Apparently, the Mongols weren’t who we thought they were, and the wusses couldn’t even conquer Russia:
The reason is simple – the actual “Mongol conquerors of Russia” never existed. The yoke theory was created by the German court historians of the new Russian dynasty – the Romanovs. It has served the end of justifying the Romanovs’ claims for the throne and demonising their longtime adversaries – the Horde, or the professional Russian army, which remained fiercely loyal to the old Russian dynasty.
Want proof? Watch the video (and then buy the book by Anatoly Fomenko). Not only will you get to learn about real Russian history, but it will “change your entire perception of history forever.”
Oh, and you’ll learn that Jesus was a medieval man.
(Thanks to Reluctant Muscovite for forwarding on the video).
- What next?
Stumble it
Digg it
Save to Delicious
Leave a comment
Subscribe
{ 11 comments }
On the surface, this appears even more off the wall than the claim of Russia not being descended from Kievan Rus.
Mainstream Russian historians and other mainstream Russians certainly don’t accept the claimed contention in the above post. It wouldn’t surprise to find out that the same holds true of modern day Mongolian sources. On the surface, it makes no kind of historical or logical sense.
There had been an ancient Russian identity in the form of Kievan Rus. The Mongols invaded and occupied it. In the process, some Mongol influence developed in the lands comprising ancient Russia (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus) as well as some other areas.
Ivan the Terrible was a Riurik. The Riuriks ruled Kievan Rus. The Trident, Ukraine’s readopted coat of arms was the family emblem of the Riuriks. Shortly after Ivan’s rule, a panel of boyars elected to have a Romanov govern Russia. The Romanavs were/are distant relations to the Riuriks.
I’d like to see how the above referenced work addresses such matter. Does it even do so?
I just watched the video and it says the rating is 2 out of 5? I’m not a bid scholar or historian but accodring to the rating of the story Fomenko is just one of those people who wants to be different than others so that way he can be known to others and sell his books, dvd’s!!! Sorry for the comment, But that’s just what I think.
Oh my,
that is not an issue to even discuss, it’s just good for a laugh! Man — are we going to discuss homeopathy next? Thanks Andy for posting it, though, it’s simply too funny to pass up. A manifestly idiotic involuntary joke that cracks me up every time.
“world-famous” mathematician… ha ha ha.
From time to time, mass media will uncritically picks otherwise dubious commentary. That selective process often relates to its biases.
Russia isn’t really European and should therefore not be treated as such.
are we going to discuss homeopathy next?
RM – I’m not a particular expert on Russian Homeopathy, I must say, but I’d very much welcome your views on this book – The History of Homeopathy in the Russian Empire.
Arg, that’s a history of homeopathy in Russia, not about homeopathy as such. However, considering it uses the term “allopathy”, and is published by a pro-homeopathy website, i will not waste my time on it.
Believe in homeopathy, astrology, and creationism are, for me, generally the litmus test of somebody’s educational stage. You believe in any of those three, and I generally will spend little time discussing with you
Homeopathy’s ok, provided you take it for what it is (a not very well researched method of treatment that sometimes works, but we don’t quite know why) rather than slavishly believing in it as a cure for all ills.
Completely agree with you when it comes to astrology and creatonism, though.
No, Andy, homeopathy is bunk. It’s well researched and it’s bunk. All of it. The whole lot. It doesn’t wok beyond the placebo level, it’s based on utterly ridiculous theory, and it has never, ever stood a clinical double-blind test.
Do not confuse it with phytotherapy. Most people confuse the two, and homeopaths are more than happy to keep that confusion alive. Phytotherapy works (deadly nightshade or opium anyone?) Homeopathy does not.
go to http://www.quackwatch.org and check out their section on it, for example.
This thread makes me want to watch the film ‘Urga’ again….
Fomenko’s claim is just as bizarre as something I just saw at another blog about “there’re” not being a correct substitute for “there are”.
By the way, just to set the record straight, the Mongolian ‘hordes’ weren’t wild, but probably one of the most disciplined armies of their time. I’m serious. They almost always were outnumbered by their opponents, but defeated them due to their superior strategies and tactics. The former were mostly due to the genius of Genghis Khan and his ‘three dogs of war’, the latter were the results of centuries of steppe warfare.
The word ‘horde’, used as a derogative today, derives from the Mongol word ‘ordo’, which simply is a group of tents, a camp in other words.
Last but not least, the Mongols were not Tatars, the name ‘Tatar’ is the result of both linguistic confusion and derogation. If you had called a Mongol back then a Tatar, he would have become very, very upset. That’s actually documented;)
Comments on this entry are closed.