2023 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-05-24 11:30
Examples of falsification of history await us at every step. For example, a 19th century artist draws the story of Peter.
The year is 1756.
The year is 1738.
The fictional story is ready, now it all turns upside down and the countdown begins from the smallest date. It is said that it was so, so it WAS!
Here's another map for you, pay attention to the date 1698.
This is the official story ordered for textbooks, but these maps contradict other maps, such as Erik Nilsson Aspegreen's 1643 map.
In ancient Russian and Scandinavian written sources up to the Peace of Orekhovets in 1323 in the Neva region, on the Baltic coast and in the Ladoga region, 42 settlements are noted. Of these, 32 Novgorod settlements (in size and social scale from the capital city to the monastery village), 6 cities "in Chudi", 1 city in Latgallia, 1 city in the Livonian land, 1 German city. According to the Treaty of Orekhovets, the state border between the Novgorod Republic and Sweden moved to the river. Sister.
Based on historical data, we can say now that on the territory of the future Greater St. Petersburg during the 15th - end of the 17th centuries. 900 - 1000 settlements, united by hundreds of kilometers of roads, existed stably. Many of these settlements became the "buds" of the creation of St. Petersburg settlements, ensembles and building blocks. Even under Peter I, the borders of St. Petersburg included the territory of at least 55 villages of the pre-Petrine period, and the suburban area united more than a hundred more previously existing villages, manors, villages and hamlets. Modern St. Petersburg and the territories under its administrative control already cover more than 200 ancient settlements. Read more here: Peter the Great's nests.
This area has always been quite densely populated, and the notes of the cartographer passing by should not be neglected, as well as this map of the early 17th century.
Here is another plan of the city with the Nieschanz fortress, dated 1643.
And so, the Nieshants fortress, founded in 1611.
Mouth of the Neva River, the city of Nyen with its surroundings, end of the 17th century.
According to Swedish historians, in 1691 there was a catastrophic flood on the Neva. The water rose to Nyen seven and a half meters above the ordinary. It was the highest of the recorded water heights for the entire existence of Nyen, a lot of structures on the coastal part went under the water, and were subsequently abandoned.
Wonderful maps of the early 18th century, they were sent to me by a history lover under the pseudonym Father Sergiy.
Pay your attention to how the card is signed.
This is the first map of Peter so far, of those that came across to me, with the TARTAR settlement.
And here is the 1703 PETROPOLIS, interesting, right? They just got together to build, but it has already been built.
Petropolis of 1744, what is the scale, what is the speed of construction, how many microdistricts, canals and communications.
Interesting articles on the topic: Stupid Petersburg and irreplaceable Petersburg.
An entertaining point of view on the cartography of that time: Are all the old maps of St. Petersburg fake?
And one more thing: The biggest scam of the 19th century. The story of the removal of the capital of the Russian state practically outside the borders of the state itself seems very strange for that time. Even at the beginning of the 19th century, let alone the 18th century, Petersburg was categorically isolated from Muscovy, there was not a single normal direct waterway (only the unsuccessfully made Vyshnevolotsk system, somehow working to descend to St. Petersburg). In those days, of course, there were no planes, no railways, no highways, only waterways along rivers, and short land sections - "drags" between river routes. And if there are no normal communication routes along which goods, troops, etc. can move, then there is no transport connectivity, without which there can be no statehood. Couriers with decrees can get there, but without the economic and power component, these decrees are worthless. The country is huge, and the capital is in the middle of nowhere, doesn't it seem absurd to you? Until the 19th century, the main city controlling the transport hubs of the Moscow-Smolensk Upland at that time was the "key-city" of Smolensk, located in the upper reaches of the Dnieper, where a chain of portages began, connecting the river routes "from the Varangians to the Greeks" and "from the Varangians to the Persians. "at the intersection of trade routes from the Dnieper, Zapadno-Dvinsky, Volkhov, Volzhsky and Oka river basins. And only in the 19th century began a large-scale construction of direct waterways from St. Petersburg to the Volga: the Mariinsky, Tikhvin and the reconstruction of the Vyshnevolotsky water systems. In general, this is not a "Petrovsky" city, and its scope is not.
And they write that for some two or three decades on the Neva, without roads, a city appears in the swamps (note, the most northern in the world at that time) with a modern layout, with avenues that no one had built before, sewers, canals with granite cladding, massive stone structures, and columns, columns and columns (what kind of laboriousness, why, for what?) … like in Lebanon Baalbek, Greece Parthenon, Egypt Giza, etc.
But this is Baalbek. Find 10 differences.
Peter was built according to all the canons of an ancient city, not a Christian one, but an antique one: columns, statues, palaces. The first church appeared there in the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Peter and Paul Cathedral (1712-1733). During the life of Peter I, no more churches were built on the territory of the city. But Petersburg impressed with a huge number of antique sculptures and buildings.
And here is Athens, 19th century.
Does that remind you of anything?
One thought gnaws at me, modern technologies still cannot reach … ancient technologies of working with stone. Some historians strongly doubted the participation of our civilization in the construction of the pyramids, Baalbek, the Pantheon and the Parthenon, not to mention the Wall of China (perhaps this is just a high-speed highway between the west and east). The states that appeared there simply appropriated the merits of the ancient builders, completing the buildings in their own way, or recognizing them as monuments of their ancestors. Maybe Peter was also informed about the discovery of the city, or its ruins. It was not for nothing that he so passionately destroyed all the old records and sources associated with the emergence of the city. How many builders of St. Petersburg remained in the foundation of its structures. How many underground passages have not yet been found, how many are still shrouded in mystery?
In order to rewrite history for yourself, you first need to destroy all sources and records of previous history (under Peter, almost all church chronicles were forcibly seized, with the aim of copying and replicating them, which never appeared anywhere else). And most importantly: to confuse the chronology. What was successfully produced with him. Peter ordered instead of January 1, 7208, "from the creation of the world" to consider January 1, 1700 "from the birth of the Lord God and our salvation, Jesus Christ." The civil new year was also postponed to January 1. The year 1699 was the shortest for Russia: from September to December, that is, 4 months. However, not wishing to conflict with adherents of antiquity and the church, the tsar made a reservation in the decree: "And if anyone wants to write both those years, from the creation of the world and from the birth of Christ, in a row, freely", which led to even greater confusion with dates.
Cities arise somehow by themselves: many people will like a well-known place at once, they gather together of their own free will and of their own will, build houses, take up crafts and occupations, and begin to live and enjoy. What the official history says "It happened differently with St. Petersburg: it was created, populated and built by the powerful hand of Peter the Great; almost one of his personal will, in defiance of the will of thousands of people, gathered together these recalcitrant thousands and forced them to build houses for themselves, build streets and live a new life, an unusual life. The very construction of St. Petersburg and life in it turned under Peter (even after him) into a kind of state duty. " The answer to the question is simple and clear: in order to become great, you need to appropriate the former greatness and merits of your predecessors, destroying the memory of them.
Here is a very interesting post "about cities" Let's look again at the map of "the city of Petra"
And here's a map of the ancient city of Athens, don't you think the layout is familiar?
And history says that Athens was still 1000 years BC, or are they lying?
There is a strange feeling of understatement. Either the youth of Peter is sucked out of the thumb, or the age of ancient Greece is too high.
Here's another coincidence for you, the same Greece …
And this is Peterhof
Can you find ten differences?
The megaliths near Vyborg are also embarrassing, the age of which is still debated.
Who left these megalithic structures?
You can dig deeper by looking a little further north. Traces of ancient megalithic structures also remain on the Kola Peninsula.
Analyzes have shown that these structures are at least 9000 years old, who lived here before?
And here is a photo of the megaliths of Karelia
Why are there such buildings, whose are they?