Some such as Panama and Iceland have small naval and maritime forces. Many of those countries are too small to pose a threat to anyone. I would think many countries would rush to the aid of the Vatican since many populations in Europe and South America would settle for no less and as for Monaco, I am surprised its alliance with France works, looks suspicious now that I think about it. There is a big Hoover or Dyson sucking sound when it comes to capital. Wonder why France has not at some point been lead by a hostile "rogue" administration let alone some other country.The ones who don’t carry any fasces I assume. The ones who need no military force to get protected, for they have others to protect them. For starters, I’d look at these 22 first, before anything else:
Then I would look at this wonderful, and always neutral Switzerland.
I watched an interesting video where the guy is trying to show that the Irish were actually the legendary Phoenicians and it's actually Irish architecture that's found around the world, not Roman. But... Fomenko does a pretty good job exposing UK history as yet another rather close reflection of Byzantine history.Evidence shows one global architectural style, which in turn suggests that there was one similar culture all over. Judging by architecture and street layouts alone, some 170 years ago we would not know which country we are in. Today, on the other hand, only very culturally similar countries share architecture. Which probably means that back in the day there was one school. Not geographically , but curriculum wise.
This reflects closely to Fomenko's theory, although I feel like I haven't yet gotten to his fully fleshed "THIS IS HOW IT ALL FELL APART" explanation yet. Some of what he has mentioned though is that as Tartary expanded, and scandal unfolded in the empire (reflected to us today in the Biblical accounts of Judean Kings, and Roman Emperors, but in reality Byzantine Emperors alone) people started to engage in civil wars to break free and claim their independence. Fomenko states that the Ottomon's were sent to cleanse the west of the plague, and they did so by mass genocide. We know this as the Muslim Invasion of Europe after Mohamed died in the 600s, but in reality this happened in the 1400s. This got reflected in the Book of Revelation (yes, written AFTER the onslaught) when plagues and wars and rumours of wars were very much in recent memory. Some other battles happened, and eventually the Romanov's squeezed into power and Tartary fell apart.From this perspective any colonization later, could only be a consequence of the previous system being broken, a certain region becoming dominant, and other places unable to defend themselves.
I can only see Tartary in the above context, if they really advanced in their conquest as far as Europe, and possibly Americas.
Preceded? I honestly have a very hard time shaking his proofs that the Roman Emperor didn't actually happen.Yet, personally, I do not consider Tartary being that World unifying order I mentioned in the first paragraph. They might have preceded the Roman Empire, but they were not that major civilization of the initial builders.
Actually, in HOW It Was In Reality, Chapter 8, Fomenko & Nosovskiy claim that America rebelled against Tartary, not Great Britain....My biggest problems with what I have read so far is the last mini-ice age. Apparently it was at its worst from sometime in the early 1400s to sometime in the early 1800s. Of course, since we are lied to about just about everything it is possible this Little Ice Age narrative is being pushed just to protect the Scaliger-Petavius timeline. Nevertheless, if true then Byzantium / Tartary would have probably had to settle / colonize America early enough to reach Jamestown, Virginia long before 1607. Why would Tartaria be limited to the western part of North America as many Jewtubers (actually Ziontube, but that doesn't have the same ring to it) and posters in forums such as these seem to think?