Construction of collection of versions of the human history reconstruction.

(Note. This article is created on the basis of last unit from the book of the author under the preliminary name "Mediterranean. Middle Ages. Multivariancy" by its adaptation under a format of article. As one of names of the given book it was offered also "Other histories of Europe").

According to the logic formalism stated, for example, in www.wladmoscow.narod.ru/1-1-en.htm (translation in English), actions on construction of collection of the most probable versions of reconstruction of a human history would be reduced to the following plan:
1. Splitting a human history into separate chronological blocks.
2. Selection of eventical blocks which could be used in reconstruction of a global history. With this purpose an estimation of each of the eventical blocks received at splitting of the traditional version from the viewpoint of presence in it of a legendary material, and also a material which would be incorrectly dated or geographically located. Attempt of a statistical estimation of each of eventical blocks from the viewpoint of its probability and the validity for use in creation of versions of reconstruction of a human history.
3. Construction of sets of the most probable originals separate eventical blocks (or: the blocks of events).
4. Construction on a basis of the most probable originals separate eventical blocks of collection of the most probable versions of reconstruction of a human history. Following this technique, we shall receive various synthetic versions of reconstruction. It would be quite good to compare with them to other versions of reconstruction of a various origin. Such versions of reconstruction clearly follow from different sources, world chronicles, including national chronicles, the majority from which is recognized legendary, other mythological sources, from natural-science reasons, and from reflection of a way of development of a history of various aspects of human activity: histories of a monetary affair, a history of wars, histories of the world literature

Therefore that plan which is represented little bit above, it would be quite good to add to last, fifth item:

5. Comparison of the obtained synthetic with those versions of reconstruction which clearly would follow from other sources and materials.

And finally, it is quite good to mention a issue, whether can spill new synthetic versions of reconstruction on the separate not clear and confusing places of a global history new light.

So, according to the stated plan we should present splitting of a human history into separate chronological blocks. It has already been represented in separate works and books of the author, in particular, in his already printed book "Tatar-Mongols. Eurasia. Multivariancy" ([13]). There this splitting is represented for the period from the beginning of a new era (to the author of these lines pleased the name of "the common era" more), here we can generalize this splitting for the period and prior to the beginning of the common era (fig. 7en-1).

Fig. 7en-1. Splitting of a history of Europe and the Mediterranean into separate chronological blocks.

BCE - blocks of the events of the most ancient human history which in honour of that they have taken place prior to the beginning of the common era, are named so (BCE - Before common Era), EH, EHc - accordingly Jerome chronicles and his continuers, Fr - Fredegar chronicle as reflecting of Meroving times, Crl - events of times of Charles the Great and Carolings, Otto - German blocks of events of times Saxon, Salii and Swabian dynasties, Cpt1, Cpt2 - blocks of events of times Capetings till 1260 and later (about the reason of such splitting hardly is lower), Hb1, HB2 - blocks of events of Habsburg times, Vl1, Vl2 - blocks of events of Valois times.

As to an early part of a human history which on fig. 7en-1 is represented by block BCE as more as possible in detail to describe it would be desirable at once. This block would be the natural beginning of all without exception of versions of reconstruction.

The author of these lines will try to continue a narration as systematicalally as possible.

According to put forward by the author of these lines it would be correct to logic formalism of reconstruction of a human history to consider all legendary versions without exception. As to the most ancient human history, that, according to the traditional version, she{it} is rather rich on geography. Here we shall find also a history of Ancient India, and a history of Ancient China, and even a history of the American civilizations. These civilizations geographically far from European, to consider from the viewpoint of their authenticity or artificiality it would be very interesting. For example, the invention Chinese of gunpowder or a paper and introduction by aztecs of through calculation of time. But an axis of the civilisation processes there is, Europe.

At us the today's moment is two to some extent interconnected statements of a history of Europe and the Mediterranean. One of them is reflected in chronological books of the Old Testament, the second - in works Eusebius-Jerome. From Eusebius-Jerome (it is possible, from his editionby Scaliger) it has passed to the majority of the European textbooks of a history. We shall try to reflect each of these versions in below-mentioned figures. Both on one, and on another it would be interesting to look through a prism of the theory of four empires mentioned at prophet Daniel.

As to a history which is reflected in chronological books of the Old Testament we shall take its natural splitting which clearly follow from their contents:
From Adam up to Samuel (Samuel - that is from the beginning of the book of the Genesis, Moses first book, prior to the beginning of the book of kings, including all Moses books, Jesus Navin's book, the book of judges, Ruth) - lists of names of various characters without the indication of numbers of years.
From Samuel up to Navuchodonosor - the Book of Kings and Paralipomenon, more - less chronologically clear coherent narration.
From Navuchodonosor up to Cyrus and Darius - there isn't understandable how many years (obvious indications in the text of the Old Testament are not present, basically the narration is presented in Esra book)/
From Darius up to Alexander, the character of Mccaby book - 270 years (if to trust thetrad itional version even in Lopukhin's statement).
Alexander and his nearest successors (according to Mccaby book) - 40 years.

Thus the Old Testament appeared represented as four natural blocks (Fig. 7en-2).

Fig. 7en-2. Splitting of chronological books of the Old Testament into separate chronological blocks.

Now let's consider the book of Daniel prophet. Directly on histories of a western civilization (as at the author of these lines the impression after acquaintance with a statement of ancient history in different scientific and popular scientific editions was created, including in pupils of a history) civilizations Egyptian, further messapotamian, further Near-Eastern, further Greec- small Asia have influenced... From Greeks the civilization has passed to Romans. It has a partial embodiment in the theory of passing four empires about which there was going in the book of prophet Daniel. According to the most popular interpretations of this book, initial empire was Babylon (Navuchodonosor) which have been destroyed by Persians, in separate interpretations by impudent persons (Cyrus and Darius). Further there was Alexander the Greec which, in turn, has destroyed Persian-Chaldean empire. Well and the fourth empire was Roman. The author of this book is compelled to talk about interpretations as so particularly empires in the book of prophet Daniel, to regret, are not named.

Attempt schematically reflections of the theory of four empires it agrees books of prophet Daniel it is undertaken on Fig. 7en-3. The chronological binding of four empires as such is only in chronological canons Eusebius-Jerome, and we shall take all quantitative illustration of the most popular interpretations of this book namely therefrom.

Thus there will be certain problems with reflection of the first Babylon-Assyrian empires as, on the one hand, one of the Babylon kings has destroyed Jerusalem, and, on the other hand, the last Assyrian reigning canons Eusebius-Jerome is dated 1220 year from Abraham (792-nd up to the Christ). It can be reflected in the circuit as follows: to represent the continuous painted over block up to-792 years, and further to lead a dashed line. Thus, the truth, will be both macedonian kings, and it Israel-Iudea... They also will be reflected on the circuit, only away from the basic line of empires. Further, after the termination{discontinuance} of an empire Persian, on the foreground the empire Greek which till this moment in canons referred to as an empire macedonian leaves. This empire macedonian in seven years after the mentioned finishing of an empire Persian is divided on Ptolomea and Alexanders. We shall reflect in our circuit as one of them, and another. And, at last, instead of Ptolomea the first place the Roman emperors occupated.

Thus duration of governing Alexander the Great according to antiquated Mccaby book (40 years) it will be reflect by the separate short block... (Fig. 7en-3).

Fig. 7en-3. Representation of the concept about consecutive transition of four empires, reflected at many historians according to the book of prophet Daniel, the numerical data for which would be taken from chronological canons by Eusebius-Jerome.

So, in figures 7en-2 and 7en-3 two most popular concepts of the European antiquity for the period prior to the beginning of the common era are reflected: reflected in the Old Testament (Fig. 7en-2) and in chronological canons Eusebius-Jerome (Fig. 7en-3) from which it has passed to textbooks of a history.

Besides once more there is a block of legends which would reflect a Trojan origin of peoples of Europe. Feature of this legendary block will be, that, since the certain place, namely, since times Homer-Aschkenaz (that is reflected in the book of Genesis, 10-th chapter) the Trojan version of an origin of peoples of Europe which in the pure state, is reflected at many German chronists, starts to give a little other information, than the rest of the book of Genesis.

In this legendary block it is possible at a qualitative level (that is without concrete chronological estimations) to allocate the following basic stages: Adam, Tuisco-Aschkenaz as a legendary ancestor of the German nation, his descendants, Charles and Friedrich as most important emperors which may be considered as legendary and halflafendary simulteniously, boundary between emperors which can be considered both as legendary and real and emperors undoubtly authentic. It is reflected on Fig. 7en-4.

Fig. 7en-4. Representation of the legendary information on a Trojan origin of European peoples schematically.

On this way the consideration of chronological blocks which within the framework of the traditional version are prior to the beginning of the common era, it is possible to count completed. Their statistical interdependence with blocks later is not excluded. That is it is, otherwise, possible, that between different blocks of events which within the framework of the traditional version are shared by time and-or in distances, relations of type an image - the probable original can take place. Further we shall behave not so difficultly: we shall fix and consider any case when such situation can throw light on much and appears the version of reconstruction essential at creation.

Then it would be possible to proceed to construction of the basic part of collection of versions of reconstruction of a human history. With this purpose it is possible to return to represented on Fig. 7en-1 to splitting of a history of Europe and the Mediterranean into separate chronological blocks.

Thus the axial countries thus appear the countries of continental Western Europe, namely, France and Germany, and a history of other countries to the obtained versions it will be possible easy to attach. Then block splitting of the traditional version can be given only on two countries: France and Germany. Approximately till Charles the Great times their history can be considered as the common as it gets for the period of becoming of statehood and for a while till this period, and after Charles the Great time there will need to be represented necessarily chronological blocks for France and Germany separately. Thus up to Carolings blocks are designated under the name of sources, and after - on names of ruling dynasties. Thus blocks which are responsible for sacred Roman empire the German nation till 1492, are marked by different colors (accordingly dark blue and violet) and to these blocks different numbers are appropriated{given}: HB1 and HB2. Precisely the same as also French Valois (Vl1 and Vl2) as 1492 is a year which is connected with milleniumism, and for this reason it would be desirable to pay to him{it} our attention. And as to Capetings, our attention to a site near to 1180 is connected by what since this time begins french-roman-turkish the parallelism which has been found out by Atanov (the attention of readers of not Russian-speaking versions! article is published in [7], and the author of this article Jury Atanov not against translation of article about french-roman-turkish parallelism).

After representation of block splitting the traditional version it would be quite good to consider the problem the basic probable originals of those chronological blocks which are reflected on Fig. 7en-1. In article of the author of these lines " Chronological concepts of a history of Europe for the period from the beginning of the common era up to the end of the late Middle Ages " which became the second chapter from its book [13], have been considered as itself a primary factor which could bring distortions in the version of a history, probable shift on three hundred years between images and probable originals. This shift between images and probable originals has been caused by a time difference of two traditions of recalculation of years from their account from creation of the world in their account from Christ Birth: constantinopolian (AM-AD=5500(AM is annus mundi, year from the world creation, AD is annus domini, year from the Christ Birth)) and Eusebius-Jerome (AM-AD=5200). Here very much it would be desirable to consider this question more general, in view of other factors which could influence the European historiography.

From global historical factors which played a essential role, it would be desirable to note:
- milleniumism and effects of designation of year numbers in two figures;
- A turkish invasion;
- Crusades;
- Continuity of some chronological traditions;
- The arabian invasion;

So, let's try the collection forth above global historical processes reflect in the circuit.

Milleniumism, that is change of millenia, and eschatology, that is expectation of a doomsday are among themselves strongly connected, as the doomsday was expected, as a rule, within change of millenia. Their effects rendered strong influence on chronology.

From the viewpoint of the author of article, such effects were most brightly shown about 1000 year CE, that is changes of millenia in the account of years from the Christ, about 1240 when change of millenia on jewish the dogmatic person and about 1492 took place, that is during change of millenia in the account of years from creation of the world on constantinopolian traditions. It can really mean that one event, or the block of the events really having a place in later Middle Ages, can be incorrectly attributed{related} in XI or XII centuries. Here it is necessary to add, what exactly in XV century in Europe is observed that period concerning which it is possible to express opinion, that it is the last period of mass chronological falsifications (is those opinions, for example, Jaroslaw Kesler). For concreteness it is possible to recollect wrongfully long centenary war between England and France, about not so clear struggle of the Scarlet and White Rose in England where struggled among themselves and have exterminated each other two groupings, and the third has won, about wrongfully long governing Fridriha III the Sacred Roman dynasty, Kazimierz Jagiello in Polonia, about Nuremberg chronicle by Hartman Schedel which was not at all dated, despite of 1493 of its issue.

Here that both 1000 year, and 1240 year could be in themselves the beginning of the account different eras as such concept as century as has shown a von den Brincken, in that epocha was not so wide widespread if at all it was used is still interesting. It could mean, that certain events which really took place, for example, in XIV century, and were dated, for example, 70-80-th years on the jewish era, (without the indication in documents, that that era in which they have been written down, was jewish), that would mean 1310-1330 on the common era , could be perceived{recognized} as 70-80-th years on a Christian era, with recognition of its beginning both in zero year, and in 1000 year CE Thus would take a place so-called chronological shift. Very interestingly from this viewpoint to look on Interregnum 1250-1273: 1250 could be written down as simply 250 and if on jewish to an era it was real 1490, and thus year 1273 could be already really written down in years from Christ Birth.

Designations of numbers of years in two figures everything could mean, everything, including designations of numbers of the years, expressed in governings of some governors or counted from a certain significant date. Including it could be connected to fifty years' anniversaries on which there is going in the book by von den Brincken.

If to formulate a question, that theoretically could mean record of year as two figures for the answer to this question it is necessary to consider all without exception of tradition of datings. Thus the wide range of dates of years which would form the basis and a reference mark for various datings would be generated: the beginnings of centuries in various erae, the beginning of governings of various governors of the states, princedoms, areas or is simple communities, civil or church. Such range of years would be dense enough, years of the beginning of datings in various erae could lay rather close from each other. From the viewpoint of physics it can be considered as a collection of points on a time scale with small intervals which can be interpreted as almost continuous spectrum in which each of points will correspond to the beginning of governing of any governor. Thus time distances between them can be considered as small and then at us that spectrum of years which could be interpreted as continuous will turn out. And as such interpretation of this spectrum as continuous is possible, effects when the probable original of an image of the certain event can fall to any year are possible. Thus the time difference can be not connected to chronologically known size. Between from time to time probable original and an image we shall name similar effects of an any time different effects of theoretically continuous dating...

To reflect such effects of theoretically continuous dating, from the viewpoint of the author of the book, it is the most correct a dotted designation of all interval of times during which such effects could take place, a dashed line and by the special coloring (Fig. 7en-5 and further).

Sometimes, besides theoretically continuous dating, characteristic mass mistakes took place at reference of events from one epoch during other epoch. In that case it is already correct to speak about some probable originals. For concreteness, the probable original the block of events of Saxon, Salii and Swabian dynasty X-XIII of centuries and certain events of the French state Capetings which image in which textbook of a history lay in an interval of years from 950 up to 1250 on Fig. 7en-5 will be designated merely as OTTO+Cpt2.

There is remarkable, such effect of milleniumism could take place elementary and for Caroling times. In fact Charles the Great governed on a boundary of millenia too, (from the viewpoint of the chronological version from creation of world Eusebius-Jerome which the Christ has for 5200 years later Adam). It is possible to bring therefore to those circuits which will be considered below, to bring and in blocks of events which would correspond to the times of Charles the Great. But it would make figures which will go below, a little bulky. That's why the author of the book will be limited to that will prolong area of theoretically continuous dating down to Charles the Great's times and by that will embraces this area an epoch of his governing.

In application to a bible material it would mean, that, all history fixed in antiquated chronological books, could take place during the period with 1000 for 1431 (in view of real duration). As in 1431 has left well-known papal edict about obligatory chronology from Christ Birth.

If already mentioned french-roman-turkish the parallelism which has been found out by Atanov, will be justified, there will be a version of reconstruction within the framework of which the Roman empire at the certain stage appears image turkish. Thus another turns out still, not less interesting: if to trust tradition all most powerful to connect with Rome in such parallelism the stress of transfer of the strongest power is reflected. It is clearly visible, that approximately till 1180, up to governing of the French king Phillip II (1180-1223) such question did not stand in general, and approximately up to the middle of XIV century the strongest center of world power was France (or a certain uniform state which kings who in a history are reflected as French Capetings ruled). Further there are certain events during which there are certain global gains and on which results the center of power moves to Turkey.

In a history of Roman empire it is reflected as the end of dynasty Flavii (last emperor - Domician (years of governing according to a traditional history - 81-96), and the beginning of a dynasty of Severs- Antonies (the first emperor is dynasties is Nerve (96 - 98), and the second Emperor became Trajan (98 - 117). That at the last Flavii, that at his probable original the French king John II the plague storms. Thus biography of Murad I is in part crossed, probably, with biography of Terajan. However, it the question is, and it is rather detailed, and at itself Atanov. For us essentially another: there is a interpretation of Europe as source of a turkish gain at its initial stage. Then a certain process of regeneration of conquerors in osmanli national elite would follow.

As source of a turkish gain it is very interesting to look at such interpretation of Europe from two viewpoint: from the viewpoint of a formalism (than actually, in this section the author of the book also is engaged), and from the historical viewpoint. From the viewpoint of a history it opens eyes much on what sources on a history of Byzantium (first of all), Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary. From the literature where it though it is somehow reflected, the author of the book can name already mentioned Patrick Balfur whom wrote under a pseudonym Lord Kinross [44] and Jordan Tabow with the book from series "Chronothron" "The decline of old Bulgaria" [282]. And still it is possible to recollect what in Europe in the middle of XIV century starts to forge iron in plenties and starts development of gunpowder, and iron business is clean on an environment most easy to organize in Europe (the only thing that: the author of the book urgently calls readers to not confuse a course of a turkish gain to a course of initial moving mankind. There that went all rather unequivocally: from the countries where it is necessary to think of problems of adverse climatic conditions a little, in particular, where it is not necessary to think much of problems of warming, struggle against frosts - to those countries where it is necessary to think of problems of frosts more and more and more - as a comment).

In any case, the turkish gain thus appears not the most boring factor in a history of Europe. Following our formalism, we are obliged to bring in these both variants on our circuit: a direction of a gain both from the East on the West, and from the West on the East. We shall designate these theoretically possible{probable} both directions of a gain on one block and borders of this block, as well as border of the block of area of theoretically continous datings, we shall designate a dotted line.

And, at last, the block of crusades. Crusades - this that area of a history which hardly probable can be counted investigated up to the end. It will be shown below, that at separate versions of reconstruction it will turn out, that crusades are imposed on a turkish gain which went from the West on the East. For now on the circuit all of us shall represent simply as the block of bright red color, and near to it{him} - the block of dark-violet color, as block of probable originals of crusades.

So, figure 7en-5. There are the blocks representing the traditional version of a global history, and the basic chronological blocks reflecting the basic global historical processes of the Middle Ages. (Unfortunately, absolute to represent all and it was not possible: on this circuit the question of parallelism which will be reflected below when there will be going about global versions of reconstruction) are not reflected at all.

Figure 7en-5. The traditional version of a global history as the basic chronological blocks, and the blocks reflecting the basic global historical processes of the Middle Ages as separate probable originals
BCE - the block of the events, by the traditional version attributed before to the beginning of the common era
EH - block of Eusebius-Jerome, from the beginning of the common era till boundary IV-V of centuries.
EHc - the block of events of their continuers
Fr - the block of events of Meroving times, in particular, the Fredegar chronicle.
Crl - the block of events of Caroling times
Otto - the block of events of the Otto's Renaissance till to the beginning of interregnum 1250-1273
TRC - the block of events describing a history of a turkish gain
HB - the block of events of Habsburg times
CRS - the block of events describing a history of crusades
Vl - the block of events describing history Valois

Now, after consideration of the basic chronological blocks of which the European history will consist, and their probable originals, it is possible to start the process of creation of synthetic versions of reconstruction.

So, we take the block splitting the traditional version represented on Fig. 7en-5, and we start technical process of creation of versions of reconstruction. This process is reduced to a choice of one block in case of two mutually exclusive, and also to moving probable originals of various blocks along a timebase.

Let's take only one most right block which is situated after 1500 year and which would correspond to events of the Renaissance, and blocks of events we shall not consider all others. It would mean, that we would doubt of reliability of each of these previous blocks. Thus (and attributed by it for period I-XV of centuries of the common era), and legendary, it is possible to place all other events proclaimed by the traditional version as authentic simply in other block which would settle down more to the left of the block Renaissance. This block should be designated the block legendary events, or it is simple LE (legendary events).

Thus at us that very much it would be desirable to name the zero version of reconstruction of a human history will turn out. Thus this zero version will turn out not so magnificent as one block (it would be desirable to repeat, the most left), and other blocks owing to the attitude to them will be taken from block splitting the traditional version only as to legendary will be concentrated in one and will not be represented in more detail (Fig. 7en-6).

So, the zero version of reconstruction of a global history.

Fig. 7en-6. The zero version of reconstruction. Authentic events in its{her} frameworks begin only with boundary XV-XVI of centuries, and before there was a certain legendary period which in figure is designated without details by the uniform block.

And if to proclaim authentic, or, at least, having chance of the reliability, two more last centuries it will turn out considerably more interesting. Thus at once gets out on a surface and area of theoretically continuous dating (the yellow block), and a turkish gain (the green block). And, if to take a history of three not the most silent powers of the Middle Ages, we shall receive that picture of the block image which could underlie the majority of versions reconstruction (Fig. 7en-7):

Fig. 7en-7. The main block (frame) for the majority of synthetic versions of reconstruction

Certainly, if to be strict formalists, that, following here the author of the book to the advanced technique of creation of versions of reconstruction, we are obliged alongside with dark blue blocks of the states Gabsburgs and Valois to consider any others. Yes, speaking formally, are obliged, and thus we can receive many different versions of reconstruction. But here there is a threat to collide{face} a plenty of any sort of improbable versions for which a material it is possible and it would be necessary to take whence, and on pages of this book for this place can not suffice. Probably, this is the business for the further researchers.

And further the author of books will act as follows: he will consider new the block of events for(after) block of events, and to reflect turning out versions of reconstruction in figures. And will write at the same time about with what such versions of reconstruction could be combined.

On Fig. 7en-7 the question of a turkish gain is represented in the most general case, not detailing a question of a direction of a gain: from the West on the east or from the east on the West. It is possible to break the obtained area into two versions of reconstruction where splitting will serve as an axis a question of a turkish gain. Such case let's reflect on Fig. 7en-8.

Figure 7en-8. The mainframe for the majority of synthetic versions of reconstruction with the separate image of two theoretically possible directions of a turkish gain.

On the left part of figure synthetic versions of reconstruction at which the turkish gain would go from the West on the east are reflected, on the right part of figure versions of reconstruction within the framework of which the turkish gain would go from the east on the West are reflected.

As the next step it would be desirable to consider the block of crusades and the block which would correspond to emperors Saxon, Salii and the Swabian dynasty of German state X-XIII of centuries, and also first two centuries Capetings (in our designations Cpt1). Splitting of time Capetings into two blocks, is connected by that a certain part of dynasty Capetings (those kings who on a traditional history start to correct since 1180) has as duplicates of emperors of Roman empire as it is reflected in Atanov's parallelism. Then it is logically to designate earlier part of a dynasty as Cpt1, and later as Cpt2.

It would be not less logical to consider probable originals of these blocks separately. According to a traditional history the first Capetings, on the one hand, and Saxon and Salii a dynasty, on the other hand, are simultaneous, therefore would be not deprived logic to designate probable originals of these blocks as one block Otto+Cpt1.

So, in an assumption, that has chances of existence as one version, and another, in the top pair fragments on Fig. 7en-9 probable originals of the chronological blocks describing a history of these states and their governors for period XIV-XV of centuries (bright - green color) will be represented. Chronological blocks, as they are reflected in the textbook of a history (are designated as Otto and Cpt2, blue color), will be reflected in the bottom fragments Fig. 7en-9.

As to block which would responsible for crusades and which on Fig. 7en-5 is designated as Crs, we shall not stop on it in detail. Even because in this bloch is going about certain separate events which easily could be attributed to area of theoretically continuous datings. That is, differently: if certain events which after are named as crusades, in the documents are dated year, which number we had read as 43 we have the right to consider this year 43 from all without exception of the chronological viewpoint, having made thus dense, actually continuous spectrum of the beginning of datings...

The obtained collection of synthetic versions of reconstruction will be reflected on Fig. 7en-9. Represented in this figure it would be desirable to name significantly: the basic collection of versions of reconstruction as since this moment it will be already possible to state a certain estimation to the obtained versions.

The area of theoretically continuous dating for simplicity is designated for the top two versions of reconstruction.

Fig. 7en-9. The basic collection of synthetic versions of reconstruction in an assumption of reliability of separate blocks since XIV century

(Attention! On Fig. 7en-9 the zero version which considers a global history as authentic only since XVI century is not reflected. It is reflected on Fig. 7en-6).

So, what is represented in figure 7en-9? Here the truncated traditional version of a global history (1e-2), with absolutely traditional consideration of a turkish gain, the same truncated traditional version of a global history, only with consideration of crusedes in the more late epoch when they already turn to the first stage of a turkish gain (1w-2), and the same versions of reconstruction, but only only with consideration of probable originals of German empire X-XIII of centuries and the French state of Capetings of same time as situated in XIV-XV centuries is represented.

Speaking globally, from this time now each of eventical blocks it is possible easily to attach to each of synthetic versions of reconstruction, and to create synthetic versions of reconstruction as from time to time, and on regions. The author of the book the only thing, on what thus will pay attention: the more in the version of reconstruction will be blocks with suspicion on mutual statistical dependence, or, differently - with suspicion on parallelism, the it is more at such version will be chances of impurity, and the its{her} rating estimation will be lower, eventually. Therefore from this reason one very interesting reception clearly follows: if to consider a little to some extent probable versions of reconstruction it is necessary to choose what would contain the minimal number of blocks with theoretical possible interdependence from them.

Now it would be desirable to look once again at Fig. 7en-9. There in the versions of reconstruction represented in the top part (which number 1w-1 is appropriated{given} and 1e-1) chronological blocks which events took place during one time take place same and occured in one territory. Therefore very much it would be desirable (7en-10) to represent these late versions of reconstruction in separate figure, it is detailed them having painted on the countries and having emphasized necessity of check of separate blocks on static interdependence (7en-10):

Fig. 7en-10. The basic collection of synthetic versions of reconstruction in an assumption of reliability of separate blocks since XIV century, with detailed consideration on a history of the separate countries.

So, in figure 7en-10 versions of reconstruction which would turn out by consideration of probable originals of events which are attributed{related} by the traditional version on X-XIII centuries, during period XIV-XV of centuries are represented. Thus France separately, and Germany separately is in detail are represented.

That's mean, that by consideration of the given version of reconstruction for Germany it is necessary to consider in detail statistical interdependence the Habsburgs of XIV-XV of centuries which thus appear on a traditional place, and probable originals of Hohenstaufens which will move with X-XIII centuries in XIV-XV. Besides it would be quite good to consider, how each of the obtained versions of reconstruction will be affected with consideration of a turkish gain in its traditional consideration, and also by its consideration as taking a source in Europe.

And by consideration of this version of reconstruction for France it is necessary to consider in detail statistical interdependence Valois XIV-XV of centuries with their predecessors Capetings which probable originals will get on XIV-XV centuries. Thus it would be possible and to consider an image of crusaders as on the probable original the Turks...

Question: whether it is possible to those versions of reconstruction which are represented on Fig. 7en-10, somehow to join earlier considered blocks of legendary events which have been reflected in figures 7en-2 - 7en-4? Probably, it is possible, and we shall try to make it in figure 7en-11 by the example of the version of reconstruction which on Fig. 7en-10 is designated as 1w-1.

In its left part we shall represent the version 1w-1 with the generalized block of legendary events which we have designated as LE. Further in the right part we this block of legendary events which are in more detail represented on Fig. 7en-2 - 7en-4, shall paint as AT (Alt Testament - with the block of antiquated events), EH (the concept of an ancient history it agrees Eusebius-Jerome), TRN - the legendary version European prehistory according to the block of legends about a Trojan origin of the European nations or about Tuisco-Aschkenaze as their legendary ancestor. And little bit below we shall present three images on which versions of reconstruction in view of the most ancient blocks of the European history are represented in more detail. The only thing that: with the purpose of economy of a place on three images represented below we shall not represent the turkish block, having limited to the image of this block only in the top part of figure.

Fig. 7en-11. The basic collection of synthetic versions of reconstruction for a history of Germany in an assumption of reliability of separate blocks since XIV century, with detailed consideration of the most probable blocks of the most ancient period.

Similar constructions can be made and for a history of France.

Now, when each of versions of reconstruction from the given series is represented in a preliminary kind, it is possible to analyse them from the viewpoint of presence of probable statistical duplicates. Such technique is represented in Fomenko's works (for example, [41]), and she{it} will be not difficult for applying to the given case. Most likely, work on its{her} application will be done in the near future. It would be desirable to repeat only, that the greatest chances of reliability will be had with that version of reconstruction which will contain inside itself a minimum of probable statistical duplicates.

The reasonings following before figures 7en-10 and 7en-11, we can do absolute for any other versions of reconstruction as they almost will be completely identical (distinctions in a little other qua ntity of statistically interdependent blocks).

Therefore we can act safely: to represent final figure, having constructed it without special complications, only having added to all blocks represented on Fig. 7en-9, blocks of legendary events which are in more detail represented on Fig. 7en-11. (Fig. 7en-12). As the legend always leaves a certain aura of mystery we borders of legendary blocks, and, in some other cases, borders of blocks which follow them directly, shall represent dashed lines.

Fig. 7en-12. A final collection of synthetic versions of reconstruction in an assumption of reliability of separate blocks since XIV century (is presented evcerything, except for the traditional version)

So, the author of the book triumphs. He has made a number of cruelties and has declared a number of versions which have, about his viewpoint, low chances of reliability, behind a governing of consideration. And skeletons of versions of reconstruction of such regions of the world, as the Western Europe (France and Germany) and such periods in a human history, as a turkish gain and the major legendary prehistoric events, to services of readers.

Certainly, there are some more interesting questions which very much are to be studied and discussed. For example, a issue of reformation, a issue of Husit wars, a issue of the Arabian gain of Spain and the subsequent reconquista... It is the best way to fix, probably, these questions as the list, which author of the book would name in the best bureaucratic traditions: the plan of work on studying the most important from the viewpoint of chronology of sources on Europe history.

The author builds the rest of article as follows: he will consider those versions of reconstruction which clearly would follow from other sources or were is received by other researchers, and then them will compare with the synthetic versions.

So, versions of reconstruction which in this or that form have already been fixed in the previous works, including that has already been expressed in works different chronists. Thus very much it would be desirable to begin with the version of the reconstruction, created and fixed by foreign researches of XX century, including version folowing from the works by Morozow .

At first these versi ons of reconstruction we shall give as the list:

- The version catastrofists, speaking about a birth of a world civili sation only after global accident of XIV century
- Illig's version based on absence of and later invention of time of Charles the Great
- Morozow's version proclaiming all history as authentic since times of �onstantin only.

And we shall represent them as figure (Fig. 7en-13).

(thus, that is typical, Morozow, Illig, catastrofists did not mention in detail neither a question of crusades, nor a question of a turkish gain. Only Illig has a little raised the question about doubtful datings in days of Carolings. That's why all blocks which are responsible for theoretical versions of dating, in this figure are removed. As to the version of catastrofists, it, proclaiming the beginning of an authentic human history only since XIV century, on a question of an antiquated history does not adhere to the final viewpoint, that's why antiquated block LE in below-mentioned figure is presented with dotted edges - WP).

Figure 7en-13. The schematic image of versions of the reconstruction created both fix by foreign researchers and Morozow's version.

Now let's a word transfer medieval chronists. Their products, unfortunately, have the much greater spectrum of interpretations, than products of our contemporaries. Besides medieval chronists at all always shone with exact confirmation of the traditional version, and the erudition showed in other issues. But, nevertheless, by separate words it is possible to form a certain imagination about their viewpoints on those or other issues of global history.

For example, from interpretations Ioachimus Fiorensis clearly follows not clear whence undertaken 1260. From this viewpoint it is very well combined with Jury Atanov's version. Graphically we shall represent it as follows: we shall take border of authentic events approximately from 1200 year, it is direct under it{him} we shall place the probable original of the Roman empire which we traditionally designate letters EH (as early border of its history we we shall take coming to power Julia Tsezarja, that is 45 year till the common era , at this its probable original fell to 1215). Thus there will be a clear situation with parallismus between the Roman empire and the laters.

It also is reflected on the circuit as equal-signs between block Evsevija-Ieronima (red color) and the block which corresponds{meets} to the ex - German empire (in figure - dark blue color). Further, upon termination of a legendary part, already goes the German empire of Habsburga and the French kingdom of VAlois. The book of life, or genesis, thus directly is fastened on the past of German people, the outstanding place in which is borrowed{occupied} with figure Tuisco-Aschkenaz. Thus the German empire is a real embodiment of force and power affords numerous campaigns against incorrect.

Figure 7en-14. The schematic image of versions of reconstruction which follows from one of consideration of ideas Ioachimus Fiorensis

From one of Alexander's interpretations von Roes (is more exact, his products) clearly follows rather long spectrum in time of theoretically probable datings. One of them, the most remarkable is which follows from his manner of declaration of a new century each fifteen years.

Fig. 7en-15. The version of reconstruction which follows from one of Alexander's interpretations von Roes.

It is possible to consider and a song of bishop Anno (Annolied), and Alsatian Anonymus. Among chronists about which here will write still, we shall mention still following: John Naukler, John Tritemius and John Aventius.

Alsatian Anonymus. As to original interpretation of antiquated events, such as resulted in the fifth section "Peoples of Iaphet have left Babylon before confusion of languages, and they came in Alsace and have kept the initial language, and other languages came to Babel", it can be consideres as the original German interpretation of the Old Testament and be attributed to the legendary block. He identifies German emperors with emperors Roman, and a source of a turkish gain obviously names Europe. Schematically that version of reconstruction which follows from his products, it is possible to represent on Fig. 7en-16.

Fig. 7en-16. The version of reconstruction which follows from one of interpretations of the Alsatian Anonymus.

Now it would be desirable to turn the look on Jansen Enikel. It would not be desirable to stop in detail on the legendary block of its events. It would be desirable to pay attention to that, last date under the text is connected with Otokar (Otto), and transition goes directly from Constantin to Charles. Merowings thus vanish. Besides double mention Otto, and Friedrich before him increased the chances for the version which appeals, says have the attitude to those emperors as to characters legendary. So, the version of reconstruction from Jansen Enikel: the traditional version in German interpretation without 500 years between Constantin and Charles. Besides it with two Otto (aren't reflected on the image). (Fig. 7en-17).

Fig. 7en-17. The version of reconstruction following from global chronicle of Jansen Enikel

From Songs of Anno (Annolied) the version absolutely short follows. From its contents it is possible to draw a conclusion on transition from the Roman empire to German one. . We shall represent it in figure 7en-18.

Figure 7en-18. The versio of reconstruction which follows from Annolied.

As to John Naukler he in certain moments is original. At him among descendants Tuisco was the Hercules Alemanian. From August up to Augustul (+477) was a monarchy, the sixth century begins from the Christ, (in his edition of 1594 lists of kings from Octavian up to Maximilian I took place). Then at the image it is versions we can, having taken for a basis the circuit of a Trojan origin of European peoples and the German character of the Roman empire in the most general case (Fig. 7-6) to remove equal-signs between emperors of the Roman empire and those emperors who according to a traditional history are emperors later. Thus for the period after Augustul we can represent Jesus Christ's reference as original interpretation Newtestament events (NTnaucler), Fig. 7en-19. Thus the dotted line would mean chronological uncertainty.

Figure 7en-19. The version of reconstruction following from John Naukler

Going further, we pay the attention to John Tritemius. The most interesting in his creativity is, certainly, family tree of emperor Maksimilian cut on his gravestone. It still should be studied.

In the chronicle he for the time being, up to Merowings, bases on Hunibald, then on Gaduard, Richter and Germanfried. Then in the cente of his attention is Habsburg's family tree.

The version of reconstruction which follows from his works, probably, in the best way to represent as the block interrupting a faltering line (Fig. 7en-20).

Figure 7en-20. The version of reconstruction following from John Trithemius.

As to John Aventius , a picture represented in his chronicle,

Very much reminds that picture which follows from one of consideration of ideas Ioachimus Fiorensis. It is possible to go further: to name that circuit which follows from one of interpretations Ioachimus Fiorensis, and also is present at John Aventius's works, the version of a Trojan origin of European peoples and the German character of the Roman empire in the most common case. It would be desirable to represent it irrespective of all in figure 7en-21.

Fig. 7en-21. The version of a Trojan origin of European peoples and the German character of the Roman empire in the most general case

Here there is desirable to leave the "Chronicle in national language" (Volksspraechliche Chronik) and to proceed to those chronicles which have got the greater recognition in the European historical science. For concreteness, it would be desirable to mention Flores temporum.

On the circuit representing this version of reconstruction, all will be rather transparent to follow from this source. Thus the bottom chronological frontier appear the years 700th years, and top the year 1300.

For giving to this circuit of the greater informativeness we shall specially emphasize, that this compilat is weaved from separate, generally, doubtful, datings (Fig. 7en-22):

Figure 7en-22. The version of reconstruction which follows from Flores temporum.

So, from Flores temporum follows a certain fragment of the traditional version follows.

Very curious information to us is given by one of chronological traditions, namely, chronological tradition Jerome which carries creations of the world 5198-5200 years prior to Christ Birth. Documents in this tradition date chronicle Eusebius in transfer Jerome and his continuers down to V centuries CE Further this tradition disappears for six centuries, and its{her} revival is dated XIII-XIV a century. If to supose its continuity approximately following version of reconstruction (Fig. 7en-23) will turn out.

Figure 7en-23. The version of reconstruction which follows from reasons of a continuity of Jerome's chronological tradition.

Now, after end of the mainframe devoted to creativity ancient, it would be desirable to turn the look on the versions of reconstruction created by our contemporaries Jury Atanov, George Gerasimow nad Leon Fediukin.

Atanov's version is very convenient for comparing to the version which follows from the Alsatian Anonymus (see Fig. 7en-16). In Gerasimov's version the basic attention is given a great turkish gain which goes from the East on the West. Certain echoes of this version are available in a hypothesis about prehistoric moving peoples and a Trojan origin of European peoples. But the author of the book is declined more all to represent such version as the version which reflects a turkish gain which went, as well as within the framework of the traditional version, from the East on the West. And all powerfull European statehood has arisen due to it.

The author chronologically has attributed this turkish gain on the middle XIV century, as is reflected on the circuit.

As to Fediukin's version it in many respects coincides with the version catastrofists as both there, and there, the question is XIV century as about key in a global history.

Figure 7en-24. The versions of reconstruction created by our contemporaries Jury Atanov, George Gerasimow, Leon Fediukin

It is possible one's more consider the version of reconstruction which clearly follows from the general duration of governing of all kings bible jewish empires (431 year), and about surprising concurrence of this figure to date of burning Jean d'Arc and issue edict of the popre Eugeny about introduction of obligatory chronology from Christ Birth by papal office (1431). Then became clear the following version of reconstruction: till 1000 - the legendary period, from 1000 till 1431 - probable originals of kings of antiquated empires, after them - governors already really having a place (Fig. 7en-24). Such version of reconstruction would hint that it would be quite good to consider the dependence between governers of the Old Testament Kingdoms and the later governors of medieval states�

Figure 7en-25. Versions of the reconstruction, following from presence of probable originals of antiquated empires during later epoch.

Now the problem of the schematic image of those versions of reconstruction which have been created, it is possible to conisder as fulfilled.

And the author according to the plan passes to comparison of the synthetic versions of reconstruction received by him to what have been received by other researchers, and with what followed from different sources (Fig. 7en-13 - 7en-24).

So, what from the syunthetic reconstruction versions correspond to what versions of reconstruction already existing up to it, on what versions they base? We shall try to give his information as the table. Or as the list.

The version catastrofists not bad corresponds to all versions which proclaim absence of an authentic history till XIV century (at us it is zero version, 1w-1, 1e-1).

The version which follows from mythological interpretation in the image of Charles and Friedrich, is in good conformity, with the zero version and all versions which everyone consider seriously only since XIV century.

Both Morsow's and Illig's version, give good chances for the version such as 1e-2 as shorter variant of the traditional version. The version of a Trojan origin of European peoples is not bad entered in all versions of reconstruction, except for zero, as reflected on Fig. 7en-12. The same as also the version which follows from such classical work of the West-European literature as Annolied which historical contents can have each of four specified interpretations. Same it is possible to tell and about chronicle Jansen Enikel. Alsatian Anonymus gives confirmation to all versions where the question is the European source of a turkish gain. At other chronicles considered in the book compilative character is appreciable brightly, and with for their analysis it would be possible to do the same procedure, as for the analysis of a traditional history (John Aventius, John Tritemius, John Naukler, Henry's from Munich chronicle).

Flores temporum adds points to more ancient versions (the author it will consider despite of it's compilative character). The version of interpretation Ioachimus Fiorensis adds points for versions more later.

About tradition of Jerome's chronological continuity in more detail. If such chronological continuity finally appears only in XIV century automatically this epoch is dated 1300+5200=6500-th years. Early 6500th years can be easily understood as the first years of a new century. At the same time all events of III century (200th years) would be written down as 5200+200=5400-th years, events of II century (100th years) as 5200+100=5300-th years and so on. One small problem: as far as the author of the book, documents with such datings, except for chronicle Eusebius-Jerome is guided, is not present in general. Therefore it is possible to tell safely, that the tradition of chronological continuity Jerome good passes only to later versions where the most authentic id taking place only since XIV century.

Atanov's version contains one very interesting moment: there transition of the main, Roman empire from francs to Turks is fixed as though. This fact well approaches to all versions where the turkish gain goes from the West on the East. As against Gerasimov's version where all civilization starts to develop, on the contrary, after turkish intrusion from the East. According to Fediukin's version human civilisation development begins with XI century that gives points to later versions.

The version of reconstruction which follows from works of art (so called Zhabinski-Kalyuzhny's version). Above in the review it is not mentioned. If it is short, its essence will be, that development of works of art show forward development of a civilization only since XI century, and the way of development of a civilization before is characterized by spasmodic development of works of art that is reflected in the schedule which name was fixed in a science as Zhabinski-Kalyuzhny's sinusoid. From the viewpoint of the author of the book, she{it} approaches to later versions as for period XII-XIII of centuries it is necessary only the most primitive forms of art more likely, and the period of their perfection begins only with the end of XIII century. It will appear in our list under the name "the data on development of the literature and art".

That fact, that dating from Jesus Christ is entered only since 1431, well corresponds to later versions which in our list have the figure one in the end (in the list it will have the name "the beginning of continuous dating from Christ Birth since 1431").

As to effects strange, not quite clear events which are attributed to XV century they give the contribution to later versions as thus it is visible, that much that took place in XV century, but this much that is incorrectly attributed for earlier times. Further it will be marked in the list as effects of strangeness of XV century.

Here it is possible a little more argue about very interesting effect which is connected with Interregnum. Theoretically the interpretation which this most Interregnum in general would consider as is not excluded did not start the next stage of empire, and the beginning of empire in general. Then such interpretation well would correspond to later versions. Below in the list such influence is designated briefly: as "intepretation of Interregnum as period of prestatehood".

Else it is possible here to mention one property of arabic- and persian- language sources which very much like to speak about how certain great (Mongolian) conquerors went through the iron gate (in more detail about it is in the first book of the author under the title "Tatar-Mongols. Eurasia. Multivariancy"). In interpretation of the Iron gate as place of border between the bottom and average current of Danube it gives points for the version of the European source of a turkish gain. Below in the list of versions about it there will be a going as about the Danube interpretation of the location of the Iron gate.

So, the list of versions of reconstruction and various chronicles and the facts which would confirm them.

Zero: the version catastrofists, mythological interpretation of images of Charles and Friedrich, the version of a Trojan origin of Europe peoples, effects of strangeness of XV century.
1w-1: the version catastrofists, mythological interpretation of images of Charles and Friedrich, the version of a Trojan origin of European peoples, Annolied, chronicle Jansen Enikel, Alsatian Anonymus, the version of interpretation Ioachimus Fiorensis, tradition of chronological continuity Jerome, Atasnov's version, Fediukin's version, the beginning of continuous dating from Christ Birth since 1431, effects of strangeness of XV century, interpretation Interregnum as period of prestatehood, the Danube interpretation of a site of the Iron gate, the data on development of the literature and art.

1w-2: the version of a Trojan origin of European peoples, Annolied, chronicle Jansen Enikel, Alsatian Anonymus, Flores temporum, Atasnov's version, interpretation of Danube as the localisation of the Iron gate.

1e-1: the version of catastrofists, mythological interpretation of images of Charles and Friedrich, the version of a Trojan origin of European peoples, Annolied, chronicle Jansen Enikel, the Version of interpretation Ioachimus Fiorensis, tradition of chronological continuity Jerome, Gerasimov's Version, Fediukin's version, the beginning of continuous dating from Christ Birth since 1431, effects of strangeness of XV century, interpretation Interregnum as period of prestatehood, the data on development of the literature and art.

1e-2: versions by Illig and Morozow , the version of a Trojan origin of European peoples, Annolied, chronicle of Jansen Enikel, Flores temporum, Gerasimov's version.

On this place the review of the basic versions of reconstruction and their support on various chronicles and the facts from a global history is to be finished.

In the conclusion it would be desirable to add about the Italian tradition of the account on centuries (when XIV century is proclaimed trecento, XIII century - ducento (most likely so - WP), etc.) very precisely it is visible started developments of a civilization from XII century. But while to pass to a question of creation on this basis of the version of reconstruction, it is not enough material, and it demands separate time.

Here the author of the book also has tried to finish a question with such condition which would be described by words: "and now it is possible to go to any collection of documents, to any archive, to any library". May be, it's really possible..