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 the date. Here is the list:

  • Kingdom "A"
  • Kingdom "B'
  • Kingdom "C"
  • Kingdom "D"
  • Kingdom "X"
  • Kingdom "Y"
  • Kingdom "East"
  • Kingdom "West"
  • Kingdom "North"
  • 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.
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.
14- Yenisei_Samoyede_and_a_Yenisei-Ostiak.jpg

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.


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 "wildly romantic but irreproachably moral tale", according to Nuttall's Encyclopaedia (late 19th-century encyclopedia).
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).


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.
Pugachev's Rebellion
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.

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

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


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


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




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..


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.


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



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 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.
  • 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".


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.



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.
  • What if our Khan Iqbal came from the vast Tartarian territories?
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.





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:
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?



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

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".
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
  • Gannibal - has an elephant on his Coat of Arms
Hannibal and Suvorov had battles in the same area:

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’.
  • The Emperor Kublai Khan commanding in battle from four armoured elephants.

These are some weird elephants: Marco Polo carried in elephant car of Kublai Khan during his visit to China 1200s.

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



When did Kublai Khan become mongoloid for the first time, by the way?

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

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.
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.

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.






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.
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?

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 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.

#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

Here is something else in reference to dragon killing Suwars.



Related: 1300s: Velociraptor killed by Dieudonné de Gozon

Beban is in northern Iraq, but here is the thing... we have this:
Coya-Shawsware 2.jpg

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. 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?
  • 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"?
Louis XV died in 1774. What "first Siberian War" did Louis XV participate in?

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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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
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!
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:
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:
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...
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 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! :)
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.
Maybe this will help in your search:

It was understood that the title of Lord was "Han". The surname of the Tartarian Kings was "Kirei" / Kierei. The Poles called him "Caesar".

Cossack Tartars:

Also there's lots of references to Suvorov working with the Tartar's or at least being friendly with them.
Maybe this will help in your search:

It was understood that the title of Lord was "Han"
The surname of the Tartarian Kings was "Kirei" / Kierei
The Poles called him "Caesar"

Cossack Tartars:

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

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: