Lev Gumilyov. For whom and for what purpose?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-16 18:34

Critical analysis of historical literature on the example of L. Gumilyov's book. The author in simple language expresses the pseudo-scientific contrivedness and naivety of the author's arguments, hidden behind complex terminology and authority. The final result offers the reader a conclusion about the goals and objectives of writing this book.

Today, an inquisitive and intelligent person cannot base their ideas about the world around them on the basis of officially accepted views, this also applies to history. It is difficult to imagine the savage and undeveloped peoples of the past after reading the transcript of Socrates' trial that led to his death, or to accept without hesitation the facts about the movement of huge troops (more than 100,000 thousand people with cavalry) over long distances (about 1,000 km). What puzzles me most is the possibility of ruling empires larger than today's state formations without modern means of communication. In this case, it turns out that the management used more effective methods, or the means of communication were still there, and not worse than modern ones. Modern science TAU (control systems theory) is based on communication systems. No successful government is possible without communication. The more complex and voluminous the system, the more effective communication means must be. Well, if there are no effective means of communication, then how can states of enormous length exist for centuries or battles take place in which up to 200,000 people participate (100,000 on each side). Not that it is hard to believe, it is difficult to imagine.

I am not fond of history. To be honest, like many others, the state provided me with a standard package of school education free of charge, including history. Product version - late 20th century. To understand the fullness of the falsity / truthfulness of the above views, my school data was not enough. They have been forgotten, and there is little fundamental in them. I decided to draw on data from more or less authoritative sources, and I found in my library Lev Gumilyov's book "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe." The author is a doctor of historical sciences, an author with new progressive views, an expert on Khazaria, and so on. He was in the camps. It turns out a fighter for the truth, a luminary in his field. I started reading. It didn't last long, it covered the first 10%. Due to the illogical scheme of presenting information, the quality of its argumentation and the terminology used, the question arose "for whom was this book written and for what purpose?" He stopped reading. The information in the book that surprised me the most was written in a notebook. With her, I want to share with you. The purpose of this is a cleaner comparison of the ideas of the official history and the alternative. So let's go.

The beginning of the Slavic settlement - the era of the Zarubenets culture. The Slavs moved from the upper reaches of the Vistula to the south, to the Dnieper region, and to the north, to the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Desna and Oka …

Please note that the resettlement took place 400 years (II BC - II AD)! Isn't it a bit too much, it's like doing repairs in an apartment for sixty years. At the same time, there were so many people that there was not enough land. Overpopulation was already in the second century. Now it turns out there are fewer people, no one is going anywhere. A! And the most interesting, where did the Slavs come from on the upper reaches of the Vistula, remains to be guessed, not a single line about this.

2. Literally here (after 2 paragraphs) the author reports that the Slavs were not aborigines in Eastern Europe, but penetrated into it in the 8th century, settling the Dnieper region and the basin of Lake Ilmen.

This is a logic bomb. The brain literally screams "What about point 1?" How is it, Lyova? What to do with the two paragraphs you read earlier? Such logical slippage is not the only load on the logic. Such "bombs" and logical contradictions are encountered further, "simplifying" the reading of the material.

3. Before the Slavic invasion, this territory was inhabited by the Russians, or Ross - the ethnos is by no means Slavic.

Given in the book, the Difference of the Russians / Dews from the Slavs, I summarized in a table:

N / a	Difference	Russ / Ross	Slavs
1	Languages	German-speaking	Slavonic	Konstantin Porphyrogenitus indicates that the geographical names of the Dnieper Rus and the Slavs were called in different languages.
Criticism. The source of information is outdated. Kostya lived in the 10th century, and this is a somewhat belated assessment even in our developed information age, since the events of 200-300 years ago already seem to be a dense past even today, not like a thousand years ago. At the same time, any sources of local spills are not present here, although the century is X. Even according to official data, there should have been something already. Hence the conclusion, the data has been destroyed or hidden, by the way there are no other sources.
2	Household skills in the little things	We washed before dinner in a common basin	Washed under the stream	Artamonov M. I. "History of the Khazars"
It is difficult to refrain from sarcasm here, as elsewhere. Imagine that they washed their face like this from the 2nd century to the 10th, and only this way, and this is essential. Based on this logic, now there is one people living in the English-speaking world, speaking the same language and washing themselves in the bathroom.
3	Hairstyles	Shaved hair, leaving a clump of hair on the crown	They cut their hair in a "circle"
4	Habitat	Lived in military settlements, fed on war booty	Were engaged in agriculture, cattle breeding
In paragraphs 3, 4 it is clear that these are not peoples, but military settlements, robbers and farmers, who have nothing to do with the nationality. And even if they called geographical names in their own way, as indicated by Kostya, then they clearly do not pull on ethnic isolation. Imagine that for almost a thousand years a certain group of shaven people has been living by robbery, washing in a common basin, speaking German and piously defending these principles for 10 centuries.

Any other differences between the Russians and the Slavs are not given in the book.

4. The possibilities of archeology are limited. The era can be determined satisfactorily, but the ethnic composition is impossible … The burial ceremony shows a cult, but after all, religion does not always unambiguously correspond to an ethnic group.

I quoted this quote because it is valuable and important. Gumilyov blurted out too much here. He himself, an experienced archaeologist who has been on more than two dozen expeditions, let it slip. After that, it's up to you to decide how deeply you should trust not only this book, but also others like it. And besides, we can conclude that there were few cults if one and the same cult could belong to several nations. I think there was only one cult on our territory. This is the problem of ethnic identification of the excavations.

5. Thus, we have before us a combination of two independent processes: a natural phenomenon - ethnogenesis, which began in the 1st century - and social - the construction of the state, violated three times: by the Goths, Avars and Normans - and actually carried out only in the 11th century. under Yaroslav the Wise.

This is the beginning of the "Russian state", or more precisely, the "Kiev Kaganate", as his contemporaries called it …

Here my indignation knew no bounds. Well this is necessary. Suddenly, after 1000 years it is not clear what kind of existence of the Slavs, the Russians appeared, who created the Kiev Kaganate. I'm not against the Russians, but where are they from? Were there Slavs? Were! Where are the Russians from, doctor? Moreover, they also created the kaganate. In Hebrew it means "kingdom", from the word "kagan" - king. So did they speak Hebrew? Maybe Jews lived there? No, the Slavs write. Now let's look at dynamics. The Slavs lived for 1200 years, starting their migration from the Vistula in the second century BC. They didn’t write anything, didn’t compose, didn’t fight much, nobody touched them too much. Historical monuments, except for broken pots, were not left. They lived on fertile lands, no one could oust them, only statehood prevented them from creating, so modest and downtrodden. And after 1200 years, having been late by 500 years in relation to other peoples, they nevertheless created something and called this business in Hebrew - the Kiev Kaganate. At the same time, it is impossible to say for sure whether it was the Slavs or the Russians, or someone else, because the possibilities of archeology are limited. Well, not a joke ?! And this is in all seriousness published and printed in large circulations.

6. Description of the Khazar country. At first, I thought to write a quote from the book. However, the description of climate change in the area where the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea is very long. The details of climatic changes are described in great detail, regardless of the date of the III century. As if the author was there himself, but closer to the point. In short, everything looks like this: the climate has changed, the grass has become tall and juicy from excessive rains, a lot of fish have developed. This place became a paradise, but the Sarmatians did not like this paradise, because This fresh grass is not suitable for livestock, and there are more mosquitoes. So, they went somewhere into the unknown, and the Khazars came there. Everyone envied the Khazars, but they could not do anything, because around the place in which they lived there were thick reeds through which no one could pass. Do not believe me, read this fairy tale yourself. Part 1, Chapter 1, item 1, of the above book.

And a little bit of critical analysis. You believe that people will leave their homes. Let's say we lived there for 200 years. Suddenly, green grass has grown, there is more rain and more fish, and therefore we must leave. Reasonable!

On this, the bloopers in the book do not end there. My patience is running out in reading this book as well as writing this article.

Let's summarize. Historical literature, on the example of L. Gumilev, "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe" is absurd and ridiculous. On the one hand, it is replete with special terms that are incomprehensible even to people involved in the intellectual sphere of work, not to mention those who do not come across intellect at all, on the other hand, a critical analysis of the logic and consistency of the material presented shows the complete absurdity and inconsistency of the arguments. Factology is far-fetched or is of a reference character to a qualitatively similar work (to colleagues in the shop). Accordingly, the question arises, "For whom and why was this book written?"

Replenishment of the information base on the basis of such material makes it impossible to understand past humanity, suppresses the logical apparatus, stops human development by suppressing the thirst for knowledge with a meaningless set of information ballast.