language clear not to everyone. “Ascold and Dir, not suspecting a deceit, were hurrying to the shore: Oleg's warriors surrounded them in a flash. The ruler said: you are not Princes and you do not belong to a noble family, but I am the Prince – and, pointing to Igor, he uttered: here is the son of Ryurik! With this world Ascold and Dir, condemned to death, felt dead under the swords of the murderers to Oleg's feet”.

            This quotation contains what certain authors do not acknowledge – the bitter truth.

            Even if one does not mention that Oleg and Igor had other names, even if one forgets that the title “prince” was pronounced as “konung” by the Russians (Normans), the truth is evident: Ryiriks were the Turki belonging to a royal family which roots are in Altai. That was emphasized by cautious Karamzin italicizing the text. Ascold and Dir were impostors that had seized the power, which was a sin – that is why the people did not defend them

            In Kiev there lived not the Slavs but the Turki who could not have failed to accept a person belonging to a royal family… This assertion makes the history of Kievan Russia truthful when the Slavs are in question. Otherwise it is not clear who, how, from where and why came in the IX century to Dnepr. Although, it is possible, there is no need to sort this complex labyrinth out.

 

            ● E. Gibbon and other historians of that time had no doubts as against us. “The term Russians was mentioned in Europe for the first time in the ninth century… the Greeks were accompanied by the messengers of the Russian (konung) great prince, chagan or tsar. They were the compatriots of the Swedes and Normans which by that time had managed to gain the character of the odious and dreadful in France…”. “The Scandinavian origin of the Russian nation… is proven and explained in national chronicles and the history of the North”.

            In “Annales Bertiniani” it is said that in Scandinavia, with the Russians, there was its own chagan; Khakan there is a proper name, and a rather common one… And Gustav Evers wrote even more categorically: the Varangians and the Khazars are one nation… In literature there are phrases like “Rus – son of the Turki, grandson of Daudsh”. Or “Urus-bek, son of Kazan, grandson of Oguzkhan”… that very Oguzkhan who was the representative of Kushan dynasty.

            There are plenty pf similar assertions in world science. But they are unknown in Russia where since the XVIII century another viewpoint on the history of Russia has been dominating – and this viewpoint is far from the truth. However, Karamzin helps here again: “Sviatoslav, Igor's son, the first prince of the Slavic name…”. Why “the first” and why “Slavic”? These questions are usually passed over in silence, but if one knows that Igor had another name – Ingvar – and was the native of Scandinavia, words might be unnecessary.

            It seems this generation of the tsarist family was later called Urus, at least the blazon and the history of the family witnesses of that. Its representatives had been reigning “from of old in Egypt” and were highly respected in the Turkic world – from Baikal to the Baltic. One can assume that they continued the dynasty of Achemenids or Kushans.

 

            Archeologists know exactly; the reality was different as compared with what is described by historiographers. The Normans (Varangians) did not build Kiev in the IX century; the legend of Kiy and his brothers is just a legend. The town had been living and prospering since the end of the IV century; neither in architecture nor in population it was different from towns of Desht-I-Kipchak; it was also a result of the Great Nations Migration. That is witnessed by researches of scientists and their scientific monographs. Take, for instance, two volumes called “Ancient Kiev” by M.I. Karger where the author, speaking about the works of his colleagues, mentioned with sorrow: perhaps all the things found by archeologists in Kiev have later mysteriously disappeared in Moscow. And about many findings it was prohibited to announce – they were inconsistent with assertions of the “censored” Russian science. 

 

            ● Mysterious disappearances of archeological findings is not a Russian invention at all; that is the method of the western science that was used many times starting from the Inquisition. Take, for instance, the famous crown of the Langobards, with which Carl the Great was crowned; it was the sign of power in the Western Europe – it was brought to Paris in the times of Napoleon. But they were admiring it not for too long. It was stolen right away when it was known that under Kazan they had found two crowns that were exactly the same. The similarity was so great that there were given guesses that they had been produced in one and the same workshop by one and the same craftsman.

            And what is more, those wreaths were strikingly similar with the famous “iron crown” Lombardy from the sacristy of the cathedral in Monza. That crown which was possibly the copy of Attila's one… Those findings witnessed a lot; and primarily of the sources of the western culture. And such scientific discoveries are disagreeable for the Church. Of course soon the crowns found under Kazan also disappeared from the safe of the Academy of Sciences of Russia where they had been kept.

            Today people judge about those crowns and wreaths by drawings. But one can add the crown of the Ukrainian chagan to this list. And of the Bulgarian one. Their lot is the same – obscurity.

 

            In Kiev, it turns out, before the Normans came, before the Baptism of Russia, temples had been opened. Archeologists found ancient foundations of the Dessiatine Church; from the chronicles we know about Saint George Church and about Elias Church on the river Pochaina and several others…But for whom were they opened if the town and its people were pagans? Or, more precisely, there was neither the town nor the people… Instead of researching the belief of Kiev inhabitants, they invented “the first” Baptism of Russia in the VII century, which only emphasized the meaninglessness of the whole theory. If there was no Russia in the VII century, what Baptism can be in question?

            Rus is the country of the Normans… It is useful to remind that Kiev inhabitants spoke the Turkic language, which is witnessed by inscriptions on the walls of temples. And the prayers of Kiev inhabitants. The past of the town remained in written monuments, in the Ukrainian language. There are words and expressions which were known to ancient Ruses, i.e. the Varangians. Hundreds of common words.

            And not only the Ruses can be in question; perhaps one half of the vocabulary of Taras Shevchenko was Turkic, and he lived in the XIX century!.. Nothing is to be discussed here; in Turkic “kobsar” means “playing a musical instrument - kobyz”. All kobsars used to play a kobyz, and Korkut was the greatest of them.

 

            ● Korkut is the most ancient mythologized person, the first shaman, the patron of the shamans and singers. He invented a string musical instrument – kobyz. It is possible to say that he was the first ashug or minnesinger. When Islam was established there appeared a myth of the unexpected death of Korkut; he died, as it befits a singer, with a kobyz in his hands. Death, creeping up as a snake, bit him… the Turki denied their ever-living hero by themselves. They mortified him in their culture.

            The epic of the XV century called “The Book of my Grandfather Korkut” tells not about Korkut but of his creative work and other interesting events of the history of the ancient Turki mentioning Urus-Bek among the others.

 

            Ukrainian kobsars had an expressive language – the speech that has been forgotten in the Ukraine. Gutsuls of Transcarpathia are the only ones who remember it. The Russian tsar Alexander II, by his order of May 30^th, 1876, prohibited the Ukrainians to speak their native language; an exile was waiting for the opponents. Proud Taras Shevchenko was the victim of that order…

            And the history of the baptism of Kievan Russia turns out to be even vaguer.

            In science there have never been any hints that “baptism” took place in the X century. Nobody knows where it happened – in what town, who performed it, who became metropolitan, in what language divine services were performed. Everything was the same as in Bulgaria! There are several futile versions which have become established. And that is the most important event in the life of the Ukraine; it witnesses of its roots and the beginning of nationhood.

            In the archives of the Greek Church from which hands Kievan Russia allegedly received “baptism”, scientists failed to find a single line on this point. That is a significant fact.

            However, the “Bulgarian scheme” of Christianization opens up the eyes on the baptism. That is a political process requiring forces and instruments, which the Greeks had been short of by the X century. That is why there are no direct and indirect proofs of the baptism of Russia by the Greeks which would have been evident in appearance of a new eparchy of the Greek Church by type of the Bulgarian one. And it did not appear. The structure of the Church remained unchanged… Even in the XI century the Greeks considered Rus to be pagan. What else can be in question here?

            Kievan Rus is connected with Arianism. The Ukrainians did not stand against the coming of the Scandinavians; they had a common belief – with them, not with the Greeks. The Normans gave the patriarchal Kiev a barely perceptible European polish. There were no religious wars on the banks of Dnepr because there was no violence; both the newcomers and the aborigines followed Monotheism. Both were the people of one spiritual and ethnic culture.

            Here are the words from their prayer; the same as in ancient Altai, it was to be uttered looking at the Sky: “Khodai aldynda beten adem achyk bulsun…”, which means “every man should face God with an open soul”. And the prayer went on: “The creator of the Earth and the Sky! Bless Your children; let them cognize You, the True God; strengthen the right belief in them…”. Christ was not mentioned; he was considered to be a foreign god.

            Kievan Russia knew only the image of Heavenly God! It prayed him. In the country was a spiritual institute with which the Greek Church had nothing to do. That is seen, for instance, in Russian Primary Chronicle where the Arian symbol of belief is given. Not Christian but Arian, i.e. Russian. Theologians also paid their attention to these delicate “trifles”; they mentioned that the prayer “I Believe” in Kiev was read not the same as in Constantinople or Rome.

            This is strange, is it not? And the words and conceptions were the difference between the Arians and Christians.

            This observation led theologians to a discouraging conclusion: in Kiev, they said, that was “half-Arianism”. That is what they called the Russian Church of that time. That was totally absurd… Arianism is not “Churches with the elements of democracy and electivity of community”, as theologians assert. That was an absolutely different thing: Churches not recognizing Christ as God. In other words – not Christian Churches. That is that very “non-church Christianity” which differed “Indian communities” of Egypt.

            Another “trifle” giving a nudge – letters from the Constantinopolitan Patriarch to Kiev. They remained. They are kept not under a wax seal, as it is common, but a leaden one which the Greeks used to affix to documents sent to autocephalous (in other words – to foreign!) Churches or public institutions… As we can see, one can assert anything, one can destroy or correct any text, any document or chronicle, one can even steal a museum specimen, but how can one get rid of “trifles” which at first sight seem to be imperceptible?

            The truth cannot be defeated. Any crime will leave its trace, i.e. an unaccounted “trifle”. It is to be found, and after that lies fade away.

            In the X century the Ukrainians did not become the Slavs and their country did not become a region of the Greek Church. That is witnessed by the agreement of 911 between Kiev princes and Byzantium. Its beginning was as follows: “We, belonging to a Russian family, Carl, Ingelot, Farlov, Veremid, Rulav, Raul, Carn, Flelav, Ryuar, Aktutruyan, Lidulfost, Stemid…”. Here they are, the Russians representing Russia during negotiations.

            And if one opens the agreement of 944 – in it there are also just Norman names – almost fifty of them in which the Turkic origin is easily seen. They became mentioned in the history of Kievan Russia. To tell the truth, that did not perplex Moscow scientists; in order to confirm the Slavic roots of Russia they… changed the names of Normans. Helga became Olga, Ingvar became Igor, Valdemar became Vladimir. They called their Slavicization the “reconstruction” of names. Not falsification. At that nobody was confused; nobody turned red.

            Helga and Helg, Valdemar, Hunnar, Vermund, Faulf, Ingald – the rulers of Kievan Russia; were they Slavs or Christians, their names would have sounded otherwise. In the traditions of religion changing of names of the baptized is obligatory. The Orthodox Christians, in order to be different, made their list of names, the Catholics made their own and the Arians – their own. The same as they distinguish Moslems and Buddhists by the names. Let us mention one more time: there is the science called onomatology; every name has an explanation and history there. There are many books on this point and one can make a library of them. A name is the destiny of a man.

 

            ● Take the name Valdemar. In Scandinavian sagas it sounded like Valdimir, Balamir, Baltemir, Baltuemir. And each sounding is correct. Because the name meant belonging of the one who had it to the family of Balts. And the ending “Amyr” in Turkic meant “peacefulness”, “well-being”. Not everyone could be honored to have that regal name. 

 

            The Turki thought that a name to a child could be given only by a kind person; there was a whole ritual dedicated to that. And every family had its own names which were handed down from generation to generation. Sometimes in Altai they would give several names in order to deceive the powers of darkness collapsing on a family while the real name was hidden; it was known only to the nearest relatives that uttered the name not straightly but allegorically or briefly… An “impostor” was set equal to a “deceiver”, i.e. “to a person that tried a strange lot on them” trying to deceive God. That was a voluntary choice of a scaffold…Giving Arian Helga the name of Olga they made her a Slav, Christian and Rus was made a Christian country or, more precisely, another Greek church colony.

            But one can only deceive himself by such primitive actions.

            Sponsors of falsifications, apparently, knew that one needs to be a lion in order to defeat a buffalo. In Russia the Arian buffalo was defeated by the Catholic lion. Not the Greek fox.

            Late in the Middle Ages Kiev Arians became Catholics. Traces of that Catholicism (including the Protestant sense) are seen today even in Byelorussia, Poland, Baltic states, i.e. where some time ago Norman colonies existed. The union of the Ukraine with Sweden started from Kievan Rus; it was a political guarantee of the spiritual closeness of two countries. Yellow color on the flags of the Ukraine and Sweden is a confirmation – that is the sign of their common spiritual past. That color is also present on the German flag – another color of the Sky.

            Greek Christianity came to the Ukraine together with Moscow ambassadors in the XVII century when colonization of Little Russia started. But that is another story to be told later.

            The Pope also took interest in the east of Europe since the IX century: the Greek and Scandinavian policy was not unobserved by him. The Pope also felt the patriarchal weakness of the Turkic world. The Roman Church, it should be mentioned, was skillfully turning people into Catholicism, which happened in the X century in Kievan Rus. At that time on the geographical map appeared eastern regions of the Catholics; the Turkic speech not subjected to Rome was being heard there.

 

            … By the time of the Church split, i.e. by the XI century, the following political areas were formed in Europe: Catholic, Greek, Arian, Moslem and Turkic.  There were five of them. The energy that would turn the wheels of history during the nearest centuries was being accumulated there.

            At that time Desht-I-Kipchak was looking only at itself not accepting the culture of their neighbors; it was getting “preserved”. Non-participation in geopolitics was its policy. The phrase sounds like pun but it conveys the meaning more definitely: creating “Christian Slavic principalities”, “Latin kingdoms” and “Varangian Ruses” the West was getting ready for repartition of the world. The results of the Great Nations Migration were no longer suitable for it.

            And the East kept silent.

            That is why colonization of the Eastern Europe was inevitable, like autumn after summer. The Church opened the epoch of new history so as to write everything on a blank page… In its own way!

 

EAST CHANGES ITS FACE

 

“Greek” Christianity declared in 325 by the first Ecumenical Council was on its way out in the XI century having finished its mission by the creation of the Church – a social niche which took roots, expanded and became the political face of the West. Not the Emperor was the main figure as it used to be formerly. The Church was!

            Designed for introduction of a new culture and strengthening of temporal power, the Church subjected that culture and that power, which was new in the history of humankind. Of course the innovation was to have certain consequences – the fight for political leadership in Europe which was running high with unheard-of intensity. The split of the West into parties being at enmity with each other was practically predetermined. The new mechanism of society control needed vastness; it was cramped in the narrow national frames which the Emperor Constantine left the Church.

            The Catholics were winning; their flexible policy was leading to changes of life on the continent.

            Those changes stirring up Europe by the end of the millennium were reflected by a geographical map perhaps better than by words; the results of events could be read on it. The maps registered the repartition of the world that started: Byzantium was loosing. At that it was loosing the subject that turned out to be wiser. It was not saved by “Christian Slavic principalities” that appeared in the Eastern Europe on a sudden. The “center of gravity” of the continent was moving towards Rome; the boundary of the Catholic Empire, on the contrary, was moving far beyond the eastern bank of Rhine covering the Baltic region, Carpathian Mountains and the western regions of the Ukraine. The Pope was taking interest in those regions; he turned his look to “non-Roman Europe”.

            The scope of activities of the Church was expanding rapidly. And with it the troubles of papacy were growing. To the virgin lands which in the IV century were irrigated by the waves of the Great Nations Migration that brought towns and villages there, invaded the Christian Catholic culture. That was the “domestication” of the aliens. Because the population of the new possessions of Rome was not ethnically changing; it remained the same. On the whole those were the descendants of migrating Turki, but the Catholics were skillfully changing their consciousness and way of life. And they became different people; they were no longer “barbarians” led by Attila. They became the natives.

            Who were they, those new Turki? Just the people speaking the Turkic language? No.

            The spirit was changing – that was the difference! In appearance they remained the same, but in their souls… A phenomenon not investigated by science is evident – the decay of a nation, its spiritual rebirth. What is it? Nobody knows, but the Turki had that fate; religion split them into nations and minor nations; they were no longer recognizing each other and they stopped to remember the past. They were not divided into hordes, as it was formerly, but into Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Arians, Moslems and the followers of belief in Tengri. Alienation was perhaps the most important thing in their lives. The natives were dividing the natives not feeling solidarity and the former kindred.

            The Church was leading them; it was dictating both the future and the past.

            Unheard-of persistence of the Catholics was fiercely leading them to victory. The Europeans were looking at Rome and failed to mention Constantinople. That was a revolution in the consciousness of millions that happened in the X century; it led to a revolution inside the Church itself, to its division into eastern and western wings, which became inevitable. At that time a new page of the history of the West was open; it was notable for supremacy of spiritual power over temporality. When and how did that happen? Nobody can say for certain. But that happened. Bulgaria, Germany and later other countries, including Kievan Rus, are the illustrations. The Catholics were on firm ground everywhere and did not conceal that. The road to the East for them was laid by Carl the Great early in the IX century; his legendary campaigns finished another stage of the Roman policy and opened the new one.

            Byzantium is the country that became indescribably rich early in the Middle Ages; formerly it had been the core of the Christian Empire dictating the rules of life to other nations but it lost the war for the East. On its own political field. It should be mentioned that at all times starting from the IV century its policy was being conducted too rectilinearly, which means predictably. At first the Greeks got round by the Egyptians that got out of their hand establishing a new religion – Islam – in the VII century (the Council of Chalcedon taught the philosophers of the School of Alexandria a lot). After that was Rome which managed to give its Church the status of a spiritual institution and also get out of hand of the Byzantine Patriarch… Carl the Great “changed” de jure for de facto.

            The Catholics were conducting their policy with the help of “barbarians” and through “barbarians” themselves. That is how Rome was reviving – due to ideological weapons which it was improving year after year. In 1054 the resulting event happened; the West had been preparing itself for it during five centuries. The Pope threw down the gauntlet to the Byzantine Patriarch feeling himself strong enough. Both Churches, the Roman and the Greek one, signed the deed of mutual excommunication.

            Christianity has split. Forever.

            It only remained for formerly mighty Byzantium to live its last years in the century full of anxiety. Neither the Greeks, neither the Turki nor the Armenians that were reigning in Constantinople after Esaurians managed to raise the country; it was withering of ailment which it had suffered from its birth – from the time of Constantine's reign. Freedom of belief was absent in the country.

            In terms of geopolitics in that race for power over East, West had the most advantageous position: behind the Turki there was half of the world; in their hands were gold, swords and words – the main levers of power. But… the Turki did not understand each other. They spoke the same language but still they failed to understand. They were not a single nation any longer. The spirit had disappeared. Religion washed out their closeness. They were living like phantoms of the former power, former grandeur. “If a nation is deprived of its past, in two generations it will turn into a crowd and in two more generations it can be run as a herd”, - this ancient wisdom was not remembered.

 

            …The Pope Gregory VII that in 1075 launched the new policy of the Church belonged to Tuscany, which is in the north of Italy where Italian Turki lived. Strong, a little bit broad face, grasping look of hawk's eyes; he would have been given the name “Togryl” (hawk) if he had been living in the Steppe. He hated the Turki; everything about them irritated him. Only the natives hate in this way. That Pope dedicated his life full of vicissitudes to the destruction of Altaic foundations on which Europe transfigured by the Great Nations Migration was standing. He managed to do a lot. For example, he issued a Dictate by which he was granted “the right to appoint Emperors”. That was a fundamental step.

 

            ● The Pope's biography is interesting. Before the Pope's tiara was accepted he had been called Cildebrand (Gildebrand). The name is not occasional. The boy belonged to a family of a simple landowner; his maternal uncle, a dedicated believer, had sworn to make the boy a monk before he was born. Hence is his name – “coming by an oath”; the Turki were the only ones who determined their children's fate before they were born, which was common in their life. That was a tradition.

            The monastery where the novice was being brought up adhered to Clunian ideas; that was a powerful current in spiritual life of Europe which started in 910 in Burgundy. It subjected to Rome. The monks vowed silence; hence is the sign language that the Clunists developed – nobody could understand it except for them. But their actions were clear to everyone; they were directed against the “barbarians”. In the name of the triumph of Catholicism which the Clunists understood in their own way – like “purification and liberation of the Church”.  

            Of course their ascetic reformatory ideas were understood primarily by the Turki that wished to become real Europeans. Among the patrons and adherents of the Clunists there were perhaps all the important persons of that time: French king Lothar V, William the Conqueror – king of England, German Emperor Otto and his wife, as well as Henry II, Henry III and many others…

            The Clunian reform is also a page of the history of the Turki in Europe.

 

            The Western Church declared power over European monarchs; it was becoming “king of kings” arrogating the right of choice of a ruler. Thus the Pope hit the painful point of society; his blow was thoroughly elaborated: Christian kingdoms were to know in whose hands the power was and who had the power over medieval Europe… Elections, as we know, were a ritual in Altai where a ruler was chosen by the will of Heavens; there existed a special code of rules. At first Catholic countries – those that grew of the estates of gentlemen – were also living with an elected leader.

            At that time power was changing in principle. That was the end of political culture that had come to the West in the IV century.

            Of course not everyone liked all the decisions introduced by the Pope Gregory VII. But they were strengthening the power of the Church and the West. Protests were vehement; they were even close to killing the Pope, but in return he showed rigidity. Wars were changing each other. Europe was in full swing, but it was getting used to new reality. The Pope's power was becoming absolute; bishops were getting more important than kings. New political culture was being established – for that time it was not Christian.

            The triumph of the Church started from the era of the crusades. From the seemingly romantic time described in the books – monographs and novels – but the objectives of the crusades in the East have always been understated… And what was standing behind knightly romanticism in reality? And has that romanticism ever existed?  

            The version of saving “the Holy Sepulcher” was invented for the simpletons; it is helpless since the Pope's surrounding were perfectly aware of the history of Christianity – it knew that a sepulcher had not existed there. The Jews did not bury in sepulchers. Everything composed by Constantine about Christ and his sepulcher Rome had not formerly acclaimed reasonably denying it… It means there was something else on what the Crusades were based in reality – not a sepulcher? What was that? 

 

            ● According to an evangelic legend after the descent from the cross Christ was buried in a sepulcher which he left after the Resurrection. The sepulcher is located in Jerusalem in the Church of the Resurrection and belongs to several Christian confessional groups at once. It is not possible to discuss its trueness because of full absence of reliable information. It is rather a place of pilgrimages of the Christians which had become established by the X century when it was given the mythologized past.

 

            If one discards the literary and “romantic” husk, events are read absolutely differently. That was a tragedy, a big tragedy; hundreds of thousands of volunteer Catholics, like powerless zombie, were trying to conquer the Middle East for decades. They were searching for their death. By themselves. They understood that, but new generation continued what the previous ones had started.

            Unfortunately, their persistence trenching upon madness has not been explained by science…

            Where is the motive of behavior? Is it not the belief which was required to be accepted without thinking? Was not madness being born with it? When thoughts become unnecessary that is quite possible.

            The version of the enmity between the Catholics and Moslems is erroneous: Catholicism and Islam were close allies at that time. It is enough to remember, for instance, that Sylvester II that accepted the Pope's tiara in 999 was studying with the Moslems when he was young; he had been living among them for years and carried on a friendly correspondence being the Pope. Gregory VII himself, the one that launched new Church policy, was considered to be “the connoisseur of Mohammed's teaching” in Europe; he declared he had the same God the Moslems had. And that was true. As we know, in the hour of danger the Pope was saved from the enraged Catholics by the Moslems; their detachment came close to the castle where the Pope was hiding and released him. After that together with the Pope they prayed in St. Peter's Cathedral; in the main Catholic temple a mullah was reading suras from Koran… That is the truth! 

 

            ● Should it be added that the Pope Sylvester was a Turki? His name that he later changed having accepted the Pope's tiara sounded like “Herbert” and was connected with belief – “full of belief”. In Altai that was the name for the boys that had been determined to be monks before they were born. “Given by a vow, by an oath” – that is the sense of the name. Her (ker) means “belief” in Turkic, ber – “to entrust, give”.

            That Pope was an adherent of the church reforms. In his opinion and in the opinion of his patron, the German Emperor Otto III, the West was to return to the Altaic tradition of diarchy that a part of Moslems retained. However, the opposition had another opinion… Untimely, the death of Otto in 1002 and the death of the Pope Otto that followed put an end to their ambitions.

 

            The Moslem version is baseless for another reason – a good half of the North Italy, South France and the whole Spain professed Islam. The adherents of Monotheism, neighbors and friends of the Catholics, were the Turki for the most part. They were called Arabs, but Arab, as far as we know, is not a nationality but the name of an inhabitant of Caliphate respecting Islam. For the Popes the Moslems remained the same as Cathars or Albigenses. But not the people of a different belief.

            Not feeling this delicate nuance it is hard to understand the life of medieval Europe.

            It is possible that turning to the East Catholic clergy was building secret plans connected with expiration of Islam in Europe. But that is also not likely. The Catholics had no other allies except for the Moslems. They were to struggle against each other in five centuries during the Spanish inquisition. And for that moment they were acting jointly against their common enemy – Byzantium.

            But those were the Catholics that started the campaign to the East. Why was that so?

            The answer is not evident. But, considering the geopolitical details, one can come to an unexpected conclusion – that was an attempt of mass manipulation of consciousness of believers. The first one in history! In that way the Church was checking its strength and itself. Because the Pope was not following the believers, as it had been formerly, but was leading them. And they followed.

            Forward-looking Catholics were frightened by the rapid increase of the flock, appearance of “new nations”; they were feeling insecurity of their dominating position in Western society. At any moment eparchies could become uncontrollable and explosive. The reason was new people; there were too many new people coming to the bosom of the Church. Beautiful. Strong. Able to think. They did not take the Pope's words for granted. They could not. And the clergy decided to get rid of them and the “old” aristocracy with its unfashionable habits to think and discuss, as well as of the youth that could not make use of it and was yearning in idleness.

            The Pope wanted a war – the slaughter that would destroy the dangerous part of the Catholics.

            It sounds blasphemously but death of certain Turki was required by the future of the West. Its quietude. The more people being able to think, act and sacrifice, the more quietly it is to control all the rest, - thought the Church. That was a severe ordeal, but well-being of future generations depended upon it.

            There is no one to blame for that. What can be done – a steed cannot be a pack animal. It cannot walk tied to the tail of another horse; it is easier to kill it than to make it humble… That is the spirit which it is impossible to break. They were born like that – those terrible Turki that made honor top of priorities in their lives. And they needed no Pope – neither from Rome nor from anywhere else.

            People for the crusades were being found by themselves; those were the people devoted to the Church and ready to serve and wage a war. They were choosing the most dignified; they were given absolution and blessed for the campaign for the “Holy Sepulcher”. They sewed a red cross on their clothes and proclaimed themselves crusaders – the troops of the Pope. For them there were no leaders, equipment, provisions; they even had no plan of actions. Nothing. Only the Pope's appeals… That is the consciousness control; its result is that the elder gave orders in the names of God, and those faithful to the duty of conscience obeyed. Without discussing or thinking.

            The Catholics asked absolutely nothing for themselves. All they needed was to serve in the name of the Church.

            Initiative of a leader in the first Crusade was given to Peter the Hermit, a sordid monk that was suffering from susceptibility and asserting that he had talked to Christ. And everyone believed since the Pope was the first to believe. This is a very typical reaction for a Turki – to believe a clergyman without thinking.

 

            ● That provocateur whom the Church made the hero of folk songs is plainly visible in “The Song of Antioch”. There is an episode when people complaining for hunger turned to Peter the Hermit whom Christ had allegedly entrusted to run the Crusade. “Can't you see the Turkic corpses? That is excellent food”, - and the crusaders fried and eat the corpses of the infidels. And the author added: “Meat of the Turki is better that peacock with sauce”.

            It would be better to leave these words without comments, all the more so as they were written after the Crusades; at that time Europe was cleaning itself of the Turkic past and for it all was fair.

 

            Not an army but a hungry crowd gathered in haste was moving to the East in 1096 devouring all the eatables on their way. Even corpses of people and dogs. They were moving like in pitch dark, without a geographical map and without reconnaissance; all the big towns met on their way they took for Jerusalem and started to assault them. Those were befuddled people who did not know what they were doing; they heard the Popes words: “That is what God wants”. And they moved forward.

            Terrible force of religion made them marionettes.

            Descendants of the Turki believed not God but a human being, the Vicar of God on the Earth, that is how he called himself. They put a man over themselves since he had power. That is perhaps the main peculiarity of Christianity in which, as against other religions, a man became separated from God. From his own “self”. From sensible actions, finally. “Vicars in robes” came into their souls.

            That is what the conduct of Crusaders was. It was separated. It cannot even be called religious fanaticism – that is a flash, an explosion while here we are dealing with something different which common sense is not likely to define. That was consciousness control that led to mass madness; whole countries were running mad on a sudden; peoples behavior was becoming unexplainable.

            It is possible that the acute sense of belief raised by Altai in the ancestors of those people was declaring itself in such an absurd manner. And there may be other reasons. But they were controlled like a herd. And one cannot deny that. Showing humility they showed the enormous power of religion: who possesses peoples souls possesses the world. Their world!

            The Church really took possession of the West… One can regard the Crusades of 1096, 1147 and 1189 in different ways but one can also regard them as the Great Nations Migration that was happening in reverse. The crusaders were taken not to inhabit new lands but to die there. They are the dust of time, the ash of society, slaves (kulas) not of God but of the Pope. They were being killed with their own hands.

            Those were the Turki; the Pope would accept only them. Crusaders from modern England, France, Italy, Germany were united by common speech. The people were communicating without a translator, which is perhaps the most significant and unexpected thing. Their marching songs had been heard in Europe from Attila's times; that is a proven fact. Later they were called “the songs of pilgrims”, but the new name was given them later when the medieval history was being rewritten. At that time they had been called “marching” and “barbarian”…

            The first Crusade was successful: lots of corpses remained of the Pope's host; “bones of Christians” formed hills, an eyewitness wrote.

            The crusaders were not saved by a play performed by the clergyman Peter Barthol (Bartholomew) who “found” the “Holy Lance” – the weapons of eternal redemption. A Moslem lance put furtively by him – the one by which Christ's body had been allegedly hit – made no miracles but it raised the spirit of the crusaders and they believed in the miracle. And they also believed that the Moslems had been present in the East from the times of Christ… The swindler was brought to light later in a Turkic way; he was led “between two fires” – the method that had existed in Altai. They made two big fires close to each other and made him walk between them; he did so but his sides and stomach burned, which meant he had told a lie. That was it. The liar admitted the forgery at once; otherwise he would have been made to walk between two fires one more time.

            And there are too many other “miracles” that have not been disclosed… The ideology of the crusades was built on them. With centuries miracles have become the property of church rhetoric; time and believers perpetuated them. To the same extent it relates to three knights in white clothes, believers in Christ – Gregory, Fyodor and Maurice. They also allegedly came into view of blinded crusaders. To tell the truth, the Pope's legate Ademar was the only one who “saw” them…

            After all, these are sordid times when thoughts are under a ban.

            But who knows? Was not that prohibition a bargain between the politicians of East and West? The first bargain that started the secret diplomacy on the level of the clergy. That is not a rhetorical question; there are certain facts connected with it. During the Crusades merchants of slave-markets became fabulously rich, especially in 1212 after the childish crusades. Convoys of vessels with children were sailing from the Western Europe to Egypt, to slave-markets. In the port they were sold to Moslems for a trifling sum. Why?

            Why thousands and thousands of crusaders became slaves of the Moslems not putting their feet on their land? Defenseless children were delivered in crowds and crowds. Was that not the policy profitable for the Church? And the clergy did not turn red. It never turns red, unless of overeating.

            However, the character of an implacable religious war that has later been given to the Crusades was incorrect. And it could not be correct. That is confirmed, for example, by the history of the English king Richard I who was ready to agree for the marriage of his sister with the sultan's brother. Or the history of the French king Philip-Augustus who, in sign of friendship, used to send falcons to the sultan and receive Arabic horses in return… There are more than sufficient examples of normal human communication between East and West.

            Up to the middle of the XII century their relations had been quite normal, which is witnessed by existence of free Christians in Caliphate; their religious institutions were similar with Moslem ones. And that is perhaps the most significant thing. Eastern Christians, it turns out, did not eat pork, refrained from drinking wine, performed circumcision… they were called Mozarabs. The Mozarabic liturgy which, for instance, had been used in churches of Toledo, was receiving abuse of the Popes. But their discontent changed nothing there.

 

            ● An interesting detail. In the Catholic Church the Mozarabs were called in Latin adscititti derived from the Turkic ”adji”, i.e. “living with the sign of a cross”. But not Christians!

 

            The people, knowing each other, were striving after each other as relatives having the same ancestors. They remembered Altai… Of course, that was also politics. But without religion! Coreligionists were communicating: they were all living under the sign of a cross. Hence, by the way, is the name of the campaigns – the crusades; they were disputing because of the sign of Heavens. Kings of France (Philip-Augustus and Louis VIII) called Caliphate the Angevin Empire, i.e. “crusader land” derived from “adji” (anji) – a cross – again.

            What can be discussed here if in England when Off was reigning on the coins they used to mint: “Mohammed – the Prophet of One God (Tengri)”? Or if a cross as the symbol of Heavens in Caliphate was treated very respectfully but not to the same extent as in Europe? They did not pray to it; it was the memory of the Hanifs and the sources of Islam.

 

            ● In Koran (translated by Krachkovskiy) it is said: “Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a betrayed hanif and did not belong to the Polytheists”; and after that: “Allah tells the truth! Follow the religion of Abraham, a hanif, since he was not a Polytheist!” [3 60, 89].

            Knowing the pre-Christian period of Monotheism, being aware about the release of the Jews by Cyrus, it only remains to show surprise that theologians and historians did not pay their attention to these words from Koran. They contained the answer concerning toleration that had been peculiar to East and West before religious establishments were granted the status of political institute.

            After the Crusades an equilateral cross disappeared from Islam; it was turned into an eight-point star. If one looks at its center (a little lower) a cross is seen of its own accord. However, it remained on the flags of the Moslems for a long time. That is witnessed by the banners of the Tatars from the horde – the trophies of the XVII century exhibited in the Military Museum of Stockholm.

 

            The sultan Saladin did not return the Holy Cross to the Catholics not because of his cruelty or avarice. His conscience did not allow him encouraging idolatry, which he admitted to the king Richard. The arguments of a Moslem were rather weightier. That was seen during the negotiations about the holiness of Jerusalem during which they were speaking perfectly understanding each other. The both sides had common opinions about religion… So what was the difference between them – the Catholics and the Moslems? What caused the religious enmity? Nothing. Only politics.

            Masks in the political game were thrown off in 1204 during the fourth crusade. Masks were superfluous at that time; Deadly enmity with the Moslems receded to the background in western politics. It was forgotten… Lulling the vigilance of the Greeks, the Pope's servants wearing knights' armors did not move to liberate Jerusalem as usual but stayed in Constantinople. Simply stated that means they conquered the richest town of Europe calling it the Second Rome.

            For a week they were plundering the temples and did not manage to plunder them. Gold was taken out in bags; people did not know what to do and the ships could not bear such load. That was the most profitable military operation of the Middle Ages; no other wars gave greater loot… At that time the Pope declared the Latin Empire, a new European state.

            To tell the truth, everything was done in haste. The Empire existed not for along time but the political map of the continent remained different forever since a new page of the History was open – the Pope turned to church regions of Byzantium. West was searching for the routes and paths deeper in the steppes of the Eastern Europe.

            He was also attracted by Armenia, Georgia, Caucasian Albania; free lands from the viewpoint of the Catholics. But…

            The sun over the planet was shining in a different way; life was changing not only in Europe. In the East it was also becoming different. There the retribution force was raising; a grand and mighty force that was menacingly expanding like a cloud on the horizon; its name was Genghis Khan.

            Desht-I-Kipchak was awakening; it had to answer the aggression of the Christians who by that time had colonized one third of its territories.

            … It should be mentioned that after Attila the Turkic world was slowly decaying; it was falling into pieces. Flushing hatred was killing it. The Europeans no longer regarded Altai as their motherland; it was different for them. That is natural; peoples memory being polished for centuries and everyday cares narrow the horizon. From Baikal to the Atlantic, from Scandinavia to the Indian Ocean there was a life in which confrontations and affairs did not quite down. The Turki were slaughtering the Turki.

            Perhaps all the wars of the Middle Ages were religious wars, their wars: they were fighting in feuding armies. Some for the Italians, others for the Byzantines, some for the Arabs, other for themselves or for something else… Hirelings showed real “ethnic cannibalism” – they were eating each other. Those that had forgotten their relatives were the victims of the foreign politics.

            For them the Eternal Blue Sky faded away; their red-rimmed eyes could not distinguish soft divine colors. Civil discords split Attila's country and divided Europe into two parts in the V century – into the Christian and Arian parts.

            Following centuries continued the suffering of one part and exaltation of the other part of the Turkic families. They were living with foreign names. With foreign morals. As we know, force directed against itself is to fade out sooner or later and leave dust. Leaving this world the luckiest children of Altai got only one thing – a fathom of cold soil. Their fellow countrymen did not know their names; tombs could remain unknown. Christian. Moslem. Or just no one's… Whom did they want to astonish turning away from their mothers and fathers? Becoming strangers for their own nation? For their ancestor?!

 

            ● In this connection the book “Feudal Monarchy In France and England of the X – XIII Centuries” by the French historian Charles Petit-Dutaillis dedicated to royal power is indicative. Either intentionally or accidentally the author shows two states close in the cultures with related royal families. Everything seems to be different in them from the viewpoint of a European but for a Turki everything is the same. Psychological portraits of kings and people around them tell a lot. 

            After reading the book it becomes clear why Childeric, king of Franks, the founder of the dynasty of Merovingis, was buried in a barrow with his steed. Why there is a cross on coffins of the dynasty of Luxembourgs. Why there are forgotten Turkic symbols and signs in the surroundings of the European nobility? Just because it could not be otherwise with the Turki – those were their sings; that was their way of life… The Church prohibited a lot, for instance, to eat horse beef, drink koumiss, fist law. But it could not prohibit everything.

 

            During those uneasy centuries Altai seemed to be a deserted island in the ocean of politics. The West, having become Christian, was forgetting that. And it reminded about itself. It did so by the birth of a great Turki; the genius of all times and nations. His parents called him Temuchin. In the history of humankind he is equal to Attila. And even higher; no one has carried out more significant reformations in the whole long history of humankind.

            The boy's father, Esugei-Batagur, was ruling over Altaic foothills; he was poisoned by his enemies. They would have also killed his family, but his son with a dagger in his hands was standing on their way. The man of courage was thirteen years old; in his eyes the fire of revenge was burning and his face was shining like a ray of victory. The murderers, seeing that, were taken aback and threw up their hands, which saved the boy who was able to escape. He escaped. He gathered a troop and, through his mother's help, improved the shaken positions of the family.

            Years went by; people were uttering the name “Temuchin” with trepidation in their voices – the adults were in awe of the mind and fearlessness of the youth. Because his first deed was the revenge for his father, by which he recovered the respect for his family. That was the tradition. He made a wine bowl of the poisoner's skull and the rest of his enemies he simply slaughtered.

 

            ● Much has been written about the family tree of Genghis Khan; legends relate him to an ancient regal family, but such assumption is not likely to be well-founded, of which convinces the whole further history of the family. His ancestors had a low position in society; they belonged to the family of Borjigins which had not formerly proven itself. That was a common family like thousands of others; it could have been a remote descent of Kushans, which is witnessed by a bird on the family flag. But what bird was that? According to some sources it is a falcon, according to other sources it is an eagle.

            The Arabs, judging by the book “Djami at-Tavarih” by Rashid-ad-Din, referred Genghis Khan to a large Turkic family called Kiyat (Kiyan), i.e. “the remote”. According to a legend that family participated in the Great Nations Migration but later it returned to its historical place of living.

            A Mongolian legend tells a nice story about the unearthly origin of the family of Genghis Khan and about his virgin birth. “The descendants of these three brothers were called “Nirun”, “sinless conception” since according to Mongolian beliefs they were born by the light”. Such eminent attitude to the hero is explicable; but for sure it had nothing to do with reality. 

 

            Later Temuchin obtained power over Altai and he was given the name of Genghis Khan, i.e. the great khan. Another name would not have been suitable; he decided to revive the forgotten state – Altai – that would have changed Desht-I-Kipchak decrepitated in the course of centuries. The young man had a tough heritage; patriarchal orders threw the Altaians back; Christian West and Moslem East strengthened by the Turki, on the contrary, were moving on; they were leading a renewed life. There was a lot for the Altaic ruler to do.

            Temuchin decided to take what life could give not by force but by his mind; that was the peculiarity of the leader in seemingly hopeless situations… Indeed, how could he, not having anything except for his mind and belief, gather the strongest army? How did he manage to conquer half of the world? In appearance that was a common man with big blue eyes and a red beard; he did not look like a hero at all although he was rather tall.

            What did he start with while creating his great country? He stopped civil discords that were torturing everyone, arranged a code of laws – Yasa – from which “peacefulness and well-being for the subjects emanated”. In 1206 it was decaled at a kurultai (general meeting of the people). Laws protected the power of the Great Khan and each of his subjects; they provided death sentence for deceit, betrayal, failure to render assistance to a warrior on a battlefield, theft, adultery and even gossips and listening-in.

            The ruler himself and his people were living according to Yasa; there were no exceptions. Even swore enemies became silent seeing the justice of the power of Genghis Khan who was proving without fail that if one does not comply with Yasa “the state will be lost and cease to exist”. Without strict laws or, more precisely, without strict execution thereof, there is no country and no nation. And that was right.

            But Yasa was not his greatest public undertaking. “People of different beliefs must leave in peace, - declared Genghis Khan. – We will become brothers again”.

            No one on the whole planet had had that light thought. Everywhere religion was turned into politics. It was dividing and embroiling people while in this case it was uniting them. It is striking, East and West, the Christians and the Moslems, setting the nations on to fight were finding out whose religion was better, and an Altaic Turki reminded everyone of Heavenly God that created this world.

 

            ● The idea that Genghis Khan was a “wild nomad” and “illiterate person” is absolutely wrong. It is known that he was well educated in the field of religion, law and secrets of engineering. Close to him were “educated people” that would consult the ruler and give lessons to him and his nearest. Such a teacher was, for instance, Tata-tung-Ko (the name taken from a Chinese source in the Chinese transcription); later he held an important administrative office.

 

            The world is perfect when the Most High rules over it. That is the whole philosophy of Genghis Khan. But there was a lot in the background of that seeming simplicity – belief in God that gave people the rules of conduct in society, directed towards the deeds and made honor and conscience top of priorities.

            Belief gathered under the flags of Altai those that valued peace and justice. Not the “crusaders” united in a mad sword. People of different religions went to the army of Genghis Khan themselves; they felt fraternity there having one Father – God… Unfortunately there are not many documents remaining from that great epoch when one man armed with the Word gathered the strongest army. He had neither money nor power. Only the Word.

            Of course God helped him.

            In the eastern and western literature there are interesting details which turn out to be absolutely unusual for the unaccustomed men in the street. The Englishmen, Genoese, Franks and other Europeans were among the first that came to serve Genghis Khan since they had been attracted by Catholicism for a long time. Those very “heretics” described above. He had the troops of the Moslems that also wanted to fight for the pure belief and justice. There were no “wild nomads” or “pagan Tatars” there! Everybody knew that Genghis Khan’s code obliged to have mercy on towns and nations submitting voluntarily; they knew that Yasa exempted from taxes those temples and monasteries dedicated to Heavenly God…  

            This significant example tells a lot about with what Altai was living. And how it was living.

            Here we cannot do without the lines from the letter of the Pope Gregory IX who was bothered because the Europeans had left for the East being displeased with the Church. Accusing Frederick II, the head of the Sicilian court, who admired Genghis Khan, the Pope wrote: that evil king declares “that the world was seduced by three deceivers – Jesus Christ, Moses and Mohammed – and two of them died in favor and the third one – on a cross. More than that, he asserts that only fools can believe that a virgin could give birth to a child whose father was God, the creator of the Universe; he says, finally, that a man should believe only what has been proven by the facts or common sense”.

            And the opinion of Frederick II was shared by a lot in Europe. At the palaces where dukes and barons lived, in the huts of common people one could hear the prohibited verses of a categorical content: “Destiny tells us, stars and birds flying foretell that in the future there will be only one hammer for the whole world. Rome that has taken the way of sins is shaking and will soon collapse and cease to be the capital of the world”. Of course the verses were in Turkic language and sounded rhythmically. Who is their author? Maybe Genghis Khan or Frederick II themselves; at any rate they accurately expressed the sense of the words uttered by the ruler of Altai.

            It means the connection between East and West was not interrupted in the XIII century… It turns out the punitive crusade against the Cathars started by the Pope in the south of France in 1213 and continued later cannot be called accidental. Maybe that was the place from which they used to leave for serving Genghis Khan?.. Here is the reason to think: the Truth captivated western society; in the following centuries it also found passionate followers that finally led the West to the Reformation.

            And the opinion of Genghis Khan that the Pope was stranger on this planet hardly needs any comments. The Pope responded harshly; the Catholic world was shocked… Of course Altai had diplomatic contacts with the West; the Eurasian world was aware of Genghis Khan’s code, Of its first line. And it ran: “We order everyone to believe in One God, the Creator of the sky and the earth, one giver of wealth and poverty, life and death having might in all the deeds”.

            It is hard to imagine that these are the thoughts and words of a Turki whom the Europeans call a pagan now.

            Wise Genghis Khan being sure in the strength of belief in Heavenly God allowed his subjects Christianity, Islam, Buddhism – whatever they wanted at their choice – but after the communal prayed to the Most High. In his army ceremonies of other religions were not prohibited; “one just had to believe in God in his soul and the victory will come”, - he was teaching since he understood the Truth of life being twenty eight years old. For that he was called Sutu-Bogdo or the Son of the Sky.

            English historian Edward Gibbon wrote on this subject: “The religion of Genghis Khan deserves our astonishment and praise. While in Europe the Catholics used to fall back on the cruelest measures so as to defend nonsense. They could have been brought to shame by the example of a barbarian that anticipated the teaching of philosophy setting by his laws the system of pure deism and full tolerance. His only and the most important dogma of belief was God that created all the good and filled with his presence the sky and the earth which are created by his might”.

            These words convince of the fact that in medieval Europe there was a secret interest to forgotten roots of their former religion. And the best example is not even the words by Gibbon but an excellent work of an English philosopher John Locke, the founder of liberalism. In the XVII century, not realizing that, he repeated the religious conception of Genghis Khan but in a different scientific language. Word for word.

            Of course the striking similarity of thoughts – in details! – is not accidental; the knowledge of the scientist was being accumulated not in his conscience but rather in his bones. His blood was speaking. That is what the Pope was afraid of; that is what he organized the Crusades for. He was afraid that the Turkic Catholics would remember Altai, belief in Heavenly God and come to the conclusion of needlessness of the Pope and his retinue that were born away with politics and only politics.

            People, even if they are besotted by the Church, are dangerous because sooner or later the genetic memory will awake in them and regaining conscience after being intoxicated they will act. Nonsense and myths will no longer be a religion for them…

            Genghis Khan is called a “Mongol”, drawn with narrow eyes and looking like a Turki in his face and clothes. And that is another trick of the West and its science that deliberately distorts the past. Because of fear. Altaic “barbarians” had a different appearance; according to the description of contemporaries he had big blue eyes, exquisite and a little bit broad face, thick red beard; his father had green eyes and hence is the name of the family – Green-Eyed (Borjigin) – the Turki compared such eyes with unripe currant. The appearance of the father and son was exactly the same as had their ancestors who were taken to Europe by the waves of the Great Nations Migration. Europeans? That is what eyewitnesses asserted. But the politicians dealing with science disagreed. Who is right?

            And how important is that? A man is known by his deeds and actions but not his face. Genghis Khan was the most beautiful Turki in the world since he was living with belief in Heavenly God. And that is what the man was…

            By the way, the word “Mongolian” appeared while Genghis Khan was alive. Maybe a little earlier. How? Unfortunately details are not quite clear here. But in 1206 the ruler of Altai declared to his subjects: “The people that connect themselves with me are against everybody; the people that armed my powerful thoughts by their great strength. Those people, pure like a mountain crystal, I would like to be called Keke-Mongol”. (That means “heavenly happiness”).

            That is where the word “Mongols” appears to come from.

            In the lips of Genghis Khan the word meant not people but happiness that belief gives to the people. That was the delicate design without any ethnic implication. “Mongol”, “Mongal” and “Mogul” were considered to be synonyms in the Middle Ages; a national idea was standing behind them – it was strengthening not an individually taken nation but nations standing under the flag of One God accepting Genghis Khan’s code… Tolerance was peculiar to Altai in its policy and activities. And that cannot be neglected.

            The Western Church was propagating “new” nations; Caliphate was denying national roots calling the Moslems “Arabs” while Genghis Khan called for the unity of mankind. To the relations between the people who have one father and one mother – Adam and Eve. He was searching for what can unite and reconcile. That is what was irritating both for the West and Caliphate – the policy of Altai which was more challenging.

            Of course ethnic sense of the word “Mongol” was not in question at that time.

 

            … The Chinese whom Altai paid impost were the first to know the strength of the army of Genghis Khan. The Emperor was astonished by the coming of faraway ambassadors and their request. And it was clear as day: Altai established impost to the Chinese Emperor, that “paltriest of all men living”. Hearing this revelation, the Chinese lost tongue. But it was quickly returned to them. Genghis Khan entered China, surrounded ninety towns and took them by storm. A huge Chinese army was groaning of its powerlessness. The riders filled with consternation; in small troops they appeared out of nowhere and disappeared after a sudden attack. They would hit and retreat; that was the Turkic tactics against a stronger enemy.

            It is commonly supposed that the Chinese invented a compass, which is wrong. They had already had a compass by that time. The genius of Genghis Khan was also present there; he proved to know China better than the Chinese. He waged a war successfully because of knowledge obtained by reconnaissance, which meant dealing with geographical maps. And of course geodetic instruments without which a map cannot be created; those were a compass and astrolabe which the Turki had had since their “steppe” history, i.e. from the I century.

            The army was steadily moving on; reconnaissance – one of the achievements of Genghis Khan! – was acting faultlessly in the campaign; it was foretelling the events of tomorrow. The Chinese received one blow after another; those blows were always unexpected and hit the most tender place. The Emperor's officials had nothing to do but to invite the messengers of Genghis Khan and agree to pay impost to the Turki.

            However, these actions of Genghis Khan cannot be called a conquest – that is wrong. Altai and China had too much in common, which is seen even from toponyms. Those were rather two parts of a big country of the Central Asia, of one single culture. Of the Great Victorious Empire – the motherland of common ancestors: the cult of the Sky rallied them long before the Common Era. They were not a state in the customary sense of this word because in ancient times there were different conceptions of a state. It seems that was a simple change of the leaders that happened then like it happens in every big empire as time goes by…

            By the second campaign Genghis Khan seized power over the North China. But the military leader would not have been the wisest of the wise if he had not been selective. God was opening him what others had not noticed. In salvoes of a salute made in his honor he saw a gun – firing arms. And he understood that in the hands of the Chinese gunpowder is the key to the medieval world while they would spent it on salvoes not having the slightest idea about that.

            Western scientists describe invincible armies of Genghis Khan as the hordes of “wild nomads” (exactly the same as it was with Attila), but they keep silent about technical innovations. For example, about firecrackers – the forbearers of artillery… A book should be written to tell about Genghis Khan as the military leader. That was an artist on the battlefield; he would always invent something new. For instance, he gave every rider two horses so that he could change them during a campaign, and the army became twice as fast. The cavalry of Genghis Khan would appear a little earlier than it was expected by the enemy. Its blow would be precise and unexpected.

            In simple steppe thorns he saw defensive arms – an iron thorn. He used them to break up assaults of his enemies and break up any pursuit scattering the thorns before the coming enemy. Everything in his army was inimitable like in a great artist's studio.

            … The next country after China on the way of Genghis Khan was Caliphate – a Moslem country where lived the descendants of the Parthians, Bactrians, Kushans – in a word, the Turki that had left Altai. They had not had the unity for a long time. Mohammed, the bigheaded sultan of Khorezm reigning on the lands from the Persian Gulf and the boundaries of India to Desht-I-Kipchak was acting disgracefully. Not like a Moslem. He secretly was feeling with the sect of Ismaelites that was developing the theory of Islam in its own way; it had different views on Monotheism and Koran. Their views were strangely close to those of the Catholics; the same philosophy of “vicariate”.

 

            ● The idea of vicariate found its followers among the adherents of different branches of Islam. Thus an inscription in Baghdad made in 1221 provided by V.V. Bartold adequately explains this thought. The Caliph Nasir called himself “the imam whom all the people should obey”, “the caliph of God of the worlds”. Self-exaltation was becoming normal among spiritual leaders both in Caliphate and in the Western Europe. It seems that is how the process of decay of spirit expressed itself while, according to a Turkic tradition, the clergy was to keep it. Changing the Turkic traditions of belief religious leaders were destroying the belief itself. Thus one of the caliphs of Baghdad receiving “Egyptian ambassadors was sitting on the throne with a cloak of a prophet on his shoulders, with a sword of a prophet on his belt and with a staff of a prophet in his hands; to the question of the ambassador astonished by such luxury: “Is it not Allah himself?” – the ruler allegedly replied: “It is his deputy on the Earth”. 

            Arrogance, conceit and ostentatious luxury of the clergy gave rise to protests among the true believers. Hence was the growth of “sects” and “heretical” currents and dissents that became peculiar to the world of the Christians and Moslems. That is why the words Genghis Khan said about the purity of belief were clearly heard both in the West and in the East.

 

            The great sultan realized who was standing in front of him not at once!

            Genghis Khan did not want to fight with the Moslems; he was searching for friendship and a union with his Turkic brothers living in Caliphate; he offered them beneficial trade through the “silk route”. In 1218 he sent a caravan with expensive gifts to the sultan. But the latter attacked the caravan; the merchants were killed and the goods were stolen. Genghis Khan claimed for gratification but Mohammed killed the ambassadors suspecting menace in them. After that humiliated Moslems themselves turned to “the great protector of all the Turki”, as it is written in their appeal. They were being displeased with the sultan having the soul of a slave that was waiting for the moment to proclaim himself the Arabic “Pope”, i.e. Allah's vicar on the earth (Aga-khan).      

 

            ● Details of those events are read in the “Collection of Chronicles” by Rashid-ad-Din as well as in a priceless work by V.T. Tisensgausen “Collection of Materials Relating to the History of the Golden Horde” (page 376). However, reading the eastern literature one should be as careful as reading the literature of the West, - by the reason of political bias of the authors.

            It is very difficult to get the facts but it is rather more difficult to analyze them.

 

            The answer to the profaner of Monotheism was immediate.

            But before that, as a legend says, according to a tradition of ancestors Genghis Khan climbed on top of a mountain and addressed to Tengri. He was waiting for an answer for three days and three nights, for tree days and three nights he had neither a crumb of bread nor a drop of water in his mouth; the wind was chilling him satisfying his thirst. When he was descending from the mountain he knew what to do. Seeing the leader the warriors started to chant: “Tengri, Tengri”. And pray Him… Belief purifies consciousness, indeed.       

            Hurrah shouted by thousands of voices and strengthened by echo was heard around.

 

            ● Europe was hearing the shout “hurrah” from Attila's time and slowly getting used to it. To tell the truth, if one wants to be more precise, they were shouting not “hurrah” but “hurray”, which in the ancient Turkic language meant “save and have mercy”. Its another meaning is “hit”, “smash”, i.e. a call for an attack. That shout stampeded the Roman troops in 312; the Romans got used to it not at once…

 

            New troops of the Moslems were gathering under the flags of Altai; there were about seven hundred thousand riders. Two great forces, two cultures personifying the East at that time were to fight. The world had not seen such fights in the times of Attila. Heavenly Altai against Caliphate, face to face.

            Voltaire wrote about that fight: “Our European battles are nothing more than insignificant confrontations compared with multiplicity of armies that were fighting and perishing in Asian plains”. That was a grandiose battle scene which is worth perpetuating in panorama. The world has seen a combat of that king neither before nor after. One and half a million people gathered in an open field. The battle near the Syr-Darya river started in the morning and was over on the third day at night.

            Genghis Khan was proficiently making history; everything would become subject to him. They say that “every doctor cures with his own remedy”… Complacence turned out to be a curable disease too.

            During the first hours of the battle the conceited sultan lost half of his army and after that it flashed upon him that he was facing the army over which Ala – the guardian angel of the Turki – spread his wings: that was an invincible army fighting for the triumph of belief in Heavenly God. From that moment he was thinking not about the victory but about how to escape.

 

            ● It is reasonable to suppose that that was the time the sultan became stumble at his correct understanding of Koran. In 20^th sura (ayat 102) it is said: the sinners will be gathered for the Last Judgment by the “blue-eyed”. Genghis Khan's blue eyes full of anger strengthened his fear before the unexpected discovery. Maybe at that time the sultan understood: a true believer is not the one surrounded by power, luxury and wealth and not the one spending his days in ostentatious praying and ceremonies observance. But the one living under the laws of the Most High – for the people. Like Genghis Khan.

            True belief is in peoples souls and conduct; it is never shown to the public. God sees it as it is.

 

            … The battle flag of Genghis Khan was called “sulde” – “vital life”, “spirit”. Hence, by the way, are the English and German words – “soul” and “seele” – respectively; those years they were uttered in that Turkic manner. The same as the word “sultan”.

            Sulde and Yasa were the voice of the Sky. They raised military spirit giving forces and firmness to the army. For instance, in 1221 – 1222, when reconnaissance detachment headed by the khan Djebe and his assistant Subutai found its way to the Caucasus, the local Kipchaks were not resisting for a long time because they were told about the holy war declared by Altai. The war for the triumph of Monotheism.

            The Great campaign – for the truth – started with that detachment. The campaign “up to the last sea”. The campaign known in the history of Russia as the Tatar – Mongol invasion. Those were not wild hordes of the nomads… In the history of humankind there are no similar examples; a detachment consisting of two tumens (twenty thousand riders) managed to march from Samarkand to Kiev; the route comparable with that of Alexander the Great, but the regiment did more than the whole army of the latter if, of course, it really existed. The riders made 120-versts marches; they had no halting days during 12 days and thus exceeded all the military standards of the West.

            The detachment was regarded as a phantom, as the messenger of the Sky; meeting it nobody dared raise their eyes on the flag of Genghis Khan – everybody inclined their heads before him.

            The reconnaissance entered the Eastern Europe almost without a fight. Those were painful lands; from the IX century the Greeks were embroiling the local khans there. Later the Catholics joined the altercation… It turns out that sending the detachment Genghis Khan knew what was happening in those regions of Desht-I-Kipchak. He also knew about the Christian invasion there and about their disgraceful policy of discord.

            And the ruler of the East, strengthening horse-tails, decided to redress an injustice; he ordered the reconnaissance to move so far until they meet the last Turki. And who would have done otherwise? Genghis Khan was not going to conquer foreign lands; he hastened to reach his brothers that were in trouble. His decisions were fully righteous.

 

            In 1223 the detachment reached the boundaries of the Western world – Kievan Russia. Was that an independent country? It depends… By the end of the X century the Ukraine deviated from Monotheism and became the eastern bulwark of the Christian Empire. But does the change of religion alter the state or ethnic status of a country? This is a question requiring a very serious discussion.

            Here, in its new colony, the West decided to stop the heavenly army. Of course the battle took place not because two ambassadors were meanly killed in Kiev; that was the confrontation of two worldviews, two cultures, two policies.

            The events were commensurate with circumstances: the murder of the ambassadors stopped the dialogue for peace. The Christians had no arguments for the dialogue about God; they wanted a war. Kiev showed that the East was not its friend… The first alienation took place under Valdemar I (the Prince Vladimir “Red Sun”); at that time the Russian princes started their famous altercation; its actual reasons are not covered by the Russian history. They are never discussed. And during that altercation the Arians were acting against the Catholics since Valdemar made Catholicism the official religion of Kievan Russia; his marriage and further reigning were possible only upon that condition.

 

            ● Penetration of the Catholics into Kiev was happening in a way familiar to Rome – through dynastic marriages. Helga (Olga) was the first; her story is known except for perhaps the most important details. For instance, there were relations between her and Otto I the Great, the German Emperor. Relations of what kind? What was Adalbert, the bishop of Magdeburg invited by Olga, doing in Kiev? Why did the Byzantine Church object to canonization of Helga-Olga-Helen as an Orthodox Saint?.. These are not easy questions; behind them there is what it is customary not to mention. And there are too many such questions. 

            Yaroslav the Wise, the son of Vladimir “Red Sun”, married a Catholic, the daughter of Olav (380) the Saint. Sister of Yaroslav the Wise, Maria, married Polish king; his daughters, Elizabeth and Anastasia, married Norwegian and Hungarian kings, respectively, and his daughter Anna married French king Henry I…Why? Inter-confessional marriages were strictly prohibited by the Church.

            Why was Valdemar (Vladimir) proclaimed “king” after the baptism of Russia and is not called so nowadays? Instead appeared the title “Basilei” (ruler) which in course of time turned into the name “Basil”. Are not there too many exceptions in this story?

 

            Everything in Kiev was happening by the Pope's will since then… So the town was the terminal point of the reconnaissance of Genghis Khan not accidentally.

            The famous battle with the Russians (Normans) whose army, strengthened by the Catholics from Europe, was five times bigger than that of Altai happened on May 30^th, 1223. Everything was on its side then. Except for God. “We have done you no harm, - the Mongols said for the last time. – God is one for all: He will judge us!”. But the Russians were keeping silent stubbornly.

            The battle commenced. The reconnaissance of Genghis Khan was retreating in haste; the Christians started a pursuit stretching their huge army into versts. Their advantage was fading away every minute. Only near the Kalka river he realized what had happened, but that was too late. A real battle started near Kalka… That was the very devil of life. The small detachment defeated the huge army on which the Pope was relying in his dreams of the Second Rome in the East of Europe.

            But God created hell for the demons to die there, as far as we know…

            The “Mongol – Tatar yoke” in Russia begins from Kalka; they invented “countless hordes” moving from the East. Why? There are no explanations. And after all, what is a “yoke”?

            It was invented in Saint-Petersburg, during the days of the 600^th anniversary of the defeat of Kalka, i.e. in 1823. Those three different words were for the first time used together by a schoolteacher Naumov; the public enjoyed them and since then children have been frightened by the Tatars. But any untruth is also dangerous because it gives birth to another untruth. After that in the same manner the South Russia was invented and the Mongols allegedly invaded it in 1223. To tell the truth, nobody has ever heard about that country and there are no documents where it is referred to. By that time the Normans were leaving the political scene; they were not able to create one more Russia.

            And they have not created it!

            On the geographical map lands lying south and south-east of Kievan Russia were called “Tataria” or “the Great Tataria”. People living there were called the Tatars. Modern Crimean Tatars are the split of that time. There is nothing to discuss here – it is the same Desht-I-Kipchak and its people… The history of Russia was being deliberately distorted and the same went for the history of Bulgaria, Serbia and other countries where the Turkic khanates were being turned into “Christian Slavic” principalities with the invented past.

            And the word “ige” (in the Russian language “yoke” is pronounced as “igo”), by the way, is far from being ominous – it means master, power. For the first time in Europe it was heard in Scandinavia after the Turki had come there. New power – the power which is riding a horse – was called so. That power was personified by Odin – Vatan whose another name was Igg according to Scandinavian sagas.

            The same yoke came to the Eastern Europe. In other words after Kalka the khanates of the Eastern Europe wallowed in altercations recognized the destiny of Sulde and Genghis Khan’s code. Peace came to their lands. That is what happened then… Of course the yoke took place! But what kind of a yoke was that?

            The new power (ige) gave the Christians new names: the Golden Horde, the Blue Horde… “Horde” changed “chaganat”; that was just a change of “signs”. Instead of one administrative unit of Desht-I-Kipchak appeared another since Genghis Khan had reformed the social system; he abandoned the elections of the government and ordered to delegate power by inheritance. Like in Europe. That was a gross mistake witnessing of his unroyal origin; the “conqueror of the Universe” thus cancelled everything he had conquered.

            Alas, the intention to delegate power to the children and guarantee their well-being is an intention of a commoner: the abandonment of elections of the ruler deprives society of development and leaves the strong at a loose end… It seems to be the truth that shooting can never be without missing. And that is right even for Genghis Khan who abolished those tournaments for the right to be called the strongest.

            In ancient times the name of the Turkic ruler – “chagan” – was pronounced as “kekhan”, i.e. “heavenly khan”, “the highest ruler”. The choice was considered to be made by God.

            The chagan was being elected from among the khans; the khans were to gain such right by their feats… There was a series of feats in the name of Heavenly God and the people… This is what was written by Marco Polo in the XIII century: “They elect the rulers of regions; after he dignified one is elected, the great khan is reported about that; the great khan approves of the elected and bestows him a golden plate”, i.e. the symbol of power. A token. That is what was happening after Genghis Khan. For that moment elections of the rulers of regions remained.

            But the great khan, or the tsar, had no face any longer. He was nobody. Yes, the throne was taken by a descendant of Genghis Khan, so what? The Turki respected their leader not for his origin but for his deeds. Everybody knew that a feat in the name of Heavenly God makes a farmhand a khan and a khan – a chagan… No one of the sons of Genghis Khan was alike their father. Dull ordinary persons with red noses. They decided that a country “created riding a horse could not be controlled riding a horse”; the huge empire was divided into parts, which happened to be the beginning of its end. The elder son, Djuchi, took the lands west of Altai, but his son – Baty – was reigning there while he was not even called a khan. They used to say “Sainkhan” – “Bumpkin” – with laughter. He was fond of luxury, long table-talks; his life was sweet and funny and the people saw no use of it. 

            It is striking. Genghis Khan, the ruler of a billion subjects, the owner of untold wealth, kept himself aloof from luxury; he wore common clothes made of linen which is still kept in the museum of Beijing; and the grandson was interested neither in the states nor in wars. He was an idler… Baty waged wars which were successful, but that was not by his will!

            Thirty thousands riders were standing under his flag – the Cossacks of Dnepr, Don and Itil and among them there were only four thousand “Mongols” (which came from Altai) – they were sent by Baty's uncle – Oktay. He also appointed Subutay military leader! That was a real warrior! Giving respectful orders Subutay made Baty move on.

            Thus in 1237 the horde aggregated the Tatars of Ryazan to Genghis Khan’s code and calmed down the Russian prince in Vladimir. In 1240 Kiev, “the mother of Russian towns”, learnt what the payment for the betrayal of belief was. After that on the way of the army were Buda and Pest, Prague, Krakow, Pojeg and other towns that became “Christian and Slavic” on the spot. Subutay brought to shame Polish, Bohemian, Teutonic, Hungarian knights which had the reputation of the best in the Pope's army. Europe did not know a military leader of that level… And if he was straight as an arrow, malignant persons would be found; only dirty things are written about the Tatars. They were too strong, which is never forgiven.

            But the facts remain.

            In the hands of Subutay there were threads stretching from European countries; he – not the Pope! – was conducting the policy of the world then. However, the Pope was approachable for him especially after the marriage of a French knight Baldwin Gueno and the Turkic princess in 1240. The marriage was obviously political; it opened the road to the court of the French king who was stubbornly searching for rapprochement with the East.

            Edward Gibbon wrote about those days which were hard for the Christians: “The whole country north of Danube was lost in one day, during one summer it was deprived of its population and the ruins of towns and churches were bestrewed with bones of the natives that had forfeited for the sins of their Turkic ancestors”. That is what he called the Hungarians, Czechs, Poles – “the natives”.

            Europe turned out to remember its “Turkic ancestors”; it knew that Baty followed Genghis Khan’s code – to move forward until the Turkic world stopped. This knowledge terrified the Europeans; it staggered them with the inevitability of requital. Those were dreadful times. In Baty's invasion the plot of the Apocalypse was read; people were talking about the Justice of Heaven.

            The Hungarian king was the first to forfeit: at first he was delivered an ultimatum, and after that he was defeated. The Poles were defeated by Baty-khan, which happened under Sidlov, and then he burnt down Krakow and Breslavl. Europe was moaning. But it believed in justice of this Judgment descending on it.

            It is interesting that Subutay did not enter the lands of the Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen. That very one… Why? That German Emperor, as we know it, was at enmity with the Pope and kept company with the Moslems. But that is not what deserved attention, but the first five letters of the name that the family had not had before it was elected to take the throne: now they write “Hohen” and at that time it was “chagan”.

            Those were the last chagans of Desht-I-Kipchak; from 1197 they were also reigning in the Sicilian Kingdom. The relics devoted to Altai. They stubbornly kept on calling their power Hunia. That is whom the Pope was fighting with. With Frederick I Barbarossa, Henry VI, Frederick II; the ancestors of those famous Germans were Attila's warriors and military leaders – they spoke the Turkic language and believed in the Eternal Blue Sky. Among their family names the name of Conrad was especially respected. That is why Subutay did not touch the lands of his blood brothers and passed them by.

 

            ● There were a lot of similar lands in the West. For instance, Anjou region in the lower reaches of Loire; the Turkic speech was widespread there – the river was called Lu-aryk (Dragon's river). The region became famous in the V century when a horde from Attila's army escaped there. As a matter of fact that horde gained a foothold in the north-east of France. Which horde was that? It is difficult to say, but a dragon was its totem.

            The toponym Anjou (and other derivatives from “adji”) is rather widespread on the map of Eurasia; it is the symbol of Altai. And of the Turki, of course. Anjero-Sudjensk, Adjodaha, Anji, Anga, Andjana, Andijan, Adjitarkhan, Adjiyurt… those were the places where the refugees used to hide. God saved them there.

            The counts of Anjou were the sovereigns, the same as the counts of Flanders and Toulouse. The European dynasty was finally established in the IX century; its founders are Ingelger and his son Fulk the Red that became the first count of Anjou. That family left a trace in the history of France, England and Europe in general. The family was very famous in the Middle Ages; its representatives could be the example of the Turkic appearance. As a rule, they were “tall, broad-shouldered, with a bull-neck and strong hands, red, with a hard strident voice, clear eyes which were very pleasant when they were calm and were fulminating in anger”. That is the description by Henry II, the khan of Anjou and English king; he did not find it appropriate for himself to speak English. 

 

            One April 9^th, 1241 two best forces of East and West started a battle under Liegnitz. They could not fail to fight with one another. Due to numerical inferiority of the Europeans victory was again on their side. Having surrounded the enemy, the knights were getting ready to finish the fight. But Subutay did not intend to loose; maneuvering his army he defeated both flanks of the enemy. Clumsy knights did not even understand what had happened. And how… That was the only army of the Catholics. 

            Those were the most terrifying moments; the riders were slowly marching towards Rome and stopped to take a rest on the shore of the Adriatic Sea. There were no reasons to put the result of the campaign in doubt: the Catholic Turki were to be subjected to their rulers and not to the Pope – that is what Altai had decided. The phrase shouted by Baty's herald to the defending Croatians and Hungarians is indicative: “Baty-khan, the head of invincible army, tells you not to defend the king and his people that are alien to you by birth and give them into our hands” (bold provided. – M.A.).

            That phrase was uttered in the Huns' language clear to the Croatians, Hungarians and Tatars themselves. It should be mentioned that there were no language problems in that war; everybody understood each other in the proper and figurative sense.

            It is impossible to imagine what was going on in Europe. It was full of panic and fear; people were waiting for the Justice of Heaven and discussing it. They were terrified not by the Tatars themselves but the order they were carrying; the Europeans were afraid of Genghis Khan’s code. They were afraid of responsibility before their congeners. Western society was demoralized; the Pope Gregory IX died of suffering; he was followed by the newly elected Pope Celestine and there were difficulties connected with the election of a new Pope. The bishops were full of superstitious fear; they did not hasten to try the Pope's tiara. Elections lasted for two years.

            The Catholics seemed to remember the words of Genghis Khan who said that the Pope was unnecessary on the Earth. In a word, the Church had no power.

            And in the meantime one detachment of Baty's reconnaissance entered Austria and without any resistance placed to take a rest there. Europe was full of apathy having lost itself. But the inhabitants of Gottland (Sweden) were panicking more openly than others; they stopped catching herring and putting to sea being afraid to bring Baty behind. Markets were closed; streets were full of people blind with fear and not knowing where to run. They were waiting for an invasion day and night, like one condemned to death is waiting for the hour of release. “God, save us from the Tatar rage”, - the Europeans used to pray.

            In England appeared an expression: “To catch a tartar” (to fight with a Tatar), i.e. “to fight with an admittedly stronger rival”.

            Europe was saved by chance. In March of 1242, before the attack, people in the headquarters learnt about the death of Baty's uncle, and he was acting as though he was replaced. He was tossing in tears and wanted to hear of no campaigns. The military leader was in a difficult situation: knots were tied but he could not attack without a khan – that was the tradition.

            The army matured for the victory was standing on the cross-road.

            About one and a half or two months were necessary to finish one of the most excellent pages in the military history of humankind. Standing on his knees Baty was praying Subutai to leave him home; the puny one was tempted by nothing, even by victory. He left the army to the mercy of fate showing shameful stampede of a winner. That was perhaps for the first time in history.

            However, Subutai knew that wisdom could succeed in everything. In order to keep the face of the army he moved forward a detachment of reconnaissance showing that his intentions were serious. In the name of Baty he sent a letter to the king of France which began: “In the name of the Sovereign God I order you, the king Louis, to obey me and solemnly declare what you want – peace or war?..”. The answer was sad but not without inspiration: “Heavenly solace supports us! Because if the Tatars reach us or we follow them, that is the same – we will go to Heaven”.

            Refusal to resist was read in every line. The king wanted neither peace nor war; imminence broke down one of the greatest rulers of France… Looking ahead let us mention that Louis IX the Saint glorified himself by communication with the East. He was very near to being elected sultan of Caliphate; people there knew that he belonged to a royal Altaic family; they knew that the ancestors of the family ruling in France had served Attila and when they had started to serve Aetius their horde had been called “Franks”… This tells something to an unbiased person, doesn’t it? And it will always be telling. The same as the fact that the word “sir” (“tsar” in Turkic) was widely used by the members of French dynasties… What is more, Carl the Great organized his campaign to the East to get Attila's crown…

            Here it is, “Altai” in Europe; Genghis Khan ordered to release it to control. The Turki respected Louis the Saint for his origin. By the way, he was close to converting Baty into Christianity. But that was to happen later.

 

            ● Unfortunately, people failed to find the early version of the spelling of the name “Louis the Saint”. In the tradition of that time the names of European Turki consisted of two halves – “western” and “eastern” ones – which is known. How was his “eastern” name pronounced? It is most likely that it was pronounced like “san”, which in the ancient Turkic language meant “respect”, “esteem”. It seems that later in Europe that word was transferred into sanctus. Other versions are also possible – adji, for instance. In any case he could not be called “saint” while he was alive as against “respected” or “esteemed”.

            It is indicative that back in the V century the word “saint” was met neither in Rome nor in Byzantium. But it was well-known in communities of Egypt and the North Africa. It was also known in Rome.

           

            …In the spring of 1242 Baty's reconnaissance detachment was smashing European towns while the army was retreating – that is the way Subutai was cunning. But his ruse of war was not missed by other Turkic eyes from the family of Hohenstaufens. They understood what was happening and did not want to let slip their chance; they started following the retreating army in order to attack its rear… But that is to be discussed later; that was an important moment not only in the history of Europe but rather of Russia.

            Sabutai's maneuver seemed to be successful and through the king Louis the Saint he declared that he forgave the Europeans that had renounced the belief in Heavenly God.

            Only then Europe heaved a sigh of relief.

 

CHANGING THE WEST

 

            Unfortunately it is not customary to tell a lot about the Tatar campaign in the West that has always been scant of certain details. And that is clear since those events arouse not very pleasant memories. And Sabutai saved Arianism in the east of Europe; he gave it a couple of centuries of life because the shaking Church could not waste its time on eastern colonies and ideological rivals.

            It was licking its wound.

            Arianism remained in Lithuania; the “Norman” Rus was still alive there. Islets of the north belief remained in other Russian lands – in Novgorod, Pskov, Suzdal, Rostov. Antiquity of their temples and monasteries speaks for itself; they all appeared with the arrival of the Normans, i.e. starting from the IX century, and were called in a Varangian way. At that time Novgorod was Kholmgrad; it was founded in 859, Rostov was founded a little later – in 862, and Pskov was called Altynbur… Those comfortless marshy territories with severe winters were considered to be the backyards of Europe; they were remembered only speaking about fur, wax and the edge of the world.

            The Pope failed to reach those lands since they were poorly populated; unchristian Europe with its inconspicuous culture based there…

            This is not an insignificant circumstance; it made for the fact that there, to the islet of Monotheism, early in the XII century came the son of the Kievan prince Valdemar II (Vladimir Monomakh) with his retinue in search of reigning, solitude and peace. The youth's name was Giurgi; he made it into history like Yuri Dolgorukiy, the founder of Moscow, the prince of Suzdal. That was not a common person, as it is customary to suppose, but it is better to say “not revealed” or “not understood”.

            Practically nothing is known about him and his mother. Even their birthdates. But much is known about his stepmother, a Catholic, daughter of the English king Herald. The same as about his sisters and brothers that were Catholics too.

            It is likely that Roman orders that had barged in Kiev were alien to Yuri and he left his ancestral home… How? It is possible that by the secret will of his father who wanted one of his sons to be an Arian. That is possibly the reason. But the coming of Yuri Dolgorukiy to the North was marked by the transfer of the capital of Green Russia from Rostov to Suzdal in 1125; that was a stroke of policy that gave the dynasty of Ryurikoviches a chance for the future. Because under Catholicism its fate depended upon the Pope who granted power; and for the Rulers of Russia that accepted Catholicism the Pope was no longer dangerous because at least one of them always remained free from the Catholic tyranny.

 

            ● That was a very forward-looking deed… For example, it notably soothed the situation in the Eastern Europe that had been formed by 1254 when the Pope Innocent IV sent a royal crown to Kievan Russia – to the great prince of Galicia and Volhynia Daniil Romanovich – and declared him his servant. That was the result of the backstage policy of the West, but it did not affect Ryurikoviches. The blow was deflected well in advance… 

            Departure of one member of the ruling dynasty so as to save the dynasty itself had been widespread from the first years of the Great Nations Migration in India, the Middle and Near East and Transcaucasia. That was a perfect means of self-preservation of royal power of the Turki; it worked many times.

            And it worked again. In Kiev Ryurikoviches were likely to disappear, but the dynasty could continue giving rise to, say, Moscow Russia.

 

            That is a determinative event in the Russian (Norman) history or, more precisely, in its prehistory since the dispute between eastern European princes was just starting to grow warm. The Pope was skillfully setting them on to fight… Yuri Dolgorukiy, Norman's son, the bearer of Altaic traditions, was against Catholic Kiev but not against his congeners; the conquest of the town in 1155 is the best illustration that his life was the struggle for the retention of the family. What does that witness? It witnesses that the reasons of the fratricidal enmity that was destroying Kievan Russia have not been investigated. The main figure of the conflict was underestimated in that enmity – the Pope whose logic was clear and simple. Being at enmity, the dynasty is destroying the country! And itself.

            The Church changed the rules of demise of the crown, and that was it. The enmity began…

            The enmity that was striven for by those who were dreaming of moving Christianity to the East. One of them, for example, was a Kiev prince Iziaslav whose son according to the old rules had no chances for the throne but he went to Rome and persuaded the Pope. As a result appeared a document of the Pope Gregory VII in which “the servant of God's servants” declared Iziaslav Regi Russorum, i.e. the ruler of Russia, in 1075. For that moment he was not king but a common ruler.

            There are many details of those events; they are known and unnecessary here, however now certain historical subjects obtain absolutely new tinges that had been barely perceptible before. Thus, Yuri Dolgorukiy ordered his Andrei to take Umai icon worshipped by the Arians away from Kiev in secrecy, and he took the priceless Turkic relic away since he knew that the Catholics were indifferent to the icons and spoiled them. From the XVI century, from the moment of appearance of Christianity in Moscow Russia, that icon has been called “Vladimir Blessed Virgin”; it is especially respected by the Russian (or, more precisely, Graeco-Russian) Church that appeared after Sophia Paleologo.

 

            ● This our assertion may seem not quite correct. There are plenty of evidences confirming that the Popes would harshly repulse iconoclasm. But these evidences also show the duplicity of the position of Rome. In its relationship with Byzantium it was really against iconoclasm allowing icons in Catholic churches. Inside his Church his position was absolutely different, which is witnessed by the decision of the Frankfurt Council of 794 or Paris Council of 825, where services in front of icons were declared idolatry.    

 

            Many different evidences about Arianism in Green and Black Russia remained. For example, in 1238 here, on the way to Novgorod, Baty's army turned back. Why? Baty saw: population there professed Monotheism. They imposed levy on the lands and went away. Beyond the Moskva-River and Oka in the XIII century the Turkic world and its belief ended; further to the North stretched the lands of Finno-Ugric nations and Arianism… And the expression “to impose levy” was not horrible to the ear those days – it meant “to conclude an agreement of cooperation”, as it would be understood today.

            According to Turkic traditions levy was validated by an agreement and witnessed that its provisions were met.

            Genghis Khan bequeathed to defend peaceful neighbors, and Baty would defend any town where they prayed Heavenly God; he had the reputation of a warder of Heaven, townsmen opened the gates for him by themselves – he was expected by the Russian Arians that were not afraid of the Tatars. On the contrary, in them they saw protection since the ruler of the Russians himself belonged to the Tatars – to the family of Ryurikoviches.

            Indeed, in the times of Chingizides Russia built more temples and monasteries than during all the previous centuries. Those were not Christian temples and monasteries but Arian ones. The same as in Scandinavia some time ago. Yasa released their clergy from levy in exchange for praying God and recognizing khan. Praying God is that “levy” paid by Russia.

            That is what the Tatars were fighting for – for a pure prayer to God… They were struggling for it.

            Is it not significant that Baty did not appoint his rulers in Russian khanates? Not a single one! Because he did not dare oppress the royal dynasty of Ryurikoviches. To tell the truth, he tested every Russian prince for devotion to belief and Yasa before allowing them to reign. But that is “constituent territory of the federation” management, as they would consider it today. Genghis Khan’s code required strictness, how else could that be?.. Levy obliged to detach an army for the one who paid it so as to defend the prince. In case of aggression the Horde defended him by its army but for a separate payment – for the rent. For instance, Novgorod lands were protected by Aliskander khan, Baty's vicar; he gathered the tribute from the Russians and safeguarded peace on the boundaries of Russia. At his command there was an armed detachment called “gendarmes”.

            Aliskander's destiny is legendary; better than anything else it shows that light time when Turkic and Russian cultures were standing near defending the right to life. They had one enemy – the West – it was bringing them together. The descendant of Ryurikoviches and the princess of the Horde, Aliskander was a foster-brother of Baty's son, Sartakh; both boys were being brought up listening to Turkic songs in the khan's palace… Aliskander's father was the first Russian (Norman) who recognized Genghis Khan’s code, took a beauty from the steppe to wife and called himself Baty's brother…

            Today his vicar is called Alexander Nevsky, a Slavic military leader, which he has never been. He could not be so. He was not “Nevsky” either.

            In the famous Battle on the Ice in the spring of 1242 Aliskander khan did not take part; a rent collector was not necessary there. The knights were defeated on the ice by a reconnaissance detachment of the Golden Horde. That is true! German knights, those cunning foxes, were creeping like vultures following the retreating Baty's army intending to attack its rear and get the military trophy so desired for a Turki. The Emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen was searching for a chance to distinguish himself; he made a move which was very handsome from the point of view of military arts. The Turkic nature was seen in his action. But the progress of the Germans was keenly watched by Subutai's reconnaissance which was twice as more skillful in military arts; so it decided the whole campaign in the West. It put a period on the ice of the Chudskoe Lake.

            After all, that was the military leader of the Golden Horde – Subutai – who determined the policy in Europe; he was in charge. And he was the one that was winning… What a rent collector, to whom the victory of another person is ascribed, had to do there?.. Of course, the events on the lake had nothing to do with Russia; no one would send the knights into a campaign in those hard times when Baty was moving over Europe like a waterspout.

            And besides the Russians did not have their own army; their youth was serving Baty – that was the condition of levy… Could they defeat the German knights? Without any army?

            For information: hired army (archers) appeared in “Moscow” Russia under the tsar Ivan the Terrible in 1572 and the regular army appeared under Peter I. All its earlier “battles” and “victories” were indecently invented. Alexander Nevsky is an invented “hero” – two men with one face, two destinies in one life. He was made “Nevsky”, a Christian, Russian Saint and military leader in the XVIII century when western scientists invited by Peter I were practicing in the historiography of Russia. They were inventing not getting around to adjusting “events” with one another. They were suggesting absurdity. They did not know shame… Aliskander could not be “Nevsky” (which means from Neva) and “military leader” because he did not take part in the battle of Neva. After all, it has never taken place!   

            Near the river Ijora the Russians (the Swedes led by the king Birger) and the Finns were fighting for the route to Ladoga. Alexander “Nevsky” was standing on the other bank of Neva and did not even see the battle but saw, according to a chronicle, its result – the Swedes were taking the wounded and the dead onto barges. He had a mounted watch consisting of thirty six men; that was a small army for a military leader but enough for a rent collector.

            Even N.M. Karamzin marked that absurdity citing the chronicle: ”Beyond the river Ijera were found many Swedes that were surely killed by the Angels”.

            Of course by the Angels. By whom else, after all?

            But careful Karamzin found a way out of that tricky situation when he wrote the following: “Were those the contemporaries who called Alexander “Nevsky”? In the description of his deeds in the Chronicle of Novgorod there is no such name…”. That is what we have! About the “battle” of Neva and its hero nobody knew at that time. And the way the prince Alexander and his son cared about the wellbeing of Russia, which is described in Russian epic and poems, is also an ingenuous invention for simpletons that appeared centuries later.

 

            ● N.M. Karamzin is very expressive here; he is as agile as a squirrel when he says one thing in the main text and an absolutely different in the notes. For instance, there are interesting details about the campaign of the Novgorod Prince Dmitry, the son of Alexander Nevsky, in Dagestan in 1277. The retinue joined the army of Mangu-Timur who was waging a war against Caucasian nations. “Our princes conquered the town of Dediakov (in South Dagestan), burnt it down and took a considerable plunder and prisoners and by this feat deserved benevolence of the Khan who expressed it not only in praise but also in rich gifts”. That was not their only joint campaign.

            It is interesting, what attracted Novgorod princes in the foreign lands? They did not go to the Caucasus by themselves, did they?

 

            But we know how that “peoples protector” used to gather rent. How he was gaining favor with the khan. How he used to cut off ears and wrest the eyes and noses of his subjects… Even “barbarians” were astonished by his cruelty. In the Russian history he became the prince of Vladimir, the hero, while at that time the Russians used to scare children: “Alexander will come and take you away”. Karamzin did not conceal that… Maybe qualms of awakening conscience made that “peoples protector” accept the schema of a monk not long before his death together with a new name – Olex? Hence is the name Alexander that has made it into history…           

            However, there is an evident mess about the names in the Russian history; as a rule they are presented in the “Slavic” transcription. Yaritsleiv, the son of sea-king Waldemar, became Yaroslav, the son of the prince Vladimir. Bogoris became Bureslav and later Sviatopolk. The names were changed with striking ease, the same as history itself. But there is “The Saga of Olav the Saint” where Russia and its people look far more realistic. At least that is more honest.

            Alexander Nevsky was a diligent vicar. He knew that for devotion he would be praised and for unnecessary initiative he would be abused; in a word he was living according to Genghis Khan’s code. Mother Russia was also living according to it during the Tatar yoke. “Tartar honor is more evil that the evil”, - the Russians would say, but they could do nothing bad because a law is a law – at that time it was the same for everyone.

            “Tatar honor” is not easy; it required the truth and honesty from everyone…

            It is even more striking that Aliskander became a Saint of the Russian Church while he had not been a Christian! He could not be an Orthodox Christian. It is possible that he was a Catholic like other princes, his brothers… Nothing is to say here since this is not an occasional mistake.

 

            Yes, Kievan Russia and, for instance, Green Russia were Russian states where representatives of one dynasty reigned; but the spiritual unity was not in question there. Those were different countries with different spiritual cultures. And although the word “Russia” referred to the lands of Ryurikoviches; those lands were not connected by ethnic ties; the Russians spoke different languages at that time, in the proper and figurative sense. The rulers and the population. Thus in Vladimir-Suzdal Russia the Russians were called Varangian rulers and Finno-Ugric nations: Mari, the Mordovians, Komi. In Novgorod those were Varangian rulers and the Wends, apart from whom there also lived the Vepses, Finns and Karelians that spoke their own languages. In the Tver Khanate lived the Turki – another language of Russia… Its ethnic palette was gleaming with aquarelle colors that were barely perceptible in the lands with small population. Time was necessary in order to “mix” all those languages so that the Russians would understand each other forming one country. This will happen only in the XV century.

            In Kievan Russia, on the contrary, there was homogeneous population; the dialect there was different having an expressive Turkic foundation… it is the forgotten native language of the Ukrainians. One “detail” deserves attention here. Daniel, the Prince of Kiev, Russian King, was the last to give a bow to Baty, which witnesses that the Pope had been no more interested in the East and the Catholic Church turned away from the Kievan king in the hour of danger and he had nothing to do but remember the “Tatar” Monotheism and language.   

 

            ● In this connection the history of Saint Boris and Gleb is interesting and indicative; Russia dedicated a great many temples to them. These are the first Russian saints, younger sons of Vladimir, the Prince of Kiev, the baptizer of Russia, killed in 1015 by order of their elder brother, Sviatopolk… This is the information from the encyclopedia but it proficiently conceals a lot.       

            Firstly, the baptism of Kievan Russia itself was Catholic, which is unquestionable. For it the Prince Vladimir was consecrated a saint of the Catholic Church! And not only him.

            Secondly, the deeds of his son (adopted nephew) – Prince Sviatopolk – are concealed; he was trying to move the idea of Slavdom further to the East and in that idea the backwash of the Greek policy was heard. That Russian prince was the first Russian who called himself a Slav. But a Catholic Slav! He was called “Cursed”, ridiculed and even his brothers – Boris and Gleb – did not Support him, for which they forfeited life but became saints of the Catholic Church. In Rome Boris has been known since 1071 as Roman the Russian and Gleb as David the Polish (those were their church names).

            Since then the policy of Kievan Russia was agitated every time the ruler appointed by the Pope was changed. The state that was denying its former traditions of demise of the crown was open to all the winds and hurricanes; it was like a ship in the ocean without a rudder and sail. The idea of Slavdom was taking roots and the state language, correlating with politics, was gradually changing. It lasted for several centuries.

 

            Early in the XIII century the boundary of the Christian world was lying near Kiev or, more precisely, near the right bank of Dnepr, after which it was moved to the west. To the north-east of Europe it will come only in the XVI century when the Church has finished the Inquisition and the Roman missionaries turned regard on the East again. The centuries of calm were beginning; Yaroslav and Yuri Dolgorukiy counted on them. Together with those who were behind them. Those centuries allowed the dynasty of Ryurikoviches to end their existence in history.

            The time period given by God – till Ivan the Terrible.

            Together with Ryurikoviches the century of Arianism was lasting; now it is called the old belief in Russia. And in certain regions of Russia there existed the “bush belief” which remained; it is still remembered by the descendants of the Finno-Ugric nations. There, in the North, Christianity did not exist either; it was known by hearsay.

 

            ● The so-called Truth of Yaroslav is indicative; it appeared early in the XI century after his victory over his brother Sviatopolk and accession in Kiev. Sviatopolk was an adherent of “Catholic” Slavdom in Russia; he was supported by the help of his father-in-law, the Polish king Boleslav, he suffered a defeat. Yaroslav, the Prince of Novgorod that was defending the positions of Arianism, was his rival; the Normans assisted him. Those that were fighting with Christianity that had come suddenly to Scandinavia. The confrontation of two worldviews – the Western and Eastern ones – was well read both in the Truth of Yaroslav and his policy.

            Yaroslav the Wise was reigning rationally but was he a Christian? Certainly not. As we know he was building towns in the Arian Russia; he was searching for support and found it there. By his orders he strengthened connections between the regions of Russia and united them into one state. The ruler's efforts were partly successful; they were not long but nevertheless under him the Arian belief was steadfast.

 

            The Old Belief, or Russian Arianism, is a phenomenon of spiritual life in Russia which is absolutely unfamiliar to science. Very few are aware of it. But nevertheless… The khan's wife was a follower of the Old Belief; the khan denied the Christian match although the Pope Innocent IV in his letter of February 10^th, 1248 was persuading Aliskander that his father, the Prince Yaroslav, took oath to accept the new belief before his death. And he meant that the son was to become a Christian so as to “find stillness and glory in the shade of the Western Church”. It is also written in the letter: “like a faithful guard of the Christians he should immediately notify the knights of the Livonian Order if the Tatars start a campaign against Europe again”.

            The answer to the Pope was short: “we know the true teaching and we do not accept yours and do not want to know it”. From this reply new “mysteries of the Russian court begin”. Mysteries that crunch on one's teeth like a stone that appeared in bread together with meal. They break their teeth because of inventing “half-Arianism”, Greek baptism or something else. While there are no traces of Greek Christianity in Kievan Russia at all.

            That was marked by Karamzin who said: “Daniel (the Russian Prince) made friends and quarreled with the Pope several times. In 1249 he expelled the bishop Albert whom the Pope Innocent had sent to be the head of the clergy in Russia”… This is the way certain pages of the Russian history are read. The Pope, not the Greek Patriarch, was to bless the head of the Russian Church. Here it is, the stone crunching on the teeth, but it is being stubbornly ignored.

            Scandinavia and Kievan Russia were living under surveillance of the Pope after the X century…

            The history of Russia is full of omissions. There are dozens and hundreds of them, big and small; they are crunching on the teeth like stones in bread… And in that chaos of absurdity Baty turned out to be a “dubious” person. He had nothing in common with what is presented now.

            Catholic missionaries under the pretence of Venetian and Genoese merchants visited Baty in Sarai; they inclined Baty who was not very bright to Christianity: he was the first one in the Horde who doubted the belief of his father and grandfather. People took his conduct for betrayal; that was the explosion of the Horde, but it did not bewilder the khan. He made his wife and son baptize. And he himself refused to baptize standing before a clergyman when everything was ready – he found out that the latter had just read the burial service and he was very much afraid of the deceased.

            That was certainly a trick of a man willing to attract everyone's attention. The Turkic Herostratos. But he was burning not the temple of Artemis but the Golden Horde which has never shown itself after Baty. It was ill and it was withering; the germ of Catholicism found way into its body: at that time the first colony of the Catholics appeared on the border between Europe and Asia; that was the outpost of the Christian Empire. 

            For the betrayal of the ancestors, for the treason of belief the Horde inhabitants disdained Baty; he lost his face and was nothing in their eyes. At first the khan was patient and ignored disrespect, then he complained to his uncle and failing to find support there set about murdering odious people. He would execute at a spell. For a smile. For silence. Any joke he considered to be directed on him.

 

            ● Even younger brothers considered it their duty to offend Baty who was at the peak of glory; they would say openly: “Baty is not my master; he is an old hag with a beard – one can strike him down by one slap in the face”. They threatened to beat him with a stick or to tie “a wooden tail” to a part of his body.

            No conqueror has ever been maltreated like weak-willed Baty.

 

            The aristocracy was the first to suffer. It was close to the khan… In the Horde there was an irrepressible conflict: the traitor could not be killed and the people did not want to see him. However they did not dare touch him; the tradition of power was deemed to be sacred.

            There was the only way to take: the nobility was leaving its motherland. Some of them left for the Caucasus, others – for the Central Europe or Central Asia. Some of them moved to the North, to the Russian lands uncontrolled personally by Baty. The best people were leaving. The Golden Horde was squeezing them out. Unfortunately that was the same after Baty too…

            The decline lasted for a century; the ocean of sorrows was overflowing before the Turki who by that time were not considered as the bearers of progress by anybody. They were not invited to reign.

            That was a dreadful time. Foreign lands left no choice except for becoming a “different” nation. Or, more precisely, getting accustomed to foreign customs having an illusion of finding salvation in return. To leave one's motherland is a tragedy which not everyone can stand. The Turki have gone through it several times, which, as a matter of fact, is witnessed by the whole their history. Destiny was throwing the messengers of Altai to a great many regions making rulers, military leaders, clergymen and scientists for other nations of them. Their trouble has always been giving increase to humankind. And great pleasure.

            That is really true. Perhaps all the reigning families of Europe consisted of them… The list includes the Popes, kings of England, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway. Here is the description of one of them: “That is the man with red hair, of average height, he has a lion quadrangular face with bulgy eyes that are naïve and meek when he is in a good mood and he looks daggers when he is irritated. Only a cavalryman can have such legs; he has a broad chest and athletic harms show that he is a strong, dexterous and brave man”. That is how the English king Henry II looked – this is one of his descriptive portraits.

            The same words are suitable for Attila and other military leaders. They all had Turkic appearance which cannot be disregarded. And a broad face and crooked legs is perhaps a national feature. Like a kimono for the Japanese or sombrero for the Mexicans… Here it is useful to remind again that the English king Henry II would not have been able to understand even a couple of phrases from the modern English language; he spoke Turkic, i.e. “low Latin”. However, the Angevin family is worth remembering again – in the Middle Ages it was the standard of nobleness and knighthood in the West. It may help one understand the situation that was being formed in the hick town of Moskov which was located in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality where Ryurikoviches reigned.

            That is the repeating of history of Europe of the V century and India and Persia one thousand years earlier. One thing on top of another. There, to Moscov, people would run away from Baty as they used to run away from Attila in Anjer. People were running away from their natives. Or like in Adjodakha (Ajdokhye) in the epoch of the Arians. Everything was the same. In the Russian lands the sprouts of new society were growing; that society consisted of the refugees and for that time it was Turkic.

            And not Turkic at the same time!..

            Moscow Russia was accepting and absorbing a great value – aristocratic families which were noble and educated; it gave them shelter. Being expelled by Baty and recognizing the “foreign statute” and foreign sun they were becoming Russians. Aksakovs, Bulgakovs, Goduovs, Kutuzovs, Kurakins, Nakhimovs, Suvorovs, Turgenevs, Tolstoys, Yusupovs… Hundreds of names, hundreds of families. And what families! They spoke the Turkic language.

            From them, from those precious splinters of the Golden Horde, Russia and its nobles began. It is known that “the history of Russia is the history of the nobles”, although such assertion is correct only partly. Without the boyars the nobles were nothing. Like a body without a head.

            The boyars are a special case. This is the way the Turki used to call their most esteemed people from aristocratic families, the elders representing families at the meetings. Those were the bearers of nobility, wisdom, decency and honor. The nobility of the nobility. The salt of the earth. These qualities complied with their clothes – noticeable but too uncomfortable for everyday life – too high sheepskin hats, caftans with sleeves up to the floor. According to a tradition the boyars were prohibited to do anything with their hands; their servants did everything for them. The boyars were obliged to think and give advices. Long spade beards emphasized the antiquity of roots of their families. Those were the people being able to enter the tsar's premises without a report; during the meetings they would sit around the tsar on a carpet with their feet under them. The same as English lords, they had pillows with sheep hair. In Turkic their meetings were called “tuma” (duma) and they themselves were called the boyars of the tuma (duma); they were the ones who elected the tsar. 

            In Turkic boyar means ancestor (boy ar), a man of noble origin. And a boyar or “tuma” means a person in attendance of the tsar (“tuma” - protection)…

            Starting from the XIII century people were only leaving the Horde, which was marked by family books and books of heraldry of the Russian nobles. And not only Russian. That mourning time was reflected in the monograph “Russian Families of Turkic Origin” by a great turcologist Nikolai Alexandrovich Baskakov. His work is a bibliographical rarity; it illustrates the self-destruction of the Altaic nation: a man existed and disappeared; a family existed and disappeared… It is indicative that in his monograph there is nothing about the boyars who in Russia were considered to be the people whose “family origin is explained by nothing”. There is nobody with whom to discuss this established opinion.

 

            “Pay with faith to those against you”, - Altai taught. This knowledge helps in the foreign lands. This advice, terrible in its correctness, was a Turkic adapt. It is better that nobody has ever known it. But people around Baty knew it. They were putting up and paying silently. They were putting up with the fact that yesterdays enemies became constant visitors at the khan's palace. They were paying to the knight of St. Mary Alfred von Schtumpenhassen recommended by the French king Louis IX the Saint who had become Baty's counselor and the patron of the new Horde Church.

            Life turned upside down, words cannot explain what had happened. Patriarchy and powerlessness were pressing on the Horde; the words “it is usual” became too frequent, which everybody understood. But they did not deny the laws which were outdated: the authority of Genghis Khan was pressing too hard; there were no people who dared change Yasa… The Turki, deprived of elected power, were living hanging about. The world was changing while they were not. Illusion prevailed in the Horde; state structure was failing. Failures in politics were followed by the weakness of spirit which was taking away the most dignified and strongest people not willing to vegetate. Baty was not even watching at that worldwide catastrophe having proclaimed himself the Great Khan of the Golden Horde. He did not understand or did not mention what was happening around. He was living for his pleasure in the world invented by his grandfather.

            Nobody was destroying the Horde – it was doing so itself by its orders… “Every ship dies in its own way”, - the sailors say in such cases.

 

            … To the credit of the Europeans it should be said that they managed to find the way out of the difficult situation caused by Subutai. The West showed pliancy, viability; the Pope managed to make Destiny take his side. He made it smile. It seems that was the will of Heaven; the Catholic turned out to be smarter.

            After the victorious campaign of the Tatars in 1242 chaos was prevailing in Rome; the bishops were afraid to take the place of the deceased Pope. Finally they gathered a conclave that elected a Genoese by birth, descendant of the knights, Cardinal Sinibaldo Fieschi, count della Laveya to be the Pope. An ambitious man with Turkic blood in his veins was to act; he made it into history as the Pope Innocent IV. A rarely smart person. A lawyer, not a theologian. He intended to turn the Tatars into the allies of the Church, for which he made up a challenging and, we can even say, outstanding plan. At first the Pope decided to conduct policy from a blank page – to forget about the defeat. His persistent interest to Kievan Russia and Baty had serious reasons; that was not idle curiosity. 

            He did not want the repeating of what was about to happen.

            In 1245, at the Council of Lyon the Pope started to prepare a crusade against the Tatars; he declared fundraising and secretly sent a messenger, the monk Giovanni del Plano Carpini to the capital of the “Mongolian” Empire, the town of Karakorum. The objective was the union with the Moslems; the Pope sacrificed them to politics. The Catholics were changing their ally. And their policy together with it. They opened a new page of the European history; this page was to be written during five centuries; Kievan Russia and the Golden Horde would perish during that time and a country obedient to Rome - Romanovs' Russia – would appear instead…

            The Pope Innocent was a great strategist.

            He suggested not a war but a union to the East so that Altai and the West would be standing together. That saved Europe from a new invasion. Anticipation of events shown by the Church is the skills of real politics. However the Tatars were not that simple either; they got the core of the cunning of their congener; as against the ruler of the Golden Horde those were smart and intelligent people. The answer of the khan Guyuk discouraged the Pope but demonstrated the position of the East.   

            That was an order sent to the great Pope “to know and understand it”, the answer of the master of geopolitics who did not need a fellow traveler on the road of Time. A tough answer.

            The letter began in Turkic from the words “by the force of Eternal Blue Sky” and than the language was changed into Persian – thus the khan Guyuk showed “the head of kings of Europe” an open disgust. At first he judged him for free treatment of God, which some time ago had perturbed Genghis Khan: “How do you know that God gives absolution and bestows mercy, how do you know Him?”. No one except for God can give absolution – that is what people have always known in the East.

            After that it was carefully emphasized in the letter that Genghis Khan’s code by order of God started a sacred war for the revival of the Turki: “You yourself are the head of kings; all of you should propose service and obedience to us. From this time we consider that you have submitted to us. And if you do not follow the order and resist, you will become the enemies”.

            The Pope, that Vicar of Christ, the main figure of the West, was almost nobody in the eyes of the East. Hence is the humbling language of the message… One would think, a letter is a stroke on the canvas of history, but there is so much standing behind it. The epoch is very clearly seen.

           

            ● The letter was found in 1920 in the Archives of Vatican; it was analyzed by the leading Orientalists of the world that recognized the message authenticity and marked a unique character of the language and graphics. The expression “Persian way” meant “Saracenic way”, which means the letter was written in the language that was used by the Moslems of Iran. It is indicative that its “Saracenic” part was written by a metaphrast Temir, Yaroslav's (Alexander Nevsky's father) subject.

            But of course this is not the main thing. In the letter one could find the goal of the military actions of Genghis Khan in Europe; sacred war for the triumph of Monotheism was in question. In Kiev the messengers of Genghis Khan announced “the order of God”, for which they were killed. This letter, and it is not the only one, allowed interpreting known events in an absolutely different way while people had formerly judged about them basing on different assumptions and fabrications.

 

            And lots of books are not necessary; it is seen that arrogance let the East down. It overestimated itself and did not consider that against it were the same Turki who also wanted to win. But they had weapons of which the East was unaware – the Church and monastic orders, knights of spirit being able to do what seemed impossible. The West suggested a fight. A deadly fight elaborated to the last detail. Like between David and Goliath. 

            The East did not know that. It relied on its army assuming that the relation of forces was in its favor a priori. It is enough to remember firing arms which was seen not by everyone in Europe; they still used bows there… Here is an episode of a conversation between Marco Polo and the khan: “How do you want me to become a Christian? You see, the Christians are ignorant, they do nothing while our clergymen do whatever they want. I sit at the table and the bowls full of wine come to my hands by themselves; nobody touches them. Bad weather will be banished by our scientists wherever they wish. If I become a Christian, my subjects will ask why I had accepted the belief of Christ and which might and miracles of Christ I had seen”.

            In the Middle Ages belief made the decisive account of the feeling of power since perhaps all the scientists worked in the calm of monasteries; they were living like hermits. In monastic centers the schools of the East began; the union of religion and science was an unwritten rule. The true belief was the one that did miracles and gave discoveries. And the sign of “white belief” (equilateral cross) in the East was working miracles. “A cross is good and it makes only good and justice”, - the khan was telling this to Marco Polo.

            And the latter, being scared by his bold thought, realized that the Christian cross had none of such qualities – it was the means of torture and death. A scaffold on which people were being killed…

            At that time the West was weaker in everything. It made the European Turki search for unusual ways in politics and in life; they could be saved only by extraordinary and outstanding happenings. And the Church had a plan suggested by Genghis Khan’s code itself if, of course, one reads it attentively. An ingenious plan called the Inquisition.

            The gist of the matter is simple: so as to avoid attacks from the East they had to erase the traces of the East in Europe. Rome understood that Yasa declared war not to the Europeans but to the Turki. It obliged “to move on until you see the last Turki”. Baty did not move towards Constantinople; the Turkic speech became silent there. It was bogged down in the new Greek language that was bringing the nations of Byzantium together. The Pope's counselors, to tell the truth, rose to the emergency; they managed to find the only continuation of the game that seemed to be lost.

            The Turkic mind just needs to be perplexed and it will find the way out.

            At first the Inquisition was discussed at the Council of Toulouse (1229) after the defeat of the Russians at Kalka. After that it was discussed in Lyons (1245) after Baty's campaign in Europe. The decision was suggested by the monk Dominic that belonged to a noble family of the Oguzes (Guzman) which was of a royal origin. The Great descendant of Altai notable for the perfect understanding of reality, in advance, in 1220 during the war with the Cathars, foreseeing events, decided to form a monastic order for the inquisition. Not the one the Church had but one of a different type – menacing and powerful. So that it controlled the courts, searched for the guilty and performed investigations and interrogations. In a word, a court and an executioner in one.

 

            ● It is indicative that at first as a model Dominic took the traditions of the Cathars against whom he was fighting; he wanted to defeat them using their own weapons. His monks were to act the same as Cathar shepherds – to be modest, to dress without luxury, wear common clothes and preach the Catholic teaching. Which meant to be the contrast to the official clergy in appearance… Dominic himself graduated from an Oecumenical University; he started as a common missionary among the Moslems; he had wide life experience.

            In the order that was being created by him many things were practically the same as the Moslems and Cathars had it with the only difference that behind different monks – scouts of Catholicism – gigantic power of the Christian Church was standing.

 

            Thus the Dominican order appeared and a great many people were moving there. By themselves… What people were they?

            Let us assume that is not known. But a beard, hood, feathers of hats, vestment, boots were obligatory for military monks. Their uniform. The name “order” is to be added here; in Turkic it means “given from above” – that is what they called themselves. A portrait is ready. Of course those were the best from the Europeans; they were going to fight with the enemies – with the Turki… because in their souls they themselves were irreconcilable Turki.   

            On the blazon of the order Dominicans placed dogs sniffing out heresy so that everybody saw that they had thirst for tortures and executions, those dogs with bare teeth; they were not attractive monks. They subdued everyone to those dogs sniffing for heresy. A decree of the Pope Innocent IV obliged the Catholics to “help the Dominicans”. That meant to watch one another day and night so that children would inform on their parents and parents on their children. The West started shadowing of itself not forgetting the “care about souls”, “scientific studies” and other pretty words by which the order was covered becoming the cruelest host of the Church. “The Brotherhood of Belief” and “the Knights of Jesus Christ” were especially notable; they consisted of real sadists.

            But there was no other remedy except for the Turkic blood; seas of blood saved Europe from a new invasion from the East… The Inquisition consisted not only in executions, tortures and scaffolds that were peculiar to the medieval Europe but also in scaring the people so as to break them and their minds down. It turns out the fires on town squares were lighting and warming the lost people; the Church was throwing wood into the fire for their welfare.

            It passes understanding. However, burning one “heretic” they saved thousands.

            Of course not everybody liked the Inquisition, and in the majority of the European countries the clergy condemned the Dominicans. But it was suitable for the long-sighted politicians among which was the king of France, Louis the Saint. He set an example supporting the Inquisition in his country, which gave him an opportunity to protect the Pope's interests and conduct his own defense. Destroying everything connected with the Turki he was keeping it. Or veiling it, to put it more precisely. That was another historical absurdity that became the property of medieval Europe.

            He appointed Robert the Small, also known as Bugr, the main inquisitor. He was a Cathar that had turned to Catholicism, a Bulgarian Turki by birth. The historians do not know whether that was a masquerade or malicious intentions. That inquisitor was more devoted to the Pope than others; according to his reports he covered Burgundy, Champagne and Flanders with fires – the Cathars and other heretics seemed to have disappeared. But at the same time they remained. They were not protruding but were silently waiting through the storm… Who knows, maybe Bugr himself was the savior of the Cathars? The ones that had taught them the rules of the new European life.

            Of course the Europeans could not deny their culture. That is impossible. They were hiding its roots inside themselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples and the most significant is the works by Dante Alighieri that coincided with the climax of the “inquisitorial times”. His “Divine Comedy” is interesting; in it the poet and philosopher calls for purification of culture and spirit and he does so in the tradition of the Altaic epos which he could not neglect! But perhaps the most significant word is the tractate “About Folk Speech” where Dante acts as one of the creators of the new Italian language and Italian poetry.

            New languages in Europe are also traces of the Inquisition.

            It is all about the culture that was to change the old Turkic one… A dog, the rescuer of Italy, is not accidental; it was to defeat the Turkic she-wolf hindering formation of the social structure. You should choose a new road, the poet says in the “Divine Comedy” but in order to defeat the she-wolf and get on top of the pleasant hill it is necessary to visit another world – inferno and limbo – and that is another Altaic plot, it was met in the Altaic epos many times and it is well known to researchers.

            Everything was interlacing and nothing was getting lost – that is the peculiarity of the Pope's inquisition. They were burning in the fires but they did not get burnt.

           

            ● Characters taken by Dante are evident… It is known that “barbarians” once remade the symbol of Rome – the Capitoline she-wolf – they changed the figures reminding of the infants. Taking away “everything unnecessary” the monument has been made famous by still recognizable outlines of figures of Romulus and Remus. That was a hard work of reconstruction of the symbols of Rome and after it had been completed the monument has never been called “Roman”. Romulus, the founder of Rome, was called a tsar (Caesar) in a Turkic way. 

            And in the dog – the rescuer – Dante might have shown the Dominicans with whom the Europeans connected their hopes at that time.

 

            Not everybody understood the intentions of the Church; it wanted to change Europe. There were victims. A lot of victims. Bloody and violent. The Inquisition is a political issue, after all; like a flood it was sweeping all before itself giving ride to a new life. The Europeans were cleaning themselves as they could! And that dirty work was certainly done not by the Church but by the temporality. The clergy did not perform executions; it organized them so as to save the rest.

            The European Turki that did not want to be exemplary Catholics and forget their native language were proclaimed heretics. Those were the most stubborn people; they could not do otherwise – they doomed themselves for the worst and were ready for self-destruction. That was a convenient method of punishing themselves, which was at one stroke used by others among whom was the king Louis the Saint. Of course! The inquisitors obtained everything that belonged to the victims since the children of the heretics were deprived of the rights for titles, property and respect.

            That is why aristocrats were being persecuted in the first place: they were the most stubborn and the richest. Castles and estates were getting empty; knights and knighthood as the way of life peculiar to the Turki disappeared in the epoch of the Inquisition since that was society that was living under the laws of the horde.         

            They disappeared not because of their loss to the Tatars; they were defeated by the monks that had been being at enmity with the knights for a long time. That was the enmity between aristocrats and the masses that had taken power in their hands. The Turki against the Turki again. It does not matter whether they had a cross or a sword in their hands. It is not occasional that the masses were the first to join the order of Dominicans. Some of them were attracted by an opportunity to spoil the life of their former masters. Those were very gloomy days when religion was being turned into the weapons of impostors that wanted desolation of castles and estates since they considered them to the sources of the “Turkic contagion” and heresy in the West. In every eparchy even appeared a special bishop dealing only with the Inquisition; secular people from among those to whom the Church trusted were his assistants.

            The repression machine was growing in full public view. And that was what did frighten the people.

            New blood was shed in 1229. That was a trial balloon but not real inquisition. The south of France which estates were “full of heresy” suffered; there the sacred war of Genghis Khan was discussed by everyone – the people wanted him to come to Europe. Time showed that those words were prophetic.

            At that time, in 1229, the Church was using the knights – crusaders while the monks were getting stronger. The Dominical order was just trying the monastic boots on… The blow fell on the possessions of the count of Toulouse, Attila's descendant. “Kick him away, - the Pope was shouting, - together with his adherents from the castles, deprive them of lands and let the rightful Catholics take what now belongs to heretics”. In the Pope's words was hidden the answer to certain mysteries of the Inquisition. Hearing them the Catholics were making a queue in order to become “rightful” and own the castles.

            It was as easy as pie to do so because the “heretics” were distinguished from the righteous without any difficulties. The Pope's legate Arnold Amalric said: “Kill everybody; God will distinguish the natives and the aliens”. They only had to kill. Everyone. And a lot. In order to become “righteous”.

            ● As J. Maillol accurately defined, in that battle “some thought they were fighting for belief, although in reality they were fighting for temporal wealth, and others were fighting for what cannot be called anything else but Motherland”. New Europe was becoming the motherland for millions of Europeans whose ancestors were born in Altai. They were fiercely fighting for it. God himself was distinguishing “the natives from the aliens”.

 

            And anybody could be called a heretic. The results of the Great Nations Migration should not be forgotten; they remained the reality of Europe: the ancestors of any European were the Turki… What can be discussed here if even the word heretic is Turkic – it was used to name those who denied the views of the Church. In Turkic “heresy” means “what is to be denied”. Word-for-word! To the letter.

            And ordeals that appeared at that time are also an Altaic invention. Unfortunately, that is not astonishing – everywhere the Turki were fighting with the Turki. And they could not invent something new – even new words and new tortures. The clothes of an inquisitor or cardinal did not change their nature; their world and knowledge remained the same… People were just changing their appearance so as to be called rightful Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Moslems. Brothers were wittingly becoming strangers for each other.

 

            ● Ordeals is a questioning system; its goal is the revelation of the truth. The most common way to the truth in Altai lay through two fires: two big fires were made and the suspect had to walk between them. If one was burnt it meant one was guilty. If not – he was innocent… They used the fire when all the common means of the court were done with. They called that “the trial by ordeal”.

            They also used drawing lots, oaths, judicial combats. Then fist law was introduced there and quickly became very popular among the people. Later appeared a challenge to fight a duel. To Europe “the trial by ordeal” came together with “German tribes”, and only the Turki had it… All this can be read in works by Marco Polo or Rubruk. But the most reliable was the trial of the cross. A complainant and defendant stood in front of a cross with their hands up; the one who was the first to draw down his hands was declared guilty.

            They also had the trial of a holy peace of bread or cheese. If a piece stuck in the throat of the accused, he had to admit committing the crime… There was a certain ritual called “ordal” (accept from above). It was used by the Inquisition which of course made it more complex but failed to invent something new. It was just “modernizing” old methods of interrogation replacing the trial with tortures.

 

            The Catholics were covering Europe under the Inquisition. Humanly their actions are clear and explicable. The European Turki were searching for their place in the sun feeling themselves the owners of their culture. Their new ideological weapons worked without fail. And the scale was slowly inclining to the West… It was winning.

            The Church should pray on that letter by the khan Guyuk in which the East rejected it. That letter made Europe strong! Its wounded pride was speaking at the top of its voice and made Europe Act.

            Europeans realized that the Tatars were their brothers but did not hasten to move to their yurts again. And to leave the soft Mediterranean climate. In the Tatars they saw the people of a different culture which was not European and of different nature which was not Mediterranean. It means that culture was alien! And almost everything in it irritated them; especially its rectitude. 

            Foreign brothers? Of course. They were different, like a prince and a beggar. But each of them considered himself to be the prince… In order to remain a nation it is not enough to speak the same language and look like one another; common culture and common thoughts are necessary and there were none of them: the spirit of Altai, i.e. the belief in Heavenly God, has become part of European culture due to the Catholics and Arians.

            It was changed, but nevertheless!

            However, nobody mentioned that in Europe; the image of God was so organic and entire in the West. It was recognized as an achievement of their culture. Altai ceased to be Eden – paradise – during the Inquisition; the Europeans remembered it like something distant, fairylike from their childhood. But they did not remember pagan Rome; it had become alien for them long ago… Not European!

            The inquisitors saw where the West was defenseless: it was keeping language traces which were connected with Altai and with the Turki. It was necessary to change the language and invent a new one, which was not difficult in the dismal scenery of total fear. As the history of nations showed, speech was less conservative as it is commonly supposed. Two or three generations and about two hundreds new words are enough to make a new dialect of the language appear. And it the language is permanently distorted, it starts to have no resemblance to itself even faster.

            There is a science dealing with making speech more complicated and creation of dialects and slangs. Even pupils practice in it inventing languages not clear to their parents.

            It is clearly seen in modern Russia where American words start to replace Russian ones. It is the same process that was taking place in medieval Europe; sooner or later it will give a new dialect of the Russian language… Under Peter I that was happening with the Turkic language; because of politicians it was supplemented with words from the dictionary of Finno-Ugric and other nations so as to have the desirable Slavic dialect of the Turkic language.

            Experience in this work is vast; methods were made perfect – their use was started during the Inquisition so as to renew the “low Latin” which was being enriched with words from other languages. Perfection was given by the Jesuits; there was a whole order working on the Church – dozens of universities and schools subjected to it. Now only a delicate ear can catch Turkic sounds in the French, German and English speech. And there are plenty of them.

            Another way of liquidation of language traces is to introduce a new language and call it “the language of the light”, which happened in Russia where in the times of Peter they spoke at first German and later French so as not to speak the old Turkic language… And those “experiments” were coming from Europe, from the Inquisition that gave the striking abundance of dialects in two basic – the Romanic and Germanic – languages. At the same time, during the Inquisition appeared “classic Latin” and much later – Esperanto, an artificial language with the Latin alphabet.

            Maybe those experiments are the reason why today the French fail to understand the language of the Franks and Burgundians, their ancestors, and the English fail to understand the language of the Britons and Saxons.

            Is it not the reason why after the Inquisition remained “derelict” literary writings? For instance, the fairy tales. Charles Perrault took known but anonymous plots; hence is striking similarity of his fairy tales with Altaic ones. He himself called them: “The tales of former times with morals”. 

            It seems this is the explanation of the striking similarity of works by Shakespeare with the Turkic epos…

            The first blow of the Inquisition, as I have already said, fell on the South France; from the IV century it was notable for its “Turkic” originality. Especially Languedoc province where rebellions were frequent; for example in 1242 they beat inquisitors to death; that was a strange region. They knew that a rebellion would cause a wave of repressions but could do nothing. They were patient. Time passed and everything started again… Lands of Languedoc absorbed a lot of blood. A wall was against a wall; a billow against a billow. The “heretics” left for the settlements where they were waiting through the Inquisition and everything else. And Occitanie, or South France, the country of the “oc” dialect, remained.

 

            ● The year 1242 was chosen not occasionally; Baty's troops were standing near the boundaries of Italy and the Cathars hoped for him. The Church had never been as active and strong as during that year. Courageous southerners were fighting for religious freedom but in it they saw political freedom. For independent Languedoc, for free Occitanie they were giving their lives burning themselves in 1243 in the castle of Montsegur after the defeat connected with Baty's disgraceful running away from Europe.

 

            To tell the truth, the native language was called “Provencal” there; it was considered to be kindred with “Catalan”. But that was all the Inquisition managed to achieve. “Heretic” hearths were all over France – from north to south. The French were forgetting their native language but not the spirit of freedom. It was their peculiarity…

            In Italy the Inquisition was raging in the “Turkic” Lombardy where the French scenario was repeated almost entirely. After the murder of the servants of the Church persecutions started; and again the country gave shelter… And in Venice, “the town of heretics”, the Inquisitors' hands were short. The same as in Naples where they managed to do nothing… They only spread fear. But that fear was multiplied not by the fires of inquisitors but rumors which the Church was spreading so as to suppress the people and make them obedient. 

            And in the territory of the modern Germany they also did not know the “real” Inquisition; everything there was happening according to their own scenario. In Hunia, or the German-Roman Empire, the Pope's agents had lack of self-confidence – they would have had to destroy everybody. The Church restricted itself to poisoning Manfred, the son of the Emperor Frederick II. And the last heir of the family, sixteen years old Conradine, the grandson of Frederick II, was executed in the fire. At first he was anathematized and called “poisonous king, the descendant of the viperous family of Hohenstaufens”. That was done, having accepted the Pope's permission, by Carl the Angevin who revenged for his relatives executed by Attila some time ago. The imperial epopee of the last chagans of Europe ended in the fire of the Inquisition.

            In Germany started the “Great Unroyal” period (1256 – 1263), the darkest years. The Church was establishing the principles of Christian theocracy, which is akin to a new baptism. That dark business was carried out by the temporal power; it organized a mighty civil war after the tragic death of the Emperor. For years kings and anti-kings were fiercely fighting for power; they destroyed Hunia. On the banks of the Alba the Turkic speech became silent by itself; “heresy” defeated itself without the Pope's assistance. And the new dynasty of Gabsburgs that captured the throne in 1273 was reigning according to the standards approved by Rome.

            In Czechia the Inquisition was taking course drowsily and very late. Several awesome actions and nothing more. The most famous figure is Jan Hus, the rector of the Prague University astonished by “saint simplicity” of the people. He was against selling indulgences giving absolution for money and was the adherent of returning to the principles of the early Christianity, i.e. to the Altaic tradition. He was burnt… The past was being forgotten everywhere in a special way. Firewood was often thrown into the fire deliberately.

            And on the Balkans it all happened in a different way; the Inquisition gave an inverse effect there: the Christians turned to Islam. Numerous executions in Bosnia gave a frightening result, which stopped the Church that was afraid that Bosnia would infect Europe; after all, perhaps one third of the Western population followed Islam at that time.

The Pope understood that he had gone too far. And he stopped.

 

            It is significant that the Inquisition was not killing all the “heretics”; that was not what the Church wanted – it was taking them away, and they, like islands in a stormy ocean, were hiding under water staying in Europe and showing that the traces of the Great Nations Migration in Europe were eternal. They were not destroyed by gales and storms. At most they were covered under water. They were hidden away.

            Of course there were “heretics” among the clergy but they were also changing together with the parishioners. Those were secret monks and bishops, the keepers of the old knowledge that were to show themselves during the Reformation. Communities that had not recognized the orders of the Inquisition did not disappear; they had the same names: Bogomils, Albigenses, Cathars, Olivites, Euchits, Joachimites. The stubborn were against the Pope and against injustice that was dominating in Europe; their heads were cut off, they were being burnt in the fires, but they survived. They were not dying. The same as the Russian Old Believers that were persecuted by authorities from the XVII century.

            Unfortunately one would hardly understand the psychology of those fearless and stubborn people. Their measure of life was different – unclear to modern people.

            Not much remained from them with all their oddities. Their books were burnt; their philosophy is judged on the basis of the stories of the inquisitors. Nevertheless, time showed that “heretics” regenerated by the end of the Middle Ages and became Christians, i.e. real Europeans. That was a great achievement of the Church or, more precisely, an achievement of the whole western culture for which a lot of people, including the king of France, Louis the Saint, with his main inquisitor belonging to the Cathars, worked.

            Old “heresies” were melting like snow in winter. They were drying up like a tree deprived of water. Explaining the origin of the world in their own way, believing in transmigration of souls, “heretics” equaled Christ with God. Doubts of their ancestors concerning the divinity of Christ were over. Not denying Altaic traditions, they did not deny the Christian prayers as such, but for them it had a sense which was different from that of the Roman Church. Let it be so.

            Sometimes heresy consisted in pointing to the vices of the Catholic clergy, not religion. They did not touch the religion. And that is perhaps the most significant victory of the Church; it consolidated the West. Not entirely. In Europe remained Moslems and Jews but their century was getting to an end; in 1480 the forcible baptism broke out – “new inquisition” that finally united the West.

            Of course there were some dissatisfied among the Christians; they will always be, but in society those people were nobody. For instance, they were perturbed by the “servants of God” that were wallowing in luxury. The welfare of the bishops is God's share, the property of the dead, help for the poor – that is what the “heretics” thought. And people agreed with them. They were disgusted with the order which the inquisitors bore; the Pope took that into consideration and forgave them because the main thing had been achieved. “Heretics” entered the Christian Church and became its flock… They had to play a part of the “black sheep” in the flock, which is perhaps obligatory for any decent society.

            Thus Europe was changing – extirpating the past and creating the present.

            Some of the heretics started to go begging; they denied everything earthy, the same as eastern dervishes, which was allowed. They opened a special monastic order for them. Others found protest in philosophizing, and nobody hindered them… In that muddy and quiet area, like in a marsh, the source of the Reformation that was to lead to the split of Catholicism in the XVII century was arising.

            The Reformation is the result of the Inquisition that saved Altaic dissents of the Europeans.

            The Protestants and later Calvinists, Anglicans, Baptists, Adventist, Russian Old Believers in their views were certainly connected with Altai and its philosophical school. They were keeping the philosophy of the East as far as their new European “packing” permitted. Regardless of the established opinion, among the heretics there were really smart people that were searching for their seditious place in the new culture of the West, and they were sometimes naively choosing the Christian interpretation for deeds of certain Altaic heroes. Thus Erlic became Lucifer, Satanail, and Ulgen became Christ, the Word – Son… This subject was covered in books where one can see how the theory and practice of the heretics were changing in time depending upon the background and preparedness of the readers. Every author was looking for his own way to answer “eternal” questions of life. Among them are Voltaire, Gibbon, philosophers of the XVI – XVIII centuries. Even Leo Tolstoy.

            They had enough like-minded persons because dissent has always been necessary in the West: Europe was a perfect sponge ready to absorb all the heresy if only it was philosophically reasonable… Maybe that is how its Turkic nature showed itself; Europe will never manage to do away with it. New religious currents were peculiar to the West after the Inquisition; everything remained almost as it had been, only the stresses were different.

            Belief was changing together with the people – imperceptibly.

            In this connection special attention should be paid to the fact that is mentioned perhaps by all the serious historians: before the Inquisition “heretics” had close relations with the East – with Eden. Their spiritual life was brightened there. It is proven not only by existence of the well-known “divine” language that united the coreligionists but rather by the fact that eastern preachers were nourishing the West with ideas and spirit. They did so since they were elder and more experienced.

            Let us remember Augustine's works on theology. Or works by other “doctors of the Church” that were making the foundation of Catholicism. First Saints of the West are the messengers of Altai. That is not an exaggeration; the Christians declared themselves: “The world begins from the East”. The phrase that became their motto for thousands of years: Ex oriente lux. Later, in order to conceal the Turkic belief, the Church called Altaic preachers Manichees “spreading Zoroastrianism”, which has nothing to do with reality.

            Although there might be an element of truth in those words… But what has Iran got to do with it? Its spiritual culture?

            After all, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism are different religions; they are different as playing kobyz and playing cello although they both are string instruments. Their history started in the Middle East. Manichaeism is a variation of belief in Tengri; as it has been already mentioned here, it was spread among the fire-worshippers, i.e.  Zoroastrianism followers. The founder of the teaching, Mani, was born early in the III century in a Turkic family; he studied in Palestine and visited Altai and India. In his consciousness there was a proper combination of Altaic and Jewish knowledge, hence the similarity of Manichaeism with Christianity and Tengri's teaching. But only similarity of appearance. And nothing more. By the way, for his teaching Mani was crucified in 277 and called the Savior… Is it not the plot of the Gospels?!

 

            ● Here are the words by Mani himself: “Those who have their temple in the West with their flock will never reach the East. Those who have chosen the flock in the East will never reach the West. But my hope is that my teaching will move both to the East and to the West… My church will be spread in all towns and my annunciation will touch all countries”.

            That is what Mani thought, and he was doing everything in order to accomplish his idea of the oecumenical teaching… As a matter of fact, that idea was taken by Catholic bishops during the Inquisition. Having slightly changed it, they made it the foundation of the policy of the Christian Church, which allowed them starting the colonization of the East. 

 

            It is better to begin the subject of the European “heresy” not from Manichaeism but from the history of Nestorians, the most mysterious “Christian sect”. Its appearance is connected with the IV century, with Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, but the piquancy of the situation is connected with the fact that the “sect” had existed long before Nestorius and Christianity in general terms. It started from the rise to power of the Arshakids in Parthia since the Arshakids were the first who brought East and West together. Those rulers started to spread Monotheism and the Turkic culture together with it three centuries before the Common Era.

            It is evident that neither Christianity nor Manichaeism could exist at that time.

            Not much is known about the Nestorians. And at the same time when Sasanids got power, they started persecutions against them – their ideological rivals, which led to dispersal of the sect in the Middle and Near East; its geography led to formation of the Church of Nestorian Character. i.e. a spiritual institution connected with Altaic Monotheism.

            It seems nature had something which allowed the Christians calling that ancient Church Christian. Maybe because they used to sink into water three times during the baptism? Maybe an equilateral cross is the reason of such an early establishment? And maybe John the Baptist, from whom, according to the Bible, Christ accepted belief? John the Baptist belonged to that Church… We have food for thought here.

            Acquaintance with the Nestorians, their ceremonies, philosophy and geography made the author of these lines think about them as the people of Altaic “white belief” which in other sources were called “Hanifs” or “Turki”. The area of their settlement is “from Mongolia to India and Ceylon, from Syria to China”, in other words, the territory of Persia of Achemenids and Parthia of Arshakids. No doubt they had Altaic ceremonies – the ones on which Monotheism was based. They appeared during the Great Nations Migration. Everything coincides, even the language of services.

 

            ● To tell the truth, it is customary to call the language of their services Syrian but… this language did not exist at that time. To be more precise, in antiquity they called it Cyrian, i.e. the language of the tsar Cyrus, the Jews wrote their Bible in it cognizing the secrets of the teaching. That was the language of divine services of the ancient world.

            The Jews called that language Aramaic, but the new name did not explain a lot: Aramaic texts did not remain; it seems they have never existed. And the Turkic ones remained, which was described earlier, and they are also known by the history of monasteries of Acoemetae where the Nestorians lived. Their first monastery was built on the bank of Euphrates; later it was playing the leading part in Monophysite disputes and bringing Tengri's teaching to the masses.

            In other words, that was about the language fixed by the cursive writings of Achemenids and later Arshakids, which means the Turkic language. And the fact that the Greeks called it Syrian just makes one regret. It is known that “changing one letter of the Holy Writ may cause the destruction of the whole world”, - as it is written in Talmud.

 

            Among the historians there were different talks; one of them was Mandeaic. They included “Sabbataians” and “Christians of Saint John”; they remained, which, as a matter of fact, made the author of these lines draw unexpected conclusions. In the ancient Turkic language “subbat” – “sink into water”, “mandy” – “take a dip”, hence are the names “Sabbataians” and “Mandaens”. “Tarmid” (that is what the Mandaens call the clergymen) means a “seeder”, i.e. the teacher acting as an enlightener… All these are the terms of the Altaic “white belief”.

            Their main book was called Sidra-Rabba (big book) or ginza (treasure) – these are Turkic words transformed in the course of centuries. From “kyznak” – “treasure”, “treasury”. Or from “sydra” – “extract” in the sense of “speaking the truth”. Hence, by the way, the “sutra” in religious philosophy of ancient India… This may be continued.

            And there is only one conclusion. The terminology of the early Christians is suspiciously Turkic. All of it. At that that is confirmed by the sources from different corners of Europe that seem not to be connected with each other; the name of Tengri was heard there. Only the presence of wondering preachers explains that striking similarity. And that is true, among non-Nestorians there were “ellecesseias”, from the Turkic “wonderer” or “preacher”. Europe called them “Gnostics”… The circle seems to be closed down, is it not?

           

            ● Back in the IX century the Moslems remembered the saying of the Most High and were not ashamed of it: “I have an army which I call the Turki; I located them in the East; when I am furious with any nation, I give my army the power over it”. Excellent words; they are astonishingly accurate. They are cited in the books by the great scientist of the Moslem world Mahmud Kasgari; they contain the whole history of the Great Nations Migration. 

            Here one reads about Apocalypse from which the collapse of the Roman Empire started. Here one reads about Attila whom the pagans used to call Scourge of God. Here one reads about Islam which was regarded by the Christians as the visitation of God. Here one reads about the Turki that have forgotten Tengri: the French, the English, the Scandinavians, the Germans, the Russians… Since they were the most notable pearl in the crowns of dozens of nations – those children of Altai that have lost themselves.

 

            It turns our, before the Common Era there was the center of Monotheism in the East… And maybe that is the source of the views of Cathars in France which are undistinguishable from those of Sabbataians in Mesopotamia? Maybe that is the reason of hostility against Christianity of the Arians in Scandinavia and Mandaens of the Low Euphrates?.. In that center they were raising knowledge, thoughts, teachings, philosophy. And of course the people of belief!

            When the Inquisition limited the moving of Altaic preachers in Europe the center lost its influence on the West and “heresy” withered since withered the umbilical cord that connected the born child with his mother. Words fail to convey this; in Europe the chosen were enjoying that elixir of wisdom. The most elegant connoisseurs of wisdom. Philosophers. That is why the teaching of the Bogomils and Cathars coincided with what people knew in Altai and with the knowledge of the northern Buddhists. The source was the same! It was nourishing the East; it was the tradition with which were living the Catholics that saw the light of day in the IV century.

            It is possible that the reason of the Christians' evident antagonism against the Altaic matter is that it is closer to God; it touches the Sky with its head… What if theological discrepancies have nothing to do with it? And it is all about human envy? Judging by literature the Inquisitors were not very sophisticated in the theory of religion; like butchers they were using not their heads but their hands.

            That was a violent fundamental fight; in all the western countries history keeps its traces. And the fact that the Church won does not witness anything. Historiographers dependent on the Pope wrote their history, but that is just a story of one of the participants of events. Here it is important to listen to the opinion of the other side. And it is absent…

            Time makes the decisions of History. Not the Pope. Luckily, the Church understood that in the XX century and made the fire of conscience underneath it. The Pope John Paul II at the turn of the third millennium apologized for the Inquisition and the tragedy connected with it. He seemed to have realized that not the people were burning in the fires but the culture of medieval Europe. Libraries disappeared without a trace because they were in the Turkic language.

            But have they disappeared? Or they have just lost their owner?

            Those books are kept in Vatican in special archives called Jesuit. Only members of the Society of Jesus have access there; to tell the truth sometimes illegal visitors enter there. Because of curiosity. Some books were translated and published in Latin; they are the cultural layer of medieval Christianity.

            “Derelict” books in a strange language are available in all the great libraries of the world; they are not called for. Dead weight… Among them the works by Teleghdi from Hungary were accidentally discovered – they are about the Turki of Europe; the book was published in 1598. It seems to be the last one on this subject.

            That is not even a book but moaning of a man whose motherland was dying: one third of the territory of Desht-I-Kipchak has forever become part of the West at that time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LITERATURE

(main sources)

 

[Abu-l-Gazi] The Family Tree of the Turki // Works of Abul-Gazi, the Khan of Khiva. Kazan, 1906.

           

Adji M. Europa's Asia. M., 1998, English translation, M., 2004.

            [Alikbekov]. The Adats of Kumyks / Translated by T.-B. Beibulatov; Recorded by M. Alibekov. Makhachkala, 1927.

            Artamonov M.I. The history of Khazars. L., 1962.

            Bartold V.V. Islam // Collected Works. Vol. VI. M., 1966.               

            Bartold V.V. <Islam on the Black Sea> // Ibid.

            Bartold V.V. About the Question of the Crescent as the Symbol of Islam // Ibid.

            Bartold V.V. About the Sabians // Ibid.

            [Bartold V.V.] The Book of my Grandfather Korkut: Oguz Heroic Epos. Baku, 1999.

            Bartold V.V. Koran and the Sea // Collected Works. Vol. VI. M., 1966.

            Bartold V.V. The Culture of Islam // Ibid.       

            Bartold V.V. The Moslem World // Ibid.        

            Bartold V.V. Sabians and Khanifs // Ibid.       

            Bartold V.V. Orientation of First Islamic Mosques // Ibid.      

Baskakov N.A. Russian Family Names of the Turkic Origin. M., 1993.

            Belikov D. Christianity of the Goths. Issue 1. Kazan, 1887.

Beliaev L.A. Christian Antiquities. SPb., 2000.

            Beowulf. The Elder Edda. The Song of Nibelungs. M., 1975.

            The Bible. Brussels, 1983.

[Biruni] Abu Reikhan Biruni. Collected Works. Vol. 1. Tashkent, 1957.

[Biruni] Abu Reikhan Biruni. India. M., 1995.

Bloc M. Apologia of History, or the Occupation of a Historian. M., 1986.

            Butanaev V.Y. Khakas-Russian Historical and Ethnographical Dictionary. Abakan, 1999.

            Veber E. Runic Arts. SPb., 2002.

“The Great Chronicle” of Poland, Rus and their Neighbors of the XI – XIII Centuries. M., 1987.

Verbitskiy V.I. Altaic Foreigners. M., 1893. Reprint. Gorno-Altaisk, 1993.

            Violle-de-Duc E.E. Life and Entertainment in the Middle Ages. SPb., 1999.

            Violle-de-Duc E.E. The Russian Arts: Its Sources, Components, Higher Development and Futurity. M., 1897.

            Vodov V. The Birth of Russian Christianity: Conversion of Vladimir, the Prince of Kiev, and its Consequences. XI – XII Centuries. (Conception Review) // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Gergei E. The History of Papacy. M., 1996.

Gibbon E. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Parts I – VII. SPb., 1997 – 2000.

            Golenischev-Kutuzov I.N. Medieval Latin Literature of Italy. Sretensk. 2000.

            Grant M. Roman Emperors. M., 1998.

            Gurevich A.Y. Culture and Society of Medieval Europe with the Eyes of Contemporaries. M., 1989.

            Gurevich A.Y. Campaigns of the Vikings. M., 1966.

            Darkevich V.P. Art Metal of the East (VIII – XIII centuries). M., 1976.

            Dashkov S.B. The Emperors of Byzantium. M., 1997.

            Diringer D. The Alphabet. M., 1963.

            Reports of the International Congress Dedicated to the Millennium of Christianity in Russia and the Ukraine (Ravenna, 1988) // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Ancient Russian Tones in Ancient Scandinavian Writings: Texts, Translation, Comments. M., 1987.

            Ancient Turkic Dictionary. L., 1969.

            Eger O. World History: in 4 Volumes. The Middle Ages. SPb., 1904. Reprint. M., 1999.

            Zaborov M.A. The History of the Crusades in Documents and Materials. M., 1977.

Zaborov M.A. Crusaders in the East. M., 1960.

            Zadvorniy V. The History of the Popes. Vol. I – II. M., 1995.

            Ingstad H. At the Wake of Leib the Happy. L., 1969.

Inostrantsev K.A. On History of pre-Moslem Culture of the Middle Asia. Pg., 1917.

            Jordan. About the Origin and Deeds of the Geths. Getica. M., 1960.

            Icelandic Sagas. L., 1956.

            Icelandic Sagas. Irish Epos. M., 1973.

            The History of China. M., 1998.

            Cardini F. The History of Medieval Knighthood. Sretensk, 2000.

            Karamzin N.M. The History of the Russian State. Vol. I-XII. SPb., 1842-1844. Reprint. M., 1988.

            Carger M.I. Ancient Kiev. Vol.1-2. M.; L., 1958; 1961.

[Carpini] John de Plano Carpini. The History of the Mongals. SPb., 1911.

            Keen M. Chivalry. M., 2000.

Kirpichnikov A.I. Saint George and George the Brave. SPb., 1879

            Klimovich L.I. The Book about Koran, its Origin and Mythology. M., 1988.

            Kovalskiy Y.V. Popes and Papacy. M., 1991.

            The Conception of the History of Ancient Russia in Synthesizing Works by German Historians Named “Handbook on the Russian History” // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Koran / Translation by I.Y. Krachkovskiy. M., 1963.

            Kryvelev I.A. The History of Religions. Vol. I. M., 1975.

            [Landyshev] Stephan Landyshev. Cosmology and Theogony of Altaic Pagans. Kazan, 1886.

            Lebedev A.P. The History of Split of Churches in the IX, X and XI Centuries. SPb., 1999.

            Madol G., Albigene Drama and the Fates of France. M., 2000.

            Matuzova V.I. English Medieval Sources of the IX – XIII Centuries: Texts, Translation, Comments. M., 1979.

            Melnikova E.A. Sword and Lyre: Anglo-Saxon Society in History and Epos. M., 1987.

            Melnikova E.A. Ancient Scandinavian Geographical Works. M., 1986.

            Mets A. Moslem Renaissance. M., 1996.

            The Mythological Dictionary. M., 1991.

            Murzaev E.M. Turkic Geographical Names. M., 1996.

            Muller L. The Baptism of Russia. The Early History of Christianity before 9888. Fragmentary Translation // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Nations of the World: Historical and Ethnographic Reference Book. M., 1988.

            Nikitin A.B. Christianity in the Central Asia (Antiquity and the Middle Ages) // Eastern Turkestan and the Central Asia. M., 1984.

            Osokin N. The History of the Albigenses and their Time. M., 2000.

            Pipes R. Russia under the Old Regime. M., 1993.

Pigulevskaya N. The Middle East. Byzantium. The Slavs L., 1976.

Pigulevskaya N. Syrian Culture in the Middle Ages. M., 1979.

            Podskalskiy G. Christianity and Theological Literature in Kievan Russia (988 – 1237): Dedicated to the Millennium (988 – 1988) of the Baptism of Russia Performed by St. Vladimir: (Conception Analysis) // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            [Polo] Marco Polo. The Book. M., 1955.

            Poppe A. The Rise of the Cult of Boris and Gleb: Fragmentary Translation // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Poppe A. Political reasons of the Baptism of Russia. Byzantine – Russian Relations: Fragmentary Translation // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            [Prelovskiy] Poetry of the Ancient Turki of VI – XII centuries. M.,1993.

            [Prelovskiy] Shamanistic Singing of the Siberian Turki / Translated by A. Prelovskiy. M., 1996.

Petit-Dutaillis C. Feudal Monarchy in France and England of the X – XIII Centuries. SPb., 2001.

            Wright W. A Short History of Syriac Literature. SPb., 1902.

[Rubruk] William de Rubruk. The Traveling to Eastern Countries. SPb., 1911.

            Russia and “The Steppe”: Review of Works by C. J. Galperin “George Vernadskiy and Eurasia”, “Russia and the Golden Horde: Mongolian Influence on the Russian Medieval History” // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Smirnova O.I. Places of Pre-Moslem Cults in the Central Asia (According to Toponymy Materials) // Countries and Nations of the East. Issue X. M., 1971.

            Steblin-KAmenskiy M.I. The World and the Sagas. M., 1971.

            Steblin-KAmenskiy M.I. Scaldic Poetry // The Poetry of the Scalds. L., 1979.

            [Sturluson] Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla. M., 1980.

            Tatischev V.N. Collected Works: 8 Volumes (5 Books): Vol. 4: The Russian History. M., 1964. Reprint. M., 1995.

            [Tacitus] Cornelius Tacitus. Annals. History // Selected Works in 2 Volumes. Vol. I. SPb., 1993.

Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to the History of the Golden Horde: Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. I. SPb., 1884.

Tisengausen V.G. Collection of Materials Relating to the History of the Golden Horde. Extracts from Arabic Works. Vol. II. M.; L., 1959.

            The Millennium of the Baptism of Russia: Dedicated to the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Russia: (According to the Materials of the International Symposium in Tutsingen, May 7^th  – 10^th, 1987) // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            The Millennium of the Baptism of Russia: International Church Conference: “Theology and Spirituality”. Moscow, May 11^th – 18^th, 1987. Vol. 1 – 2. M., 1989.

            Uspenskiy F.I. The History of the Byzantine Empire of the VI – IX Centuries. M., 1999.

            Uspenskiy F.I. The History of the Byzantine Empire: the Period of the Macedonian Dynasty (867 – 1057). M., 1997.

            Khara-Davan E. Genghis Khan as a Military Leader and his Heritage. Elista, 1991.

            Khesh E. Culture of the Eastern Slavs: Fragmentary Translation // Russia between East and West: Culture and Society X – XVII centuries // For XVII International Congress of Byzantium Explorers (Moscow, August 8-15^th, 1991). Part I – III, M., 1991.

            Christianity. Encyclopedia. Vol. 1 – 3. M., 1993 – 1995.

Tsultem N.-O. The Arts of Mongolia from the Ancient Times till the Beginning of the XX Century. M., 1986.

Chichurov I.S. Byzantine Historical Works: Theophan's “Chronography”, Nicephorus's “Breviary”. M., 1980.

            Shakhmatov A.A. Researches on the Ancient Russian Chronicles. SPb., 1908.

Shakhmatov A.A. Ancient Fates of Russian Nation. Pg., 1919.

            The Epos of the North Europe; Ways of Evolution / Edited by N.S. Chemodanov. M., 1989.

            The Epoch of the Crusades. SPb., 1999.