Opinion: why is alternative history dangerous?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Alternative history is a rather dangerous phenomenon when viewed over long periods of time. We all remember the example of the creation of an alternative historical myth about the "ancient Ukrainians", which significantly contributed to the launch of the anti-Russian propaganda machine. Was an integral part of it.

Of course, the consequences of the rapid growth of the alternative-historical sphere of knowledge may not be so bloody. However, like any river, overflowing its banks, an alternative history can cause damage to the "national economy". The main harm of an ill-considered alternative history is the destruction of all historical concepts in general. History is a semantic logical construct that lives in the heads of people. If it collapses, a void is formed, which is very quickly filled with all sorts of speculation, false statements and propaganda myths.

The second danger lies in the spontaneous growth of national narcissism in the audience that has accepted the theory of alternative history. While the Ukrainians in Ukraine are developing theories about the "great Ukrainians", and Russian theorists in Russia with ease of Ostap Bender substantiate the thesis that the whole world belonged to Russians in the past (we are not talking about Eurasia and the Americas - our goal is Africa and Australia), Armenian theorists, for example, are also on the alert. Here is a recent example: a text is actively circulating on the Internet, the author of which claims that Armenians were the founders of Russian statehood … Well, at least they founded Kiev and Moscow.

The capital of Rus - Kiev on the Dnieper was founded in 585 on the Castle Hill in the form of a fortress by the Great Armenian Prince (nakharar) Smbat Bagratuni (see Sebeos, "History of Armenia", 7th century). Initially, the capital was named Smbatas. The descendants of Smbat Bagratuni - Kuar (Kiy), Shek (Meltey) and Khorean - erected new fortresses on the neighboring hills: Kuar (Kiy), Meltey (Schekovitsa) and Korean (Korevan). Four fortresses: Smbatas, Kuar, Meltey, Korevan later united under the name Kiev. The Armenian dynasty of the Kiev princes existed for 300 years(585-882 years).

Moscow was founded by the Armenian prince Gevorg (George) Bagratuni-Erkainabazuk ("Dolgoruky", in Armenian), he is Yuri Dolgoruky, who is also mentioned in Russian chronicles by the name of Gyurgi, Kiurk. The first mention of Moscow refers to the "Boyar Chronicle" of the 12th century by Peter Borislavovich: April 4, 1147, etc.

The baptism of Rus also appears to have been carried out under the strict guidance of the Armenians.

When in 988 Vladimir agreed to Anna's condition, the crown princess gathered Armenian clergy for the baptism of Rus and left Constantinople for Kiev. On the banks of the Dnieper, the baptism of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich ("in the baptism of Vasily") and the people of Kievan Rus took place. Since then The Russian Church is called Orthodox by the name of the Armenian Apostolic See Church.

The great Russian sovereign John IV the Terrible (who miraculously did not become an Armenian - with his crooked-nosed appearance), too, it turns out, could not do without Armenians.

In 1552, Russian troops under the command of Ivan the Terrible laid siege to Kazan, from the Russian side, two Armenian regiments fought, mainly Crimean Armenians under the command of the princes Pakhlavuni (Pakhlevanov) and Agamalyan (Agamalov), and from the side of the Tatars the gunners are Armenians, the descendants of those who were driven from the Crimea to Kazan in 1475. After the gunmen refused to shoot at their own, the Tatars in response, in a rage, massacred them, burned their houses in Kazan, and killed all household members, young and old. The Armenian commanders held advice, a feeling of bitterness and reciprocal rage seized the Armenians:

- Let's go to death! Take no one prisoner!

Armenian regiments dismounted in the dark and in the morning went to storm the main gate … More than 5,000 fighters with sabers bald suddenly climbed the walls and, having killed the Tatars, opened the gates. The troops of Ivan the Terrible entered the city in an avalanche

Well, in the finale of the theme of the glorious state-forming role of Armenians in Russia, we find out that from the Armenians came the commander Alexander Suvorov and Prince Grigory Potemkin.

In 1780, the future generalissimo of the Russian Empire, Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov, wrote: "I am going to liberate Karabakh - the Motherland of my ancestors" … Field Marshal Potemkin Grigory Alexandrovich (1739-1791), the most influential person among the Armenian publicRussia, the favorite of the Empress, who was prophesied to be the kings of Armenia with the capital Bakurakert - Baku as part of Russia.

Such texts are born not only in the Armenian environment. Something similar can be found among Kazakhs, Georgians, and even Belarusians.

Within the framework of this article, we do not undertake to judge what of the above quotes corresponds to the historical truth and what does not. Maybe it really was that way. It's about something else. The alternative historical discourses of different countries develop in parallel, inconsistent with each other, and often lead to ideological clashes between their adherents. And the distance from ideological clashes to real ones is not so great, which is very clearly shown to us by the tragic events in Ukraine.

In this regard, we urge our readers to be more restrained not only in their political views and statements, but also in historical judgments. If any author claims something, it is not necessary to blindly take his word for it. He may be either completely right or completely wrong. Historical knowledge must develop gradually, through repeated cross-checking, research, and comparison. Other things being equal, it is better to only assume and not assert as truth.

History is a science largely based on conjectures and interpretations. Absolute accuracy in it is impossible in principle. Even very recent events are interpreted by different people in different ways (for example, the return of Crimea to Russia and the war in Donbass). And there should always be room for other points of view. The same, however, as for the official version, which should be reformed, but not broken.

Sergey Khartsyzov