  Log in  Register  

Home  Blog  Questionable History  World-Historical Individuals 

Suvorov, Yermak, Pugachev, Razin and the Siberian War

 Jul 16, 2021 ·  gannibal hannibal razin siberia sibir suvorov suwar suwarrow turan yermak

Jul 16, 2021 ·  Replies: 10 

Without historical individuals and without real chronology we have no history. Unfortunately, this is
exactly what we have in my opinion - no history. Instead of the real history we have an intertwined web of
fictitious story lines. Years of polishing turned these story lines into our current narrative. The end result
is still the same, for no good fiction will ever make up for the true history. Winston Churchill allegedly said
"A nation that forgets its past has no future." George Santayana allegedly said "Those who don’t know
history are destined to repeat it." What did they mean by saying that?

Could it be that Suvorov, Yermak, Pugachev and Razin were one and the same, during different periods
of their lives (or life)?
As in, all of them represent one or two individual whose name we will never know.
Templated individuals with templated biographical elements.
Templated wars, templated battles and templated combat elements.

Note: In my opinion, we do not have a time line. We have a sequence of events and characters that
historians agreed upon.

This sequence includes thousands of years and tens of thousands of historical individuals.

I do not think our recorded history is that long. Between i492/1644 (in some instances i492/1700) and
1900, we have 200 to 300 years of events at the most.

These events (and historical individuals) were multiplied and placed over the narrative compliant time
line.
Events separated by hundreds and thousands of years were often either the same events, or events
happening simultaneously.
Events happening in one part of the world could be the same events happening somewhere else at a
different time.

This is my understanding of our made up historical narrative.

Everything fits, but something ain't right.

That's the feeling I get every time I see different depictions of Suvorov, for example these two.

How did we get there? I don't know. It appears that the initial narrative compilers were pretty creative.
How many kingdoms do you see on the image below and what year is it? You can also try to figure out
How many kingdoms do you see on the image below, and what year is it? You can also try to figure out

the date. Here is the list:

Kingdom "A" Kingdom "Y"

Kingdom "B' Kingdom "East"
Kingdom "C" Kingdom "West"
Kingdom "D" Kingdom "North"
Kingdom "X" Kingdom "South"

Needless to say, that when Kingdom "X" goes to war with Kingdom "Y", on paper, we have at least 5
different wars spread out in time. The number of wars, and chronological shenanigans will go up if we
apply the same "name/date" rule to every single kingdom.

Considering that Tartary is one of the most mysterious topics of Stolen History, I might as well start with
Sibir.

Yermak Timofeyevich
Yermak Timofeyevich was a Cossack ataman and is today a hero in Russian folklore and myths. In the
reign of Tsar Ivan the Terrible Yermak started the Russian conquest of Siberia.

Yermak Timofeyevich
Russian conquest of Siberia (1580 - late 1600s)
Khanate of Sibir (conquered in 1598 by Tsardom of Russia)

On October 26, 1582, Yermak and his soldiers overthrew Kuchum Khan's Tatar empire at Qashliq in a
battle that marked the "conquest of Siberia". Yermak remained in Siberia and continued his struggle
against the Tatars until 1584, when a raid organized by Kuchum Khan ambushed and killed him and his
party.

The precise details of Yermak's death are lost to history, but legend has preserved multiple variations
of the account.

Died in 1585
~ aged 43-53 ~

Source - Source

Important: The specifics of Yermak's life, such as his appearance, background, and dates of events,
remain points of controversy for historians because the texts that document his life are not reliable.
There is less information about Yermak than most other notable explorers and historical figures. Much of
what we know about Yermak is derived from folklore and legend. There are no contemporary
descriptions of Yermak and all portraits are merely estimations.

One of the Siberian chronicles, the Remezov Chronicle, written more than one hundred years after
Yermak's death describes him as “flat-faced, black of beard with curly hair, of medium stature and
thick-set and broad-shouldered,” but even this detailed account is not reliable because the narrator
had never seen Yermak.
In addition to his physical features' being unknown, the details of Yermak's life and the circumstances
leading up to his excursion into Siberia are obscure.

Historians encounter serious difficulties when attempting to piece together the specifics of Yermak's life
and exploits because the two key, primary sources about Yermak may be biased or inaccurate. These
sources are the Stroganov Chronicle, another one of the Siberian chronicles, and the Sinodik.

The Stroganov Chronicle was commissioned by the Stroganov family itself, therefore it exaggerates
the family's involvement in the conquest of Siberia.
 The Sinodik is an account of Yermak's campaign written forty years after his death by the archbishop
of Tobolsk, Cyprian (Kipriyan). The text was formed based on oral tradition and memories of his

expedition but almost certainly was affected by the archbishop's desire to canonize Yermak. The
combination of forgotten details over time and the embellishment or omission of facts in order for
Yermak to be accepted as a saint suggests that the Sinodik could be erroneous.
These documents, along with the various others that chronicle Yermak's expeditions, are filled with
contradictions that make the truth about Yermak's life difficult to discern.
While the sources that exist on Yermak are fallible, those accounts, along with folklore and legend, are
all that historians have to base their knowledge on; therefore, they are widely accepted and
considered to reflect the truth.

Ok, let me get this straight. Historians consider folklore and legends to reflect the truth because there are
no original sources of anything pertaining to Yermak. Yet, we (somehow) do know:

Yermak started his conquest of Siberia in 1580.

KD: Well, why 1580 and not 1777?

1864 Book

- source is down below -

I decided to google Vogouls and Ostiacks. There was nothing tremendously exciting there, but you, my
friends will lough, for certain things never fail.

1913 photograph of "A civilized Yenisei Samoyede and a Yenisei-Ostiak."

I understand that he was probably just keeping his hand worm.

Source
 Source

So, how did I get to this year 1777 for the Yermak's conquest of Siberia. It all started with the below
image that I followed up on.

Writing blank of 1810 entitled Elizabeth; or, The exiles of Siberia. A tale founded upon facts.
Based on the book by M.R. Cottin.

Madam Cottin
Sophie Cottin (1770 – 1807) was a French writer whose novels were popular in the 19th century, and
were translated into several different languages. She was not yet twenty when she married her first
husband, Jean-Paul-Marie Cottin, a banker.

She wrote several romantic and historical novels including Elizabeth; or, the Exiles of Siberia in 1806, a
S e ote se e a o a t c a d sto ca o e s c ud g abet ; o , t e es o S be a 806, a
"wildly romantic but irreproachably moral tale", according to Nuttall's Encyclopaedia (late 19th-century
encyclopedia).

1864 Version + 1873

I do understand that Madam Cottin was no qualified historian. May be this is why we should trust her a
bit more than (we would have) a narrative compliant historian.

The book is full of footnotes.

Footnotes are marked with * asterisk symbol.
These footnotes are a very important part of the entire book, imho.

Please see if you can find any material errors in Madam Cottin's footnotes in this book. Here are several
examples of the footnotes.
Wiki source: Subsequently, Menshikov was deprived of his enormous wealth, stripped of the titles, and he
and his whole family were banished to Beryozovo in Siberia, where he died in 1729.

Wiki source: In April 1800 August von Kotzebue decided to return to Saint Petersburg, but on his journey
there he was arrested at the border on suspicion of being a Jacobin and was escorted to Tobolsk in Siberia.

Wiki source: A verst is an obsolete Russian unit of length equal to 1.0668 kilometres (0.6629 miles; 3,500
feet).

Source

Note: And then this....

Wiki source: Yermak (born between 1532 and 1542 - 1585) was a Cossack ataman and is today a hero in
Russian folklore and myths. In the reign of Tsar Ivan the Terrible Yermak started the Russian conquest of
Siberia.

On October 26, 1582, Yermak and his soldiers overthrew Kuchum Khan's Tatar empire in a battle that
marked the "conquest of Siberia".
Yermak remained in Siberia and continued his struggle against the Tatars until 1584, when a raid
organized by Kuchum Khan ambushed and killed him and his party.

KD: Here is my understanding of this 1777. Madam Cottin published her book in 1806. This was not
some typo, but rather when things really happened. Call it a censorship slip up, if you will.

Plays nicely into Fomenko's X-185 Chronology. The below three articles also address related
chronological issues.
I do not think the shift was set at 185 years. Imho, it was somewhat floating.
Our timeline could be much shorter than we think...
Napoleonic Wars and Year 1812: when did they happen?
Chronology: how old is America?

Pugachev's Rebellion
1773–1775
This brings us to the next Siberian issue... the Pugachev's Rebellion. If Siberia was conquered by 1777, it
is logical to consider the Siberian Conquest and the Pugachev's Rebellion being the same event.
Pugachev's Rebellion (also called the Peasants' War 1773–75 or Cossack Rebellion) of 1773-75 was the
principal revolt in a series of popular rebellions that took place in the Russian Empire after Catherine II
seized power in 1762.

It began as an organized insurrection of Yaik Cossacks headed by Yemelyan Pugachev, a disaffected

ex-lieutenant of the Imperial Russian Army, against a background of profound peasant unrest and war
with the Ottoman Empire.
After initial success, Pugachev assumed leadership of an alternative government in the name of the
late Tsar Peter III and proclaimed an end to serfdom.
This organized leadership presented a challenge to the imperial administration of Catherine II.

Important: The most important, and truthful thing that (imho) bled though into the narrative was:

"a disaffected" ex-somebody of the Imperial Government.

I do not believe that Pugachev (as presented) had ever existed. But he does represent a certain
"incognito" who was "a disaffected" ex-somebody.

Pugachev
The narrative tells us the following. Yemelyan Pugachev was an ataman of the Yaik Cossacks who led a
great popular insurrection during the reign of Catherine the Great. In 1759, he signed on to military
service at the age of 17. In a year or two, he joined the Russian Second Army in Prussia during the Seven
Years' War (1756-1763).

c. 1742-1775
 Source

He returned home in 1762, and for the next seven years divided his time between his home village and
several service assignments.
During this period, he was recognized for his military skill and achieved the Cossack rank of
khorunzhiy, which would be roughly equivalent to the post of company commander.
It was also during this period, in 1770 at the siege of Bender during the Russo-Turkish War, that he
first displayed a flair for impersonation, boasting to his comrades that his sword was given to him by
his "godfather", Peter I.
*Note: This Peter the Great being his "godfather" could be pretty important.

In 1773 Pugachev's army attacked Samara and occupied it. His greatest victory came with the taking of
Kazan, by which time his captured territory stretched from the Volga to the Ural mountains.

Though fairly well-organized for a revolt at the time, Pugachev's main advantage early on was the lack
of seriousness about Pugachev's rebellion.
The Russian general Michelson lost many men due to a lack of transportation and discipline among
his troops, while Pugachev scored several important victories.
While besieging the Orenburg fortress, the rebels destroyed one government relief expedition and
spread the revolt northward into the Urals, westward to the Volga, and eastward into Siberia.
Pugachev's groups were defeated in late March and early April 1774 by a second relief corps under
General Bibikov, but Pugachev escaped to the southern Urals, Baskiria, where he recruited new
supporters.
Then, the rebels attacked the city of Kazan, burning most of it on July 23, 1774.
Though beaten three times at Kazan by tsarist troops, Pugachev escaped by the Volga, and gathered
new forces as he went down the west bank of the river capturing main towns.
On September 5, 1774, Pugachev failed to take Tsaritsyn and was defeated in the steppe below that
town.
His closest followers betrayed him to the authorities
 His closest followers betrayed him to the authorities.

We obviously do not know what Pugachev really looked like, because... well, we simply don't know... stuff
is allegorical, you know...

Source

We probably have more of these, but you get the idea. We do not know what Pugachev looked like.
 Source

Important: The authorities tried to erase his name from history. His house was burnt down and his village
renamed.

Empress Catherine issued a decree of 15 January 1775 to rename most of the places involved in the
revolt, in order to erase the memory of it.
Thus the Yaik River and the city of Yaitsk were renamed to the Ural River and Uralsk, respectively, and
the Yaik Cossacks became the Ural Cossacks.
Source + Source

When you rename places Yaik to Ural, nobody will remember that the true name of the river was
Rhymnus, and of the mountains Rhymicus.
 1830

Source

1720

Source

The end of Pugachev: Alexander Suvorov had him placed in a metal cage (the narrative writes are so
devious) and sent first to Simbirsk and then to Moscow for a public execution, which took place on 21
January [O.S. 10 January] 1775.

Pugachev was decapitated and then drawn and quartered in public..

 Source

Pugachev's brother: had to change his last name to Ivanov. It's gonna be important that he had a brother.

I had no idea Pugachev had two wives until I found this text. He was probably an Old Believer,
otherwise...

Stepan Razin
Stepan Timofeyevich Razin (1630 – 1671), known as Stenka Razin, was a Cossack leader who led a
major uprising against the nobility and tsarist bureaucracy in southern Russia in 1670–1671.

Stenka Razin - Wikipedia

1630-1671
 Source

Of course, we cannot be sure what Razin looked like. This is him too.

Source

In 1670 Razin, while ostensibly on his way to report at the Cossack headquarters on the Don, openly
rebelled against the government, capturing Cherkassk and Tsaritsyn.

After capturing Tsaritsyn, Razin sailed up the Volga with his army of almost 7,000 men.
The men traveled toward Cherny Yar, a government stronghold between Tsaritsyn and Astrakhan.
Razin and his men swiftly took Cherny Yar when the Cherny Yar streltsy rose up against their officers
and joined the Cossack cause in June 1670.
On June 24 he reached the city of Astrakhan.
Razin plundered the city despite its location on a strongly fortified island and the stone walls and
brass cannons that surrounded the central citadel.
The local streltsy's rebellion allowed Razin to gain access to the city.

The emissaries of Razin, armed with inflammatory proclamations, had stirred up the inhabitants of the
modern governments of Nizhny Novgorod, Tambov, and Penza, and penetrated even as far as Moscow
and Novgorod.

Razin proclaimed that his object was to root out the boyars and all officials, to level all ranks and
dignities, and establish Cossackdom, with its corollary of absolute equality, throughout Muscovy.

Eight battles had been fought before the insurrection showed signs of weakening and it continued for six
Eight battles had been fought before the insurrection showed signs of weakening, and it continued for six
months after Razin had received his quietus.

In 1671, Stepan and his brother Frol Razin were captured by Cossack elders.
They were given over to Tsarist officials in Moscow, and on 6 June 1671, following the announcement
of the verdict against him, Stepan Razin was quartered on the scaffold on Red Square.
The executioner then proceeded to first cut off his right hand to his elbow, then his left foot to the
knee.
Then the executioner cut off his head.
Razin's hands, legs, and head, according to the testimony of the Englishman Thomas Hebdon, were
stuck on five specially-placed stakes.
The confession helped Frol to postpone his own execution, although five years later, in 1676, he was
executed too.

Abram Gannibal (also Hannibal)

Abram Gannibal aka Hannibal or Abram Petrov (c. 1696 - 1781), was a Russian military engineer, major-
general, and nobleman of African origin.

Kidnapped as a child, Gannibal was taken to Russia and presented as a gift to Peter the Great, where
he was freed, adopted and raised in the Emperor's court household as his godson.

Abram was baptized in 1705 with Peter the Great as his godfather. Abram valued his relationship with his
godfather, as well as that of Peter's daughter (Elizabeth of Russia), and was loyal to them as if they were
family. Starting at a young age, the boy Abram would travel alongside the emperor during his military
campaigns, and at these military journeys he served as his godfather’s valet.

Left: Portrait of German-Russian General Ivan Ivanovich Möller-Sakomelsky, as identified by Natalya

Teletova.
Others identify it as a portrait of Abram Petrovich Gannibal.
Right: Hannibal Abram (Ibrahim) Petrovich. Reproduction from a portrait of an unknown artist of the
18th century, executed around 1799.
Important: We have no idea what Abram Hannibal looked like.
 Who am I?

Source + Source

Gannibal enrolled in the royal artillery academy at La Fère (France) in 1720.

Allegedly... graduated the royal artillery academy of La Fère, and later became chief military
engineer and general-in-chief of the Imperial Russian Army.
It was during his time in France that Abram adopted the surname "Gannibal" in honor of the
Carthaginian general Hannibal.
Gannibal being the traditional transliteration of the name in Russian.
After the death of Peter in 1725, Prince Menshikov gained power in Russia due to his good standing
with Peter. However, Menshikov was not fond of Abram and was suspicious of his foreign origins and
superior education.
Gannibal was exiled to Siberia in 1727, some 4,000 miles to the east of Saint Petersburg. He was
pardoned in 1730 because of his skills in military engineering.
In 1742, the Empress Elizabeth gave him the Mikhailovskoye estate in Pskov province with hundreds
of serfs.
He retired to this estate in 1762.
KD: Retired in 1762, died in 1781. What was he doing for 19 years?
Gannibal's actual place of birth continues to be uncertain, and is subject to speculation by modern
historians.
Somewhere in Africa... allegedly...
Gannibal's oldest son, Ivan (1735-1801), became an accomplished naval officer who helped found the
city of Kherson in 1779 and attained the rank of General-in-Chief, the second highest military rank in
imperial Russia.
In an official document that Gannibal submitted in 1742 to Empress Elizabeth, while petitioning
for the rank of nobility and a coat of arms, he asked for the right to use a family crest
emblazoned with an elephant and the mysterious word "FVMMO"
 emblazoned with an elephant and the mysterious word FVMMO .

Source

Letter signed by A. Ganibal (note only one 'n') on 22 March 1744.I have no idea what it says, but the "one
n" part could be pretty important.

Source

Important: The main reliable accounts of Gannibal's life come from The Moor of Peter the Great, Pushkin's
unfinished biography (written in 1827–1828) of his great-grandfather, published after Pushkin's death in
1837.

Hannibal or Khan Iqbal?

As it stands, we do not know where this Adam Hannibal was born. We do not know what he looked like.
At the same time historians have a lot of nothing that they turned into something. Normally, we are bound
by the narrative compliant time frames. These time frames heavily influence our investigations. I'm trying
to expand the investigative approach by incorporating Fomenko's, as well as some other methods of
corelating events and individuals. In this particular case, we might be improperly reading the name of
Hanibal (with one "n").

What if Hanibal's name was Khan Iqbal? And...

He did have a darker skin, but he did not come from Africa.
We do have elephants on the Tartarian side as well
 We do have elephants on the Tartarian side as well.
What if our Khan Iqbal came from the vast Tartarian territories?

See what countries this name pulls up today.

I'm in the beginning of my search, so I'm not sure how many people with this name we had, but here are
two to start with.

Source

Source

Hannibal Barca and Khan Barka

Let's direct our attention to the actual Hannibal Barca (247 - 181 BC). The narrative insists that he was an
Ancient Carthaginian general and statesman who commanded the forces of Ancient Carthage in their
battle with the Roman Republic during the Second Punic War.

Simon says that Hannibal Barca initiated a war in Italy by crossing the Alps with North African war
elephants.
Below: A marble bust, reputedly of Hannibal, originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy.
Isn't it funny? They can't figure out what people looked like mere 200-300 years ago. Yet, they
feed us this BC identification BS.
 247 BC - 181 BC

I will have to bring up Hannibal Barca one more time, later on. For right now I simply wanted to point out
this gentleman here:

Khan Berke (1257–1266). He was a grandson of Genghis Khan and a Mongolian military commander
and ruler of the Golden Horde (division of the Mongol Empire) who effectively consolidated the power
of the Blue Horde and White Horde from 1257 to 1266.

Gush, this stuff is so confusing: Byzantine-Mongol alliance.

In 1265 Berke Khan sent the Golden Horde army under Noghai to Thrace.
Ok, when is/was Thrace? Have you been to Thrace recently? Did Berke Khan send Noghai to Plovdiv,
or something?
Once we filter out the BS we get that Thracia, Thrace and Thracians do not belong in 1200s.
Thracia or Thrace is the ancient name given to the southeastern Balkan region, the land
inhabited by the Thracians.
This is like France and Gaul. Plausible and convenient for the narrative compilers it is.
Next summer I plan on visiting regions of Thrace and Gaul, lol.

Wanna see how this Khan Berke (or his warriors) was getting depicted back in the day?
 Source

By the way, when did the Tartarian Lord Barka (or Barkah) become Berke?

Source
 Source

Source

A possible Hunnic connection: The term "Bal", according to onomastic data and according to Ivantchik
was known to the Scythians (οὐαδτόβαλος) and means "a favorite of the {battle} group".

The Hunnic Empire

Suvorov, Hunnibal and Gannibal: Could some coincidences be a bit more than just coincidences.

Hannibal - crossed the Alps with his army and elephants.

Suvorov - crossed the Alps with his army
Suvorov and Hannibal are the only military commanders to cross the Alps.
For this marvel of strategic retreat, earning him the nickname of the Russian Hannibal, Suvorov
became the fourth Generalissimo of Russia.
Gannibal - has an elephant on his Coat of Arms

Hannibal and Suvorov had battles in the same area:

Hannibal: Battle of the Trebia (218 BC)

Suvorov: Battle of Trebbia (1799)
 Source - Source - Source

Tartarian 4x4
I don't know how ridable African elephants of Hannibal were. I looked it up, and apparently African
elephants can be ridden. Well, an elephant from the Gannibals Coat of Arms of Arms could also come
from the East. Whoever knows the difference between Indian and African elephant ears, be my guest.

Kublai Khan direct a battle against his relative Nayan from his ‘elephant castle’.
Source
The Emperor Kublai Khan commanding in battle from four armoured elephants.
Source
These are some weird elephants: Marco Polo carried in elephant car of Kublai Khan during his visit to
China 1200s.

Source
Of course, Kublai Khan (whoever he was in this templated historical matrix) was the Tartar Monarch.

Source

When did Kublai Khan become mongoloid for the first time, by the way?
 Kublai Khan, the Emperor of the Tartars
 Jun 29, 2021 ·  giant
Frontispiece to "The State and Government of the Great Khan of Cathay, Emperor of the Tartars"...

Alexander Suvorov
Alexander Suvorov is one pretty interesting dude that probably did not exist in his narrative compliant
shape and form. Those interested in history think that they know what he looked like. As far as I
understand, the below appearance was the appearance narrative creators agreed upon. When we image-
google Suvorov, we get this.
But things are not as transparent as they appear to be. I'm reasonably positive that we have no idea what
Suvorov really looked like. I am not even talking about him wearing ancient Roman attire (posted) above.

The left image (#1) is from here, and the right one (#2) from here.
#1. General Field Marshal Count Suwarrow. Commander in Chief of the Russian Army in Italy. (1799?)
#2. Portrait of a middle-aged man, formerly thought to be Alexander Suwarow. (1799)
This explanation is just hilarious.
The left image (#3) is from here, and the right one (#4) from here.
#3. Field Marshal General Count Suwarrow. Commander in Chief of the Russian Army against the
French. Born in the Year, 1727. (1799)
He lives, but, for Glory, and was never known to eat Animal Food, he has bore away the palm of
Victory, in 20 Battles.
Say what? He did not eat animal food or he did not eat animals?
Was he vegetarian?
Was he Muslim, and did not eat "specific" animals?
What do they mean?
Suvorov was born in 1730. What's up with that?
#4. Portrait of a middle-aged man, formerly thought to be Alexander Suwarow. (1799)
This explanation is just hilarious.
The above 4 images were allegedly published in 1799. Suvorov died in 1800. Did they all forget what
Suvorov looked like?

Here is something else to pay attention to...

Series: An Exact Representation of the Various Characters, Uniforms, and Attendants, Composing the
Russian Army under General Suwarrow.
Source - Source - Source
 Source

I am not saying that Suvorov did not bring regular Imperial Russian Army to Italy. It looks like he did: here,
here and here. But what I am saying is this:

Suvorov looks like a Tartar Khan or a Cossack Ataman.

 Source - Source

LOL: Prince Suwarow in hunting costume, Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov Rymnikski, 1730-1800, a famous
Russian Generalissimo and is still regarded as one of the greatest strategists of modern times., Woodcut
from 1864.
Source
 Source

I have no idea how we can factor in ancient Roman and medieval Suvorov into any narrative. I don't know
if there is anything real any longer. Yet, we do have this gem here.

Source
 Source

No Source

Last two medals say Gallorum Terror. I don't even wanna try to go there within this article. The official
position on this is clear.

Battle of Forum Gallorum

Suvorov in 1812
Early in 1800, Suvorov returned to Saint Petersburg. Emperor Paul refused to give him an audience, and,
worn out and ill, the old veteran died a few days afterwards on 18 May 1800, at Saint Petersburg.

Question: If he died in 1800, how could Suvorov burn Moscow in 1812?

 1889 Source

The origins of Suvorov, and of his last name:

According to a family legend his paternal ancestor named Suvor had emigrated from Karelia, Sweden
with his family in 1622 and enlisted at the Russian service to serve Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich (his
descendants became Suvorovs).
Suvorov himself narrated for the record the historical account of his family to his aide, colonel
Anthing, telling particularly that his Swedish-born ancestor was of noble descent, having engaged
under the Russian banner in the wars against the Tatars and Poles.
This version, however, was questioned recently by prominent Russian linguists, professors Nikolay
Baskakov and Alexandra Superanskaya, who pointed out that the word Suvorov more likely comes
from the ancient Russian male name Suvor based on the adjective suvory, an equivalent of surovy,
which means "severe" in Russian. Baskakov also pointed to the fact that the Suvorovs' family coat of
arms lacks any Swedish symbols, implying its Russian origins.
Among the first of those who pointed to the Russian origin of the name were Empress Catherine II,
who noted in a letter to Johann von Zimmerman in 1790: "It is beyond doubt that the name of the
Suvorovs has long been noble, is Russian from time immemorial and resides in Russia", and Count
Semyon Vorontsov in 1811, a person familiar with the Suvorovs.
Their views were supported by later historians: it was estimated that by 1699 there were at least 19
Russian landlord families of the same name in Russia, not counting their namesakes of lower status,
and they all could not descend from a single foreigner who arrived only in 1622.
Moreover, genealogy studies indicated a Russian landowner named Suvor mentioned under the year
1498, whereas documents of the 16th century mention Vasily and Savely Suvorovs, with the last of
them being a proven ancestor of General Alexander Suvorov.
The Swedish version of Suvorov's genealogy had been debunked in the Genealogical book of Russian
nobility by V. Rummel and V. Golubtsov (1887) tracing Suvorov's ancestors from the 17th-century Tver
gentry.
In 1756 Alexander Suvorov's first cousin, Sergey Ivanovich Suvorov, in his statement of background
(skazka) for his son said that he did not have any proof of nobility; he started his genealogy from his
df h h h ' d d b h
 great-grandfather, Grigory Ivanovich Suvorov, who 'served as a dvorovoy boyar scion at Kashin.
Another origin theory is that Suvorov was of partial Armenian descent.

Source

KD: It looks like they were desperate to establish something they should have already known. Even the
Empress had to step in.

Suwar - Sowar
So, what's up with all these Suvorov, Souvorov, Suwaroff, Suwarrow, Suwarow, etc? I've read that
foreigners did not know how to spell the pronounced name of Suvorov, and therefore we have all these
variations. Additionally, Lord Byron and is to blame. Wondering who we have to blame for his different
face. Would that be the... Empress?

Looks like there could be a totally different reason, or two, or three for his last name.

#1. Suwar could have something to do with riding an animal. You can see it here and here.

#2. Suar (Suwar or Suvar) was a medieval Volga Bulgarian city, the capital of Suar Principality in 948–
975.

Suar, Volga Bulgaria

Volga Bulgaria
Suar Principality

Source
 Source

#3. Well, technically it simply expands on #2. Suvorov was of Sabirian aka Hunnic origin. There is a lot of
BS you'd have to filter through though.

The Sabirs (Savirs, Suars, Sawar, Sawirk) were nomadic people who lived in the north of the Caucasus
beginning in the late-5th -7th century, on the eastern shores of the Black Sea, in the Kuban area, and
possibly came from Western Siberia.
They were skilled in warfare, used siege machinery, had a large army (including women) and were
boat-builders.
 They were also referred to as Huns.

Gyula Németh and Paul Pelliot considered Turkic etymology for

Säbir/Sabïr/Sabar/Säβir/Sävir/Savar/Sävär/Sawār/Säwēr from root *sap- "to go astray", i.e. the
"wanderers, nomads".
You have to read this non-sense yourselves: Sabir people.

KD: The bottom line is, Siberia is somehow Suwar. Here is what I dug out in Polish "Siberia" wiki:

The origin of the word Siberia (Siberia) is ambiguous and certain. This name was combined with the
ethnonyms "Sabir" and "Seber", denoting unknown tribes of the Huns, or with the tribe "Suwar" living in
the 6th century CE. in the middle course of the Irtysh River.
Google for yourself: Sibir- Suwar

#4. While my money is on #3, I think this Sheikh Suwar has something to do with this entire thing.

The mausoleum of Sheikh (Shah) Suwar is situated in the centre of the village of Beban, in an interior
courtyard with a garden, galleries and arcades.
The inhabitants of Beban do not know exactly who Sheikh Suwar was but they worship him with a
fervour passed down through generations.
When they open the door to the mausoleum and kiss the threshold, the Yazidi say the following
prayer:
“Oh Shah Suwar, pray for us, protect us from evil.”
According to Pr. Philipp G. Kreyenbroek, Sheikh Suwar is the lord of war and the cavalry.
Source

Source - Source - Source

Here is something else in reference to dragon killing Suwars.

 Source

Related: 1300s: Velociraptor killed by Dieudonné de Gozon

Beban is in northern Iraq, but here is the thing... we have this:

Lost Memorial of London, Khwāja Shāhsuwār

You can play with a bigger image here.

In the ‘Additions and Corrections’ to his 1790 edition of John Stow’s A Survey of London Thomas Pennant
says that “In the coemetery of St. Botolph’s church is the very remarkable tomb in the altar form of Coya
Shawsware a merchant and secretary to Nogdi beg the Persian embassador….”

By the time of the 1813 edition the wording has been changed to ‘in the coemetery of this church
formerly stood..’
The first Muslim tomb in London had disappeared sometime in the previous 20 years.
This Monument was erected to the memory of one Coya Shawsware a Persian Merchant and a
principall serwant and Secretary to the Persian Ambassadour with whom he and his sonne came over
 principall serwant and Secretary to the Persian Ambassadour with whom he and his sonne came over.
He was aged 44 and buried the tenth of August 1626.

Several questions:

Why would somebody build a tomb to some "merchant and serwant"?

Why would some "merchant and serwant" have a name of Shah Suwar?
It's not like some "merchant nd serwant" was Minin and Pozharsky.
Why did the tomb disappear?
Where did it go? Beban?

As far as Shah Suwar goes (or some other Shah Suwar) I have more to share, this time Shah Suwar died in
Cairo. The below story is a carbon copy of Pugachev and Razin rebellions:

Qaitbay's first major challenge was the insurrection of Shah Suwar, leader of a small Turkmen dynasty,
the Dhu'l-Qadrids, in eastern Anatolia.
A first expedition against the upstart was soundly defeated, and Suwar threatened to invade Syria.
A second Mamluk army was sent in 1469 under the leadership of Azbak, but was likewise defeated.
Not until 1471 did a third expedition, this time commanded by Yashbak, succeed in routing Suwar's
army.
In 1473, Suwar was captured and led back to Cairo, together with his brothers; the prisoners were
drawn and quartered and their remains were hung from Bab Zuwayla.
Source

Siberian Wars
I've heard about Napoleonic Wars, Wars for Independence, Northern Wars, World Wars, Revolutionary
Wars. I've heard about a whole bunch of different wars, but I have never heard of Siberian Wars.

How many of them "Siberian Wars" did they have?

What did Napoleon have to do with "The first Siberian war"?

1895 Source
 1843 Source
Louis XV died in 1774. What "first Siberian War" did Louis XV participate in?

When did Linz and Passau fall?

1809: Battle of Linz-Urfahr - Wikipedia
1809: The Capitulation of Passau

1900 Source

Question: If in 1895 and 1900 they call it "the first Siberian War"... when did the "second Siberian War" take
place?

KD Summary: I'm not gonna pretend that I know what happened. This stuff is way too confusing. I do
have a hypothesis though:

Suvorov aka Suwarrow = Pugachev = Razin = Gannibal = Yermak.

Abram Gannibal + Ivan Gannibal = Vasiliy Suvorov + Alexander Suvorov
Suvorov was of Siberian origin.
Suvorov was... I don't know, is there such a thing as Tartarian Cossacks? (something like that)
The First Siberian War = Suvorov turned his Tartarian hordes against the Holy Roman Empire (or may
be the entire World).
It appears that Suvorov was not an enemy prior to being involved in the First Siberian War.
1775, 1812
Suvorov lost.
Anyways, figured I'd share my thoughts.

ragnar, Recognition, Viktor and 7 others

KorbenDallas KD
"I can’t tell you exactly what year it is because we honestly don’t know." - Morpheus
Messages: 1,102 · Reaction score: 3,034

Buddystinks
B New member

Jul 18, 2021  #2

Interesting theory you have. I'm not sure there is a huge conspiracy to rewrite history on a massive scale.
I get there are certain times that might be altered, like a massive extinction level event or a massive
empire that was wiped out. I can see how things change through history. The winner always get to
determine what the history books say. I can see the victors removing names of cities and areas to
remove the inhabitants identity, which could have multiple effects, like removing traditions so that
rebellious serfs cant use that tradition, patriotism or loyalty to get people to flock to their banner. Or the
winner is mad that they had to waste money material, soldiers and it drained resources and this is a way
fo getting back at the people they just conquered. Sorry just rambling now. I like your ideas, and you did a
really nice job of presenting it.

John Nada, Banta and KorbenDallas

Blog
Info

Banta
Active member

Jul 18, 2021  #3

Buddystinks said: 

I'm not sure there is a huge conspiracy to rewrite history on a massive scale.

Heh, that's my line!

Seriously though it bears repeating that despite all evidence and indications that our current timeline is
Seriously though, it bears repeating that despite all evidence and indications that our current timeline is
greatly flawed to outright fraudulent, I think it's very naive to then assign sole blame to a nebulous "they"

who seem to (and would really need to) exist outside of time and space. While I'm open to multi-
generational secret societies or even another species (our creators?) playing a role, there's a large
tendency in these circles to project some sort of "ultimate deceiver" lurking behind the curtain, pulling all
the strings and I don't think there's enough evidence to support such a claim.

I think this distinction is important for two reasons: one being that appeals to a monolithic power causes
a lot of this type of research to be summarily dismissed by those who might even be aware of the
anomalies (the dreaded "conspiracy theorist" label) and two, it provides the interested researcher with a
potential, simple solution that can then be over-applied. Just find out who the bad guy is, and then we
can find out what they did to the timeline! I think it's more realistic, based on my lifetime of viewing how
events and perceptions of them are controlled, that "our history" (which is only a concept anyway) is
essentially constantly being modified by lots of interested parties for a multitude of reasons.

In short, I could not agree with your post more and just wanted to expand further, if for no other reason
than to provide balance from the excessive reductive conspiracy theories that surround the alternative
history topic. It's only getting worse, in my opinion... our entire niche seems to be getting (self) labeled as
"Tartary" when that's just one aspect of a much larger study.

Now that I've rambled on with meta-commentary (which is mostly useless but I clearly can't help myself),
I do want to point out that the information in the footnotes of Madam Cottin's book is sensational and
well-presented by KD. The entire article too, of course, but I like simple and direct examples that are very
difficult to explain away (aside from saying she was just drastically wrong).

KorbenDallas said: 

Plays nicely into Fomenko's X-185 Chronology. The below three articles also address related chronological issues.

I do not think the shift was set at 185 years. Imho, it was somewhat floating.

Though the years roughly match up, doesn't Fomenko contend that the shift happened in Scalinger's
time, meaning by 1777 in his model, we would more or less be synced to the same year. Fomenko
presents a lot of food for thought, but I believe he thinks that by the late 18th century going forward that
the mainstream chronology is more or less accurate. From the link:

Official year 1583 corresponds to real year 1768, and it is when the main publication of the current official
chronological map, the work of Joseph Justus Scaliger, after from intense decades of work. It coincides with the
dismantling of the Society of Jesus in almost all of Europe and with the official suppression of it by Pope Clement
XIV in 1773. In this way, the trace of all this great and extraordinary manipulation is erased.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I haven't read all of Fomenko's work (there's so much, it might take me
almost as long as it took to produce it). Regardless, I think it's rather apparent that there are major
timeline discrepancies up until at least WW1.

Buddystinks, John Nada and KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas
KD

Jul 19, 2021  #4

Something tells me that we have no idea what Gannibals' FVMMO stands for. They suggest:

#1. Homeland
#2. Fortuna Vitam Meam Mutavit Omnino which means "Fortune has changed my life entirely."

We also have these variations.

KD: Any different ideas?

Banta and Buddystinks

Seven823one
S New member

Jul 21, 2021  #5

KorbenDallas said: 

Something tells me that we have no idea what Gannibals' FVMMO stands for. They suggest:

#1. Homeland
#2. Fortuna Vitam Meam Mutavit Omnino which means "Fortune has changed my life entirely."
 KD: Any different ideas?

According to Russian page on Wikipedia Hannibal, Abram Petrovich, in 1999 there was an expedition to
Africa (to Cameroon and Chad) to trace the ancestry of Abram Gannibal. They discovered a word
FUMMO in cotoco (kotoko) language (in Cameroon), which means "Motherland" or in another version "To
fight".

Some more details about Stepan Razin (in Russian): Stepan Razin: who he really was by nationality

Banta, Buddystinks, John Nada and 1 other person

Silhouette
New member

Jul 21, 2021  #6

It's clear as mud! Good research putting those pieces together, though.
I actually do think there is an attempt to hide our history, whether that is defined as being a conspiracy or
not. I think it might be a little more haphazard than that.
But I got a good laugh at this shot! Sometimes the truth is in the details.

And what's up with the hands on the dude on the right? He doesn't appear to be wearing gloves. Are his
fingers molded together? Huge!

Banta, Buddystinks, John Nada and 1 other person

Seven823one
S
 S New member

Jul 22, 2021  #7

Several years ago I purchased a kit from 23andme.com and ordered a DNA test. Then, I got one for my
wife and mother. Since then, I often visited that site and checked the medical prognosis and looked up
the map of my 4th and 5th cousins spread all over the world. When I read this post, I started checking out
Hannibal's relatives (Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin - famous Russian poet was one of them). ДНК
Пушкина Since he is so famous, people are tracking their roots and many of his current relatives are
known. Unfortunately, there is only one male heir of Hannbal lineage (son of a son of a son, etc) still alive
(without children).

Then I started reading on the current state of DNA-genealogical research in general. From this page:

Ancient history: a historian's view and DNA genealogy.

It is clear that it is a definite science based on facts. The DNA is well studied and the testing became
affordable and precise. Many tools exist for DNA comparison purposes:

Autosomal DNA tools.

It is already known when the mutations were taking place and good estimate of the whereabouts of
those mutations. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) mutations are like forks in the road and the
timing between the next mutation is about 100 years (although, between 15th and 12th mutations the
author places 2200-1700=500 years... I should ask him why...):

Let's take a look at the dating of the formation of snips mentioned above. I2a-Y3120 (formed 17 snip
mutations, or about 2400 years ago), split into four main subclades - S17250 (16 snip mutations, that is,
2300 years ago), Y18331 (16 snip mutations, that is 2300 years ago) , Y4460 (15 snip mutations, or 2200
years ago) and Z17855 (12 snip mutations, or 1700 years ago). As you can see, these dates generally
coincide with the dating of the common ancestor, calculated according to the haplotypes of modern
carriers I2a-Y3120.

I am wondering, if we choose a well known and represented haplogroup family and line up its 17 SNP
mutations that go back 2400 years.
If, the years were artificially added to our history, the 1st mutation was not taking place in 400BC, but
much earlier - maybe in 1400BC? Using that chain of DNA mutations and going backwards in time and
somehow linking the known people and events to it, could give us a chance to resolve that mystery...

Buddystinks, John Nada and KorbenDallas

Blog
Info

Wil-I-am
Member

Jul 22, 2021  #8

I am beginning to question the authenticity of these dna tests not to mention timeline aberrations. Me
and the wife did ancestry 3 years ago. They keep amending our results. Mine was British, Scottish, Irish
and Swedish, originally, now no viking at all, what bunk. The wives family has strong oral history from
bologna Italy, but test shows no Italian and French in place. I showed her the towers from bologna but
Banta, VonCrisp, calebans and 3 others
unfortunately she isn’t on board with the reset. Oh well the road to truth can be a lonely road.

Buddystinks
B New member

Jul 24, 2021  #9

Wil-I-am said: 

I am beginning to question the authenticity of these dna tests not to mention timeline aberrations. Me and the wife
did ancestry 3 years ago. They keep amending our results. Mine was British, Scottish, Irish and Swedish, originally,
now no viking at all, what bunk. The wives family has strong oral history from bologna Italy, but test shows no Italian
and French in place. I showed her the towers from bologna but unfortunately she isn’t on board with the reset. Oh
well the road to truth can be a lonely road.

I feel your pain!

ragnar
R New member

Jul 25, 2021  #10

About Ermak Timofeevich. There are many inconsistencies in all the annals. For example, it is indicated
that he participated in the Livonian War. Another, which was in the Urals at that time, is about the
Remezov and Stroganov chronicles. Further. Painting "Coronation of Impe Alexander". It depicts Catholic
monks and priests, not Orthodox. Which in itself is surprising and makes you wonder what kind of
religion was the Romanov dynasty (Roman, in fact). In general, historical Siberia was located in the
European part of Russia. And not for the Urals, as it is now.

About Pugachev. After his execution, the Rymnik Mountains were renamed the Urals. And Suvorov had
the title of Suvorov-Rymnik, according to legend, received for the victory over the Turks somewhere in
Moldova, near the village of Rymnik. "He was probably an Old Believer, otherwise ..." according to the
official version, he was an Old Believer. Hannibal's letter - "YOUR HONOR ... (initials obviously), I can't read
the next word ... THEY MUST." Signed. His great-grandson A.S. Pushkin was a high-ranking official,
admitted to the archive, and at the same time a poet. It was he who wrote the tale about Pugachev.
Excellent investigation.

Banta, calebans and KorbenDallas

Mabzynn
M New member

Aug 2, 2021  #11

 g

Maybe this will help in your search:

 Turcici imperii status

The Ottoman of Lazaro Soranzo

THEATRVM PRAECEDENTIAE
 A New History of China

It was understood that the title of Lord was "Han". The surname of the Tartarian Kings was "Kirei" / Kierei.
The Poles called him "Caesar".
H-ME
 Solid foundations of Monarchy

Cossack Tartars:

The monthly review, or, literary journal

The Christian Reformer. New Evangelical Miscellany

 The Universal Magazine of Knowledge

Also there's lots of references to Suvorov working with the Tartar's or at least being friendly with them.

Mabzynn said: 

Maybe this will help in your search:

Click to expand...

Historia di Leopoldo Cesare continente le cose più memorabili successe in Europa dal 1656 fino al 1670
descritta dal co : Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato ; postovi li rittrati de Principi, de generali e de ministri
principali gli assedii di piazze e battaglie seguite con gle scritture lettere trattali accordi e
 principali, gli assedii di piazze e battaglie seguite, con gle scritture, lettere, trattali, accordi e
capitulationi...

A New General Collection of Voyages and Travels ... in Europe, Asia, Africa and America ..., Also the
Manners and Customs of the Several Inhabitants ...

A New General Collection of Voyages and Travels ... in Europe, Asia, Africa and America ..., Also the
Manners and Customs of the Several Inhabitants ...
 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland

Seven823one, ragnar and KorbenDallas

You must log in or register to reply here.

 Share

Home  Blog  Questionable History  World-Historical Individuals 

       

But with that you get Garay / Ghiray the Crimean Khanate family. Which could lead to Francisco de Garay
(the Basque conquistador) in the New World. Catherine supposedly gave "Zilant" the dragon as the coat
of arms to Kazan.
Last edited: Aug 2, 2021