The theory of new chronology. Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich. New chronology

With this material we open a new series of articles by writer and publicist Egor Kholmogorov

Ch.I. New chronology of "New Chronology"

In online discussions, there is a well-known “Godwin’s Law” - as the discussion grows, the probability of using the argument “you are Hitler” tends to one. I think it’s time to introduce a similar “Law of Fomenkization of Discussions” into RuNet.

It is formulated as follows: “As the Internet discussion in which historical arguments are used grows, the likelihood of a commentator appearing with the statements “The entire chronology is incorrect, all manuscripts are forged, all chronicles are false, proven by scientists, not liar historians, but real mathematicians” tends to unit."

Most often, the law is implemented immediately when the discussion begins. Like Voldemort in his name, Fomenkovites immediately fly wherever the word “history” is mentioned, and the commentary about “fake Rome” or “fake Romanov historiography” is one of the first to appear.

Even teachers in schools and universities sometimes fall into new chronology and waste the precious time of their students not on acquiring positive knowledge, but on promoting the idea of ​​“falsification of history.”

Fomenkovism has acquired numerous imitations for more refined circles who do not want to eat the “battle of Kulishki.” Suffice it to mention the texts of the famous writer and Internet troll Dmitry Galkovsky about the “fakeness” of birch bark letters. Even non-Fomenkovites often talk about “fake history”, and the horizon of fakery is moving closer and closer, now for some only the 19th century is genuine.

The “new chronology” has turned into a serious social problem, if not a disease. It interferes with the dissemination of historical knowledge in society, it extinguishes interest in the past of Russia and Russians, it prevents the development of a healthy national identity of Russian people based on true history.

It can hardly be deceptive that the Fomenkovites accompany this destructive activity with a drumbeat about the fact that Rus', being a Horde, once ruled the world, Ermak conquered America, and the Russian Tsar-Khans are buried in Egypt. The “Empire” fictionalized by Nosovsky does not have any national, civilizational, or religious identity; it turns into a hodgepodge of peoples, languages ​​and religions. There is nothing Russian in the “Empire” of the Fomenkovites - it is a globalist-postmodernist empire of our time thrown back into the past.

Fomenkovism is an intellectual and spiritual disease that needs to be treated. In the series of articles we bring to your attention, we will first outline what the key theses of Fomenko-Nosovsky are, then we will trace what stages the “new chronology” went through in its development, then we will analyze, using specific examples, the methods of manipulating consciousness used by Fomenko-Nosovsky and, finally, we will formulate a systemic response to the challenges of the “new chronology”.

Key postulates of the “new chronology”

1. It is argued that there was no antiquity; the idea of ​​it was formed during the Renaissance with the help of forgeries or by attributing texts of the 16th-17th centuries to a much earlier time.
2. It is argued that our understanding of antiquity is obtained by doubling the characters and historical events of the Renaissance. That is why world history has such a supposedly “unnatural” appearance: highly developed culture of antiquity - decline of culture in the Middle Ages - revival of ancient culture by humanists and imitation (in fact, its creation anew).
3. It is argued that the modern chronology of historical events is incorrect; it was created by two scientists Scaliger and Petavius ​​at the end of the 16th - mid-17th centuries, most likely for malicious purposes. According to Fomenko, it is not confirmed by modern astronomical data. A classic example of such a discrepancy is the eclipse described by Thucydides and attributed by traditional chronology to 431 BC, and by Fomenko to 1039.
4. Accordingly, it is argued that human history is much shorter than we think. It begins no earlier than the 11th century, and the historical process we know acquires its modern outlines... here the data jumps, since in order to defend their theory, Fomenkovites have to declare an increasingly larger section of world history false, right up to the end of the 19th century.
5. It is argued that the texts on the basis of which our ideas about antiquity and the Middle Ages are formed are either forgeries, some of which were created by Italian humanists in the 15th-16th centuries, or the reproduction of duplicates of historical chronicles, rewritten with other names, dates and details. The newest version of NH, contrary to previously made statements, says that the ancient authors are genuine, but we simply understand their texts incorrectly, since we are under the spell of the “Scaligerian” chronology.
6. It is argued that the fact of falsification of historical chronicles is allegedly proven by a unique mathematical and statistical model for the analysis of narrative texts developed by Fomenko, which shows that “dynastic flows”, that is, the terms of reign and the main events of the life of monarchs in historical chronicles of different times and origins coincide, which means Before us are the same characters, reflected and duplicated in different chronicles. Thus, the streams of early and late Roman emperors are supposedly identical, where Pompey corresponds to Diocletian, Augustus to Constantine, Caligula to Julian the Apostate. The Palaiologan and Plantagenet dynasties coincide. The Rurikovichs after Alexander Nevsky and the Habsburgs who ruled Germany, etc., coincide.
7. It is argued that the global “falsification” of world history discovered by Fomenko covers up the true facts that formed the basis of its own historical myth, which began to be actively developed from the moment when Gleb Nosovsky joined Fomenko as a co-author. This myth is based on a global conspiracy theory. There was a Great Empire “Rus-Horde”, which was ruled by Russian-Mongolian king-khans, and its military class was the Cossacks. This empire covered Eurasia, Africa, Ermak-Cortes conquered America for it, its religion was Christianity, based on the veneration of Christ Andronicus Komnenos, who was killed in Constantinople-Jerusalem, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and so on were gradually separated from this religion. In the 16th century, a separatist revolt in the West began against this empire, now called the Reformation, then power in the Empire was seized by the evil Romanovs, who destroyed the memory of the true past, falsified the entire history and made Russia a colony of the separatist West. The last resistance movements of the imperial soldiers were the Cossack uprisings of Razin and Pugachev. Western separatists and the Romanovs carried out a total falsification of all history, sending the chronicles of events of the recent past into the distant past, forging and reprinting all books with false dates. The enemies formed a myth about the confrontation between Russia and Turkey, Orthodoxy and Islam, in order to prevent the restoration of the Empire. Only fragments of information have survived to us, like maps on which Rus' is designated as “Tartaria,” and Fomenko and Nosovsky are digging out for us these grains of genuine information from under a shroud of lies.

New Chronology "New Chronology"

The history of the “New Chronology” went through 4 significantly different stages.

1. Nikolay Morozov. 1900-1930s Masonic fantasy.

At this stage, revolutionary and freemason Nikolai Morozov (1854-1946), who spent 23 years in the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses, formulated a general concept of denying the authenticity of ancient history, based on the subjective interpretation of a number of astronomical data.

Photo: www.globallookpress.com

Morozov stated that the biblical books are zodiacs, that is, a record of the location of the constellations at the time the books were compiled, and began to calculate the dates when exactly such zodiacs could be seen in the sky. Morozov rejected all ancient literature, saying that it was falsified in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He was the first to express the thesis that the early Roman emperors were copies of the later ones. However, Morozov considered the biblical books not to be falsifications, but to be an encrypted record of astronomical phenomena, on the basis of which he transmitted them.

In his works “Revelation in a Thunderstorm and Storm” and “Christ,” Morozov transferred Christ from the 1st century to the 4th, identified him with St. Basil the Great and stated that he was not crucified, but subjected to “pounding,” and the “Apocalypse” was composed by St. John Chrysostom It is not difficult to notice that Morozov’s spearhead was Christianity, and the main thing he wanted to achieve was to discredit religious faith.

Moreover, in general, Morozov’s constructions are a typical product of the scientistic occultism widespread at the beginning of the twentieth century, which was represented by such different figures as the Bolshevik “god builders” - the red vampire A. Bogdanov and the head of the People’s Commissariat of Education Lunacharsky, the occult decadent Bryusov.

Morozov believed that world history was driven by a secret order of astrologers, and he himself tried to revive alchemy on the basis of Mendeleev’s periodic law - transforming some substances into others by changing the composition of the atom. Academician Sergei Ivanovich Vavilov rightly called this “chemical fantasies.”

2.Mikhail Postnikov. 1960-1970s Mathematicians joke.

Soviet mathematician M.M. Postnikov (1927-2004) became interested in the works of Morozov in the 1960s, willingly read extensive lectures about them, and tried to organize discussions with historians, who, however, avoided these discussions. And not so much because of the wildness of the ideas, but because of the amateurish level of their presentation. Postnikov himself quotes the review of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, a man quite capable of appreciating fantasy and unorthodox theories: “We, historians, do not meddle in mathematics and ask you, mathematicians, not to meddle in history!”

Postnikov’s main achievements in the field of “new chronology” was the formulation the principle of continuous evolutionary growth of knowledge, which, in his opinion, is contradicted by the historical failure of the “dark ages”, and this, in his opinion, meant that the entire period of brilliant cultural flourishing in antiquity was fictional and falsified during the Renaissance, and history began from a low level in III-IV centuries AD, as Morozov taught.

In addition, Postnikov developed the method of “dynastic flows” - to compare data on the duration and nature of the reigns of representatives of different dynasties of different times in order to isolate overlapping areas. In this way, Postnikov, in his opinion, proved not only that the early Roman Empire was a phantom duplicate of the later one, but also that the Spartan kings were a reflection of the rulers of the late Byzantine Mystras, located in the same place.

Postnikov’s degree of historical competence is extremely low, as he asserts the falsification of certain works of ancient authors, but, as a rule, incorrectly, with a late shift, he names the dates of their first printed editions. His intellectual tools are extracts from popular science books on the history of Soviet publication.

Based on Postnikov’s lectures, another mathematician, Anatoly Fomenko, became familiar with the new chronology, and at a certain point they created a joint group with Postnikov on the “new chronology”; one of their joint texts was even published by Yuri Lotman in “Proceedings on Sign Systems” of the University of Tartu, which caused a scandal at the level of the Party Central Committee and the Academy of Sciences.

Postnikov compiled his three-volume work “A Critical Study of the Chronology of the Ancient World”, reproduced by INION in 1977 (published by M.: Kraft, Lean, 2000), but he did not receive the glory of the discoverer. She all went to Fomenko, who broke up with him.

If Postnikov remained an orthodox Morozovite, starting his alternative history from late antiquity, then Fomenko went for a radical revision of Morozov’s concept, beginning a new stage in the history of the “new chronology”. At the same time, in Fomenko’s publications one can still find excerpts from Postnikov’s work, given, as a rule, without any indication of the original source. For example, in a huge compendium on the “new Chronology” - “Rus and Rome: New Chronology. Russian-Horde Empire" (vols. 1-2 M.: AST, 2007) Postnikov is not mentioned never.

III. Anatoly Fomenko. 1980s - early 1990s Sect "Andronikos-shinrikyo"

Anatoly Fomenko, while retaining the basics of Postnikov’s argumentation and methodology, significantly radicalized their conclusions. Not only ancient history, but also the entire medieval history was demolished. Fomenko stated that he had developed methods for statistical analysis of narrative texts, which prove that most historical chronicles are corrected duplicates of each other with duplicating characters. His “global chronology” claimed to explain the origin of the entire variety of pictures of historical events from only four original chronicles, which were recombined and rewritten, reflected in each other.

Since Fomenko’s works began to appear during the crisis of Soviet historical science with its scholastic Marxist schemes and extreme dullness of presentation, Fomenko’s theory received a warm reception: firstly, it fit into the big narrative of exposing everything and everyone, which took place under the slogan “they hid from us,” secondly, it was especially warmly received by “techies”, as it created the illusion that they understood history better than “those lousy humanities scholars.”

And since it was at this moment that the real social default of the techies occurred - institutes and factories of the military-industrial complex were closed, salaries were not paid, Fomenkovism was one of the forms of ressentiment of this class, which suddenly lost its place in society and self-esteem. In essence, it was a form of escape from history, and indeed from reality in general, similar to the spread of rigid totalitarian sects during the same period - the white brotherhood, Aum-shinrikyo, etc. The very concept of Christ declaring the Byzantine emperor Andronikos Komnenos a usurper, murderer and pedophile could not alienate society only in such vaguely ignorant times as the era of perestroika and the early post-Soviet period.

However, Fomenko’s problem was that he introduced predominantly negative, nihilistic content into the “new chronology” - the destruction of the old narrative, framed by many graphs and implicated in criticism of such an esoteric and incomprehensible text as the “Almagest” of Claudius Ptolemy. Fomenkovism sorely lacked its own positive myth, its own narrative, which appeared with the coming to the fore of Fomenko’s constant collaborator, Gleb Nosovsky.

IV. Gleb Nosovsky. 1995 - present vr. "MMM" folk history

Mathematician Gleb Nosovsky published works on the “new chronology” already in the 1980s and tried to re-date the Council of Nicaea and Easter. As a parishioner of the Old Believer Church (from which he was excommunicated after the publication of works that were obviously incompatible with Orthodoxy), he showed a keen interest in religious issues.

His name is associated with the transformation of the “new chronology” from a destructive parahistorical theory into a full-fledged “folk history” with all its elements - a grand narrative, folk etymologies of names and titles, the revelation of secret enemy conspiracies, miraculous transformations of characters, confusion of history and mythology, when In one thread, the Trojan War, the Nibellunglied and the policies of the Habsburgs are analyzed.

Gradually, this folk-historical content in the “new chronology” is growing - in fact, nihilistic historical criticism is now used only as a prelude to the theory of the “Romanov conspiracy” against Russian history, from under the cover of which the authors get us the “true facts” that Rus' this is both the Horde and Rome, that Ermak and Fernand Cortes are one person, that the Arab coins found on the territory of Rus' are Russian coins.

At its core, Nosovsky’s concept is a radical Fomenkized transposition of Lev Gumilyov’s Eurasian concept, popular in the 1980s and 1990s, about the organic coexistence of Rus' and the Golden Horde, about the Eurasian union against the West, etc. Himself prone to historical mythologization, Gumilyov would probably be pretty annoyed to learn that his complex schemes for establishing the proximity and interconnection of Rus' and the Horde were replaced by their crude identification to the extent of Batu - this is the “father” ataman, and Dmitry Donskoy - Tokhtamysh.

Monument to Dmitry Donskoy. Photo: Natalia Sidorova / Shutterstock.com

During this period, the “New Chronology” actually turned into a commercial cult, similar to many sects and built on the principle of a “pyramid” - it is necessary to continuously maintain the interest of readers, and for this to come out with more and more new revelations, to reveal more and more secrets, to cover everything new and new areas. In addition, increasing the amount of material and absurd statements to an impossible degree makes it possible to almost completely paralyze criticism, since the subject of the dispute is blurred and a single point of reference is lost. What yesterday was a “falsification” today turns out to be a “secret message”, which contains signs of truth that only need to be deciphered. But if this “message” reveals any facts that reveal the falsity of Fomenkov’s hypothesis, then these are, of course, late interpolations. Hence the method of actual spam, when Fomenkovism attracts more and more topics and statements that supposedly prove its main theses.

In Fomenkov’s concept, a “boost game” began in terms of rhetorical flirting with patriotism, they say, only Fomenkov’s version of history reveals the true greatness of Rus', and those who disagree with it are participants in a Russophobic conspiracy. The fact that we are no longer talking about any Rus' at all, that Fomenkovism is destroying it, the readers, stunned by the pseudo-Slavophile chatter, do not even think about. This stage, when the “new chronology” exists as an ever-expanding factory of quasi-historical myths, continues to this day.

Followers of the “new chronology”, as a rule, are divided into two distinct types, even if they do not admit it to themselves - into Fomenkovites And Nosovites. Representatives of the first type are more interested in the theory of falsification of antiquity, falsity of chronology, and a skeptical attitude towards historical sources. Most of the epigones of Fomenkovism also, as a rule, take the first, nihilistic position. Representatives of the second type are more interested in the myth of the former great Empire, the search for information about it encrypted in certain sources that have come down to us.

It is important to understand that the Fomenkov and Nosov parts of the “New Chronology” fundamentally contradict each other both in general spirit and in methodology. One represents historical nihilism, the other historical myth-making.

For example, within the framework of Fomenkov’s destructive methodology, it is “obvious” that Herodotus, Josephus, as well as other ancient historians, are a falsification of the Renaissance. At the same time, within the framework of the Nosov historical myth, it is no less “obvious” that Herodotus is a real author who lived in the 16th century, who can serve as a valuable source of information from the “Empire”, if interpreted correctly, the problem is not a fake, but incorrect interpretation of it by the “medieval scholastics”. Nosovsky draws information from Josephus Flavius ​​with both hands, for example, he finds in him a story about Stenka Razin.

Within the framework of co-authorship, whose constructions claim to be scientific and true, such opposing models could not coexist. But, since NH is a commercial cult in which the truth of the authors is least of all interested, most of Fomenko-Nosovsky’s publications are a centaur text, where two contradictory methodologies and historical mythologies live in adjacent chapters. However, due to higher productivity, the “Nosovskaya” part of this centaur is gradually spreading out at the expense of the Fomenkovskaya one.

In the next article we will talk about the methods of manipulation of consciousness, up to direct falsifications, used by the authors of the “New Chronology” to attract adherents to their sect.

Science falsifier Anatoly Fomenko

Nedelya columnist Pyotr Obraztsov was also present at the conference with academician Anatoly Fomenko. We are publishing part of the conversation between the academician and our columnist, as well as with Internet readers.

"There was no Masonic conspiracy"

question from Peter Obraztsov: You have repeatedly said that “traditional” historians do not agree to accept your point of view because they are slaves of tradition. And who was at the heart of that false dating of historical events in a large number of countries and states? What is this mysterious Masonic organization that needed to distort history?

answer: Let's start with the fact that not all historians are against our research; many support us. We have established good relationships with archaeologists and historians, they provide us with interesting materials, we do not work in a vacuum.

Regarding the conspiracy: apparently, there was no Masonic conspiracy, but the following. According to our hypothesis, until the 18th century there was a kind of single large empire, it split, and independent states arose on this territory, and the new rulers needed a new history. They wrote it.
One of the methods of justifying their rights to the throne was the statement that they had always been on this land and ruled. It was necessary to create some kind of ancient history, they “ancientized” the dates, and this is how, apparently, an artificially extended history arose. Work was done to change the dates by several specialists. This work is quite serious, but not like a secret conspiracy.

in (reader Olga): Dear Anatoly Timofeevich, what mathematical, historical, astronomical data is your theory based on?

O: I refer you to our website chronologia.org, where the book “Foundation of History” and “Methods” are posted, the full text with pictures, the methods, justifications, and processing of texts, on the basis of which we calculate dates, are fully detailed.

Let's say, an important way of the last few years of our work is to date old descriptions of eclipses and horoscopes, and the location of the constellations and planets is known. I will list the dates so that you can see how much needs to be changed in our ideas about antiquity. We know the zodiac of Pharaoh Seti, Ancient Egypt. With an unbiased dating of this zodiac, it turns out to be 969 AD... Zodiac of Pharaoh Ramses IV, Ancient Egypt - 1146 AD... Zodiac from the Louvre, Europe, 17th century; gem of Marcus Aurelius, the famous ancient gem, exhibited in the Louvre - 17th century AD...

in (Olga): That is, this says that in general the whole story... it...

O: It was shorter. Apparently it was much shorter. This must be clarified using the methods of statistics, astronomy, physics, and chemistry. This is what, in our opinion, is very valuable and interesting for specialists in the field of chronology.

In search of the site of the Battle of Kulikovo

in (Samples): Your assumption that the Battle of Kulikovo was not at all where traditional historians believe, but in Moscow, in the Taganka region, in particular, is based on the fact that no material evidence of this battle has yet been found. But recently they found something - bones, weapon parts...

O: Our reconstruction of the site of the Battle of Kulikovo is by no means based on whether there are remains of burials. We made this conclusion based on dating research and text analysis. We do not at all rely on the fact that there are no burials near Tula. I will say even more: if traces of burials or weapons were found there, this would not affect our reconstruction in any way, since historians would have to prove that the remains found there belong to the soldiers of the Battle of Kulikovo.

in (Samples): The classical method of radiocarbon dating is known. I know you criticize it, but this method is quite well developed by chemists and physicists. They, and not historians, consider dating using this method to be basically correct...

O: The short answer is this: the method itself is apparently quite interesting from a physics point of view. However, it is necessary to separate the method from its use in archaeology. All experts know that the accuracy of this method is very low. So far, when dating objects whose age is one to one and a half thousand years, the method has errors of precisely one and a half to one thousand years.

Since the time of the archaeologist Milovich, it has been found that with unbiased dating, when a sample is sent to several laboratories without communicating in advance the approximate age of the find, the laboratories give very different answers. In the examples Milovich reports, the dates differ by 500 thousand years (!).

Let's take a case where the sample was dated more or less accurately. This is a famous example with the shroud of Christ in Turin, they dated it, and what happened? It turned out that this shroud does not date back to the 1st century AD, as many would like. e., and in the interval from the 11th to the 13th centuries AD. A scandal arose and talk of forgery began. Here is a striking example when a method, applied carefully, gives a date that does not fit into the diagram at all.

Our response to "Anti-Fomenko"

in (Irina): In your books, you have already changed the pretender for the role of Jesus Christ three times. So who is he - Isa Christopher, Pope Gregory VII or Andronicus Komnenos?

O: No, we did not have such changes, although we did find duplicates of Christ, among them Pope Gregory VII appeared in the first works. The final version presented by us: Christ had many duplicates; we found about 50 reflections of Christ in different texts. The original was, apparently, Emperor Andronik in the 15th century, who is also known to us as Grand Duke Andrei Bogolyubsky.

in (Andrey Novikov): Why have the “new chronologists” still not responded to the criticism outlined in the book “Astronomy versus the New Chronology” (2001)?

O: Our zodiac dating program has been published. In the book "Methods" at the end there are large and detailed tables of frequencies, references of names, we have fully published the list, which was the basis for dating ancient dynasties. All these materials have been published, as well as the algorithm for calculating the coefficients. Demanding that we present hundreds of pages of printouts is not serious.

in (Evgenia): It would be very interesting to listen to the arguments of professional historians in opposition to your ideas and then counter-arguments. Do you have any plans for such “round tables”? And one more question - which of the famous historians (including foreign ones) supports you?

O: Regarding criticism, I report the following: to date, about 10 books have been published under the general title “Anti-Fomenko”; those interested can find them in central stores in Moscow. Very detailed answers are published in our books, on our website there is a button “Responses to criticism”, there is our analysis of statements addressed to us and comments. Therefore, the discussion is ongoing, it is quite accessible.

Regarding who supports us, I have already said that they exist, but there are still few of them among historians: because of our support, they may experience difficulties in their professional environment.

Our information. An extra thousand years

Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is a member of the Academy of Sciences in the Department of Mathematics and is a major specialist in the field of geometry and mathematics, the author of many articles, monographs and textbooks, and a State Prize laureate. However, he is known to the general public not as a specialist in an incomprehensible area of ​​mathematics, but as the creator of a “new chronology” with extraordinary conclusions. The essence of the theory is a fundamentally different dating of historical events from the generally accepted one, in which entire centuries (even a millennium) are considered fictitious. The false dating, according to Fomenko’s group, is explained, in particular, by the desire of European monarchs to confirm their rights to the throne and territories with “ancient” historical documents, and the desire to demonstrate an impressive “image.”

Anatoly Fomenko, often in collaboration with G. Nosovsky, wrote a number of books in which the “new chronology” method was applied to various eras and countries. Among them are “Global Chronology”, “New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome”, “New Chronology of Greece”, “New Chronology of Rus'”, “Biblical Rus'”, “New Chronology of Egypt”, “King of the Slavs”, “ The beginning of Horde Rus'."

Who became who according to the "new chronology"

Ivan the Terrible became the Roman Emperor Diocletian. Or Diocletian and Constantine at the same time;

False Dmitry II - Julian the Apostate;

Genghis Khan - Rurik;

Ivan Kalita - Khan Batu, aka Yaroslav the Wise;

Jesus Christ - Andrei Bogolyubsky;

Charles the Bald - by Emperor Theodoric;

Marco Polo - Pole Marik;

Etruscans - Russians;

Russians - Prussians.

The scientific view of Peter Obraztsov

The Etruscans did not become extinct. This is you and me

Anatoly Fomenko and his group are not the first to cancel many centuries of history. Their most notable Russian predecessor was the former Narodnaya Volya member, honorary academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences Nikolai Morozov, who spent a quarter of a century in the casemates of the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses. According to legend, Alexander II considered the death penalty too weak a punishment for a Narodnaya Volya member and ordered him to be killed in prison. The legend is contradicted by information about Nikolai Morozov’s actual stay in prisons, where he could use the library and, upon leaving prison, carried out 15,000 (!) pages of texts he wrote.

Among them, a prominent place is occupied by essays on historical topics, in which Morozov dramatically changes the dating of historical events. Historians contemporary to Morozov, as a rule, categorically refused to discuss the delusional, in their opinion, theories of the amateur historian. Yuri Olesha in his book “Not a Day Without a Line” tells how he once mentioned in a conversation with a famous scientist Morozov’s reasoning that no Ancient Greece existed and that the Parthenon was built by the crusaders. “And you’re telling this to me, a historian?!” - the scientist became furious and hit young Olesha with his cane. The works of Fomenko-Nosovsky initially evoked approximately the same reaction among historians. They simply considered it beneath their dignity to discuss this, in their opinion, complete nonsense.

Then the situation changed. The circulation of books on the “new chronology” has reached unprecedented levels, the theory of Anatoly Fomenko has become a new social phenomenon. And traditional historians set about refuting both individual provisions of the theory and the entire “new chronology”. Over time, they were joined by physicists and mathematicians, who found errors in the foundation of the theory - dating the past using astronomical events. To date, several conferences have been held to criticize Fomenko, the Anti-Fomenko website and a series of Anti-Fomenko books have appeared.

Attempts are also being made to understand the reasons for the creation of the “new chronology”. If we take the point of view of critics, then it is really incomprehensible - how could a highly qualified specialist in his field come up with so many ridiculous theories and why? Three hypotheses have been put forward: a) a hoax that lasted for 26 years in the spirit of “Second Lieutenant Kizhe”, b) fanaticism and self-hypnosis, reluctance to abandon a theory once expressed, c) a commercial hypothesis a. Only the latter has obvious confirmation - huge circulations of books bring big profits. However, this hypothesis should not even be mentioned in a society of intelligent people.

As for the first two hypotheses, they can only be discussed under a “boundary condition” (using the language of mathematics), i.e. with the confidence that the “new chronology” is not correct in principle. But no one has proven this for sure yet! At least, he didn’t prove it in such a way that the “ordinary reader” would be convinced of it. For every critical remark, Fomenko’s group is not lazy to provide a convincing counter-argument, and no historian is able to figure out who is right.
What do you think, the reader will ask. So, it seems to me that deducing the identity of the Russians, Prussians and Etruscans on the basis of a successful combination of the letters “r”, “u” and “s” in the names of these peoples is about the same as considering bin Laden to be the son of Bin Gurion.

Everything was not as it really was

1. Siege of Troy
Traditional historians agree with Homer - the Greeks fought with the Trojans in the 13th century BC.

Fomenko's group believes that Troy, inhabited by Western Europeans, was besieged by the Russians in alliance with the Tatars in the 13th century AD.

2. Battle of Kulikovo
Traditional historians believe that the battle took place on the Kulikovo Field in the modern Tula region in 1380.

Fomenko’s group places the site of the battle in the area of ​​Taganskaya Square in Moscow (on Kulishki), but agrees with the dating of the event.

3. Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (Istanbul)
Traditional historians consider this Christian temple from the early 6th century AD. That's exactly what they call it.

Fomenko's group identifies St. Sophia with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and Constantinople with biblical Jerusalem. The temple itself, according to Fomenko’s group, was built 1000 years later, in the 18th century AD.

How the Germans started speaking Old Russian

To contrast with the interview with Academician Fomenko, here are a few statements from professionals. For example, Fomenko’s group considers the Radziwill Chronicle of the 15th century to be a falsification. Here is what academician Andrei Zaliznyak says about this: “Let me remind you how the production of the Radziwill Chronicle takes place as presented by the authors of the new chronology. “It was produced in Konigsberg at the beginning of the 18th century, apparently in connection with the arrival of Peter I there and immediately before that arrival." Some things were taken from some "really old chronicle of the 15th-16th centuries", and everything that was required according to their plan was composed themselves. This was done, naturally, by the Germans. So what? Why shouldn't the Germans really To master the Old Russian language and paleography for such a case? True, they didn’t have enough time. But look, it didn’t turn out so bad: for more than two hundred years, not a single linguist noticed any paleographic, or spelling, or grammatical, or stylistic. false - they didn’t even realize that it came from the hands of a foreigner!”

But the opinion of Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences M.L. Gorodetsky about historical comparisons of the Fomenko group: “One of the main arguments of the “new chronology” of Academician A.T. Fomenko and his followers is the “method of recognizing duplicates.” Pairs of chronological lists of rulers of different countries and eras with similar numerical indicators are demonstrated and it is argued that such the coincidences are absolutely incredible from the point of view of mathematical statistics. It is also stated that “several dozen” such pairs of “parallelisms” have been found... Such pairs of dynasties, presented in visual graphic form, make a strong impression on the unprepared reader.”

We will not cite numerous evidence from M.L. Gorodetsky about the incorrectness of Anatoly Fomenko’s approach, we will quote only one statement - as it seems to us, quite weighty: “You can also ask the following question: let’s assume that A.T. Fomenko is still right, and there are several pairs or dozens of pairs of “duplicate dynasties” The question arises: what to do with the hundreds of “independent” dynasties in neighboring and distant countries that are simultaneously duplicated?”

Chronology of A.T. Fomenko and the history of Russia

Since World History, due to the new global chronology of A.T. Fomenko is greatly shortened, “duplicates” are combined: the histories of different countries or the history of different time periods of one country in the Scaliger-Petavius ​​chronology in the new chronology turns out to be the history of one country or, accordingly, the history of a country of one period of time. And this cannot but affect the history of Russia. Many historical figures, paradoxically, will have to be recognized as one and the same person, but “multiplied” in sources in which he is mentioned under different names. This applies to both Russian princes and khans of the Golden Horde. Moreover, due to the hypothesis of A.T. Fomenko, that the Horde is Rus', the Russian princes will “stick together” with the Tatar khans. For example, Ivan Kalita = Batu. Funny? But here’s what’s funny: Batu in “Scythian History” by A.I. Lyzlov is there, but the “gatherer of the Russian Land” Ivan Kalita, who, it seems, was called Kalita not by the people, but by the historian N.M. Karamzin (Polevoy, vol. 2. p. 577) no, not mentioned.

We present here a diagram (Fig. 12) of identifying Russian princes and tsars, borrowed from (Nosovsky, Fomenko. Empire. p. 648).

1. Nizami: “...Alexander the Great... defeated the Russians...” (Polevoy. vol. 1, p. 481). How could Macedonian fight with the Russians, since he died 1000 years before the Russian people appeared?

2. Find a sheet in the Radziwill Chronicle where the gospel events are dated approximately 1000 AD. ! (Nosovsky, Fomenko. Empire. p. 96).

3. How could the Apostle Paul be a teacher of the Slavic language among the Slavs of Illyria? (Polevoy, vol. 1, p. 477). After all, this contradicts traditional chronology. But that’s what it says in the PVL. However, the Apostle Luke painted the icon in Poland, which was kept in the Jasnogorsk Monastery in Czestochowa (Bushkov, 1997, p. 420), and the Apostle Andrew baptized the Slavs on the Dnieper. The saints forgot that they had been absent from the world for several hundred years.

4. How is the word “Jesus” translated from Greek? Answer: God's help.

5. How is the word “Christ” translated from Greek? Answer: 1) anointed, consecrated; 2) letters. – smeared, painted.

G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko (Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics) Analysis of the books “Antifomenko” and “History and Antihistory” Criticism of the “New Chronology” by Academician A.T. Fomenko 1. Introduction In December 1999 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University