Question For You All Regarding The "Mongols" ( History Buffs Welcome )

[burtlancast]

Why do you say he was a communist?

He was an influent academician and state professor in the URSS.
Anybody accustomed to totalitarian regimes is fully aware you don't reach such esteemed positions without belonging to the "orthodox" doctrine...

I certainly don't agree with Fomenko on everything and his work is very Russian-centric ( not necessarily bad if it's correct ), but the Russians as the Great Horde makes a lot of sense.

I've just told you why it doesn't fit.

As far as his theories, it's easy to recognize why they would go perfectly in line with the Marxist doctrine:

- Marxists always stated religion is their ennemy: Fomenko conveniently claims Jesus and the ancient/new testament were forgeries

"He claims that historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around AD 1185 on the hill overlooking the Bosphorus.[19].
The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old-Testament prophet Elisha (850-800 BC?), Pope Gregory VII (1020?-1085), Saint Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong or "Son of Heaven" - emperor of Western Xia, who reigned in 1032–48), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius.
the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. Fomenko claims that the Bible was being written until the Council of Trent (1545–1563), when the list of canonical books was established, and all apocryphal books were ordered to be destroyed."

- Marxists sought to destroy nationalism: Accordingly, Fomenko claims certain individual nations never really existed:

"Central to Fomenko's New Chronology is his claim of the existence of a vast Slav-Turk empire, which he called the "Russian Horde", which he says played the dominant role in Eurasian history before the 17th century. The various peoples identified in ancient and medieval history, from the Scythians, Huns, Goths and Bulgars, through the Polyane, Duleby, Drevliane, Pechenegs, to in more recent times, the Cossacks, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, are nothing but elements of the single Russian Horde. For the New Chronologists, peoples such as the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Mongols, and others who assert their national independence from Russia, are suffering from a historical delusion.[16]"

The rest of his theories resemble the rambles of a total lunatic:
New Chronology (Fomenko) - Wikipedia

Since you stated to have read his books, which fact(s) convinced you?
Glancing through his resumed ideas, i see only opinions, but no facts.

 

[x-ray peat]

The events of "Ancient Greece" and "Ancient Egypt" are probably based on real events albeit with a lot of details changed. Names, locations, etc. How easy would it be for Monks to completely re-write history when "copying"?... Trivial

I am not saying history wasn't change in some areas. My point is that it is also trivial for a modern day revisionist to write a convincing book that pushes a new set of lies. You have to look at these "new histories" with equal skepticism if not more. Most of the alternative history theories are just more lies to dumb us down by making us believe in all sorts of new BS. Judging from your uniform, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe in Arthur Koestler's 13th Tribe fable that all the Jews are descended from 9th century Khazzars. The internet is filed with gullible under-educated minds lapping this stuff up. Similarly the Black Israelites think that blacks are actually the real Jews. This is more divide and conquer scapegoating as well as dumbing down for control. The truth is out there but it is not what is pushed so heavily on the front page of a google search or a recommended YouTube video. The strategy is called "Learning Against Learning" and is a tool of the elite to keep the masses in the dark by overwhelming the truth with lies.

 

[michael94]

I am not saying history wasn't change in some areas. My point is that it is also trivial for a modern day revisionist to write a convincing book that pushes a new set of lies. You have to look at these "new histories" with equal skepticism if not more. Most of the alternative history theories are just more lies to dumb us down by making us believe in all sorts of new BS. Judging from your uniform, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe in Arthur Koestler's 13th Tribe fable that all the Jews are descended from 9th century Khazzars. The internet is filed with gullible under-educated minds lapping this stuff up. Similarly the Black Israelites think that blacks are actually the real Jews. This is more divide and conquer scapegoating as well as dumbing down for control. The truth is out there but it is not what is pushed so heavily on the front page of a google search or a recommended YouTube video. The strategy is called "Learning Against Learning" and is a tool of the elite to keep the masses in the dark by overwhelming the truth with lies.

Yes new chronology does appear to be b.s. One thing that fomenko is good at is disproving conventional history but that doesn't make new chronology correct. Its actually probably quite mild compared to the real truth...

Long time ago I know but this thread kept popping up in suggestion bar

 

[Constatine]

Carbon Dating (C14 Crash short older version)
✓ FRAUD

Yes carbon dating is sketchy.

 

[yerrag]

The mongol empire was vast and one of the largest in hsitory but only by technicality. They gained a reputation as being an unbeatable army because they were the first to effectively employ mounted archers in huge numbers. They were mobile, and could skirmish any other army by circling the enemy and launching a torrent of arrows from relatively strong bows used by master archers, as every mongol horseman would train with a bow from a young age. They would ride with a herd of maybe a million horses. You can read about the mongol horse battles and why they were so effective, but its mainly because they used cheap fire and retret tactics and nobody could catch up to them to fight hand to hand combat.

After defeeating so many armies and conquering a few ation states and tribes they would simply tax the tribe and allow them to carry on whatever traditions and culture they orginially had. After gaining a reputation as a collossal army that was impossible to stand up to, they would strike deals with the pepe of whatever land they rode into- pay our taxes and we will defend you or don't pay and we will slaughter all your men and set your town ablaze. The choce was usually simple...

But really their "empire" was just a balckmail tax on faraway nations, the only mognolian part was at home in mongolia.

I didn't know those subjects under Mongolia had it so good.

The Mongols didn't want to change their way of life! Bravo!

 

[DaveFoster]

Do you really believe the country above China was responsible for the largest empire ever known? I mean even ignoring the lack of evidence ( besides what is written in his-story books ), does it even make intuitive sense? Doesn't it make more sense that the 'Mongol' Empire was in fact a collection of Slavic and Asiatic tribes centered around Russia? Because it was and still is...

It didn't last much longer than a generation, only slightly more enduring than Alexander's "empire."

Their high elevation and impressive CO2 levels would lead to lower aggression and a tendency toward libertarian political philosophy, so probably not.

Inb4haters

Similarly the Black Israelites think that blacks are actually the real Jews.

They know blacks are the real Jews, and they don't listen to Edomites anyway.

 

[x-ray peat]

Yes new chronology does appear to be b.s. One thing that fomenko is good at is disproving conventional history but that doesn't make new chronology correct. Its actually probably quite mild compared to the real truth...

Long time ago I know but this thread kept popping up in suggestion bar

I agree. However I think they did manipulate the dates of important events or peoples ages by a few years plus or minus to better line up with their occult numerology. Lots of 32s and 33s. Just like in professional sports.

They know blacks are the real Jews, and they don't listen to Edomites anyway.

Well we do have the Devil in us.

 

[Fon]

The mongol empire was vast and one of the largest in hsitory but only by technicality. They gained a reputation as being an unbeatable army because they were the first to effectively employ mounted archers in huge numbers. They were mobile, and could skirmish any other army by circling the enemy and launching a torrent of arrows from relatively strong bows used by master archers, as every mongol horseman would train with a bow from a young age. They would ride with a herd of maybe a million horses. You can read about the mongol horse battles and why they were so effective, but its mainly because they used cheap fire and retret tactics and nobody could catch up to them to fight hand to hand combat.

After defeeating so many armies and conquering a few ation states and tribes they would simply tax the tribe and allow them to carry on whatever traditions and culture they orginially had. After gaining a reputation as a collossal army that was impossible to stand up to, they would strike deals with the pepe of whatever land they rode into- pay our taxes and we will defend you or don't pay and we will slaughter all your men and set your town ablaze. The choce was usually simple...

But really their "empire" was just a balckmail tax on faraway nations, the only mognolian part was at home in mongolia.

how on earth did they manage to feed a million man/ horse army? Logistically impossible....even today that would be a near impossible logistical problem...nothing about that rings true.

 

[sladerunner69]

how on earth did they manage to feed a million man/ horse army? Logistically impossible....even today that would be a near impossible logistical problem...nothing about that rings true.

That's what was written int he records of the time. The men wouldn't number in the millions, but closer to 250,000. The idea was to have a few horses ready for everyman, and of course the horses would roam and feed on whatever vegetation was in that area.

 

[BigYellowLemon]

What do you mean by largest? Largest by land area, or most powerful? Largest by land area means nothing by itself.