Tartary - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once...

OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,517
Very interesting. I have a question about this painting though. Is there some source relating it to Tartarian Moscow of 1812? If I saw it, I would never think of Moscow, but rather of the Napoleon's invasion of Egypt.

ajkqrTglIVQ.jpg
As far as those pyramids in Siberia. I think it is very likely that they were indeed there. Would be interesting to follow the development of their re-discovery. I've heard that quite a few people in Russia are interested in locating those. Unfortunately the entire Siberian region was wiped out some time ago.
 

Aply1985

Active member
Messages
72
Reactions
243
This paints i found like example it is not Moscow i agree but look on the helmets on paint! helmet which you see i took from the Moscow exhibition dedicated to Russian wars in 18-19 century one of the helmets is punched with a bullet. on helmet Arabic and Old Russian. If you look in oficial pictures about napolion battle with Russia they had complitly different uniform.
 

noblewish

Active member
Messages
32
Reactions
128
I just came across this very good documentary about Tartaria on Youtube. Unfortunately it's in Russian, but just looking a the pictures, it shows many documents proving the existence of Tartary and there is even footage of Putin looking at maps of Tartaria, meaning the elite knows what's up and what really happened.
 

Absyllyon

Member
Messages
17
Reactions
67
Really interesting and gives me a case of cognitive dissonance.

What if Tartaria was a civilization of 'survivors' from a previous one that experienced a cataclysm of their own making. What if they were 'Gods' in those days who created servile human automatons to do their bidding. Slaves in other words. Perhaps with the mixture of dna from the gods who slept with the daughters of men came men of 'renown' - hybrid slaves empowered with the dna of the gods. These slaves eventually went to war with their makers and overthrew them have.
Now that we are all an admixture of god and human animal I would say that there may not be many of us who are not organic portals/ bio-humans.

Watching Battlestar Galactica give me pause for consideration especially considering the ending of the series. All the humans absolutely believe themselves to be true spirirt humans but turn out to be Cylons/human hybrids/clones without knowing it. The last vestige of superior technology ( there battle cruiser) is destroyed by one of the Primary cylons, who walk amongst humanity as immortal gods.

And I guess human life begins again in the industrial revolution as true slaves. Quite how they can pull off a stunt of universal forgetting is worrying.
 

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
421
Reactions
784
I would think Tartaria is fifth gen supercivlization, so they would be there own version of "gods" in their times.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,462
I think I found a couple of hints:

1. Tartary was often referred to as Tatary, and the latter seems to be the original name
2. We don't know if the Tatars ever called themselves Tatars, just like we don't know the original name of the "Indian Natives"

3. And most interestingly, when Tartary was divided during the time between 1770 and 1820 the last remeaning part of Tartary was called Free Tartary or Independent Tartary on the maps, and it is located just east of the Caspian Sea, in the area of todays Uzbekistan with cities like Samarkand and Buchara. No mentioning of Tartary in the history of Uzbekistan though.

First Tartary was just a big single "Tartary", then for some reason it was split up into areas like "Petite Tartary", "Eastern Tartary", "Russian Tarary/Muscovite Tartary", "Chinese Tartary", "Mongol Tartary",

The division of the whole of Tartary seems to be nothing more than what Columbus did in America, i.e. making a future territorial claim. It was simply the perspective from the western "Colonialists" naming the areas that were already defeated militarily but still culturally claimed by the Tartars.

The area in the Caspian Sea was the last Stronghold of Tartary, and it is even engrained in it's name.

The following map shows the last remaning part of Tartary in 1820 after everything else had been conquered. It was less then 5% of the original area.

freetartary.jpg

Even by 1850 Independent Tartary was still a thing, and dividied into the following sections according to Wikipedia:


Independent_Tartary_Map_1850.png

1851 map of Independent Tartary:


Unlike Moscow Tartary, the fate of this state is known. It was conquered by the Romanovs in the middle of the XIX century. Samarkand, the capital of the Independent Tartary, was seized by the Romanovs army in 1868.
According to the maps of the XVIII century, the border of Moscow Tartary was very close to Moscow. Such a dangerous proximity greatly concerned the Romanovs. It is possible that it was the reason for Peter the Great to make a decision to relocate the capital further away, to the swampy coasts of the Gulf of Finland. Here the new capital was built – St. Petersburg. This location was convenient for the Romanovs. Now the capital was far away from the Hordian Tartary. Besides, in the case of an invasion from the Siberian-American Horde, it would be easier to flee to the West from St. Petersburg than from Moscow. Mind you, for some reason they didn't fear invasion from the sea to the WEST. In St.Petersburg it is possible to board a ship made ready at the doorstep of the Czar's castle and quickly embark to Western Europe - to friends and relatives, to the historical motherland of the Romanov house.
Everything is clear. Until the end of the XVIII century the Romanovs could not exile anyone to Siberia simply because SIBERIA DID NOT BELONG TO THEM YET. But it was part of the Russian-Hordian Tartary hostile to the Romanovs. Only having defeated 'Pugachev', the Romanovs got an opportunity to exile the convicts further – to cold Siberia. And even further – to the Far East, to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, to Sakhalin island.
Let's go back to the question of when and how the USA was established. 'During the War of independence of North America in 1775-17983… an independent state – the USA was formed.
And here we realise, that it SURPRISINGLY COINCIDES WITH THE END OF THE WAR WITH 'PUGACHEV' IN RUSSIA. 'Pugachev' was crushed in 1775. Everything falls into place. 'The War of independence' in North America was the struggle with the weakening Russian Horde. The Romanovs attacked the Horde from the West. And from the East in America - it was attacked by the Americans 'fighting for independence'. Today we are told that the Americans purportedly fought for their 'independence from Britain'. In fact it was a battle for the parcelling of the vast American land of Moscow Tartary left without any central administration. In order not to miss the carve-up, the American troops were eager to get to the West and North-West. George Washington became the first president of the USA in 1776. It appears that he became the first new ruler in the American lands of the Russian Horde. The facts of the war with the 'Mongol' Horde were wiped clean from the pages of the textbooks on the American history. As was the fact of the existence of Moscow Tartaria on the whole. The war between the USA and the remains of the Horde continued up until the second half of the XIX century. Alaska, which remained Russian for a particularly long time, was 'bought' from the Romanovs by the Americans only in 1867.
Thus, the USA was established in 1776 from the American splinter of the 'Mongol' Empire.
HOW IT WAS IN REALITY. THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY

Tartary was only finally and completely defeated in around 1860, but was already extremely weakened in around 1780 with no geopolitical role anymore. During that time the Western Conspirators could finally send their military to the countries that were still living the old culture but did never bother to invest into defense like the Tartars did, and erase all traces of the once global culture. This was later called Colonialism.

Communism was needed by the PTB in Central Asia to eliminate the still existing memory of this older culture. While the old faith was already outlawed in most states due to the power of the Russian Orthodox Church, they were still not accepted by the majority of people, especially in the Central Asian States that did not belong to Russia a couple of centuries ago.

How dou you manage to change the history of something like the "American War of Independence"? Simple, just like the war between the Western Forces and Russian Tartary became the war between Western forces (Napoleon vs Moscow) you simply omit the enemy from the list and draw some arbitrary lines between the western Forces. Note that the true enemy of the Westerners had to be included somehow, similar as the Tartars became "Mercenaries" the American Tartars became "American Indians", conveniently on both sides so Historians would not become suspicious when coming across historical evidence for an obvious conflict between Natives and Westerners during the war.

We are told the American Indians willingly traded in their independence for Alcohol and weapons, but what if they only succumbed to Alcohol after their entire civilization was destroyed and the only thing that was left were a couple of tents?

Bildschirmfoto 2018-08-31 um 11.44.13.png

In spite of significant Native American aid to the British, the European treaty negotiations that concluded the war in 1783 had no native representatives. Although Ohio and Iroquois Indians had not surrendered nor suffered a final military defeat, the United States claimed that its victory over the British meant a victory over Indians as well. Not surprisingly, due to their lack of representation during treaty negotiations, Native Americans received very poor treatment in the diplomatic arrangements.
Even groups like the Oneida, one of the Iroquois nations that allied with the Americans, were forced to give up traditional lands with other native groups. [...] varied native groups continued to resist Anglo-American incursions late into the 19th century.
Despite the sweeping setback to Native Americans represented by the American Revolution, native groups in the trans-Appalachian west would remain a vital force and a significant military threat to the new United States.
In some ways, this native struggle showed a more thorough commitment to certain revolutionary principles than that demonstrated by the Patriots themselves.
LOL. When the non-involved Indians are more attracted to the revolution than you, even though you started it..

Revolutionary Limits: Native Americans [ushistory.org]

Indians fought in the Revolution for Indian liberties and Indian homelands, not for the British empire. But the image of Indian participation presented in the Declaration of Independence prevailed: most Americans believed that Indians had backed monarchy and tyranny.
The American Revolution

The supposed alliance between the old British monarchy and Indians is the smoking gun.

In reality we have the same strange situation as with Napoleon in Russia: Three supposed enemies but one big party completely ommitted from modern history.
 
Last edited:

noblewish

Active member
Messages
32
Reactions
128
I think I found a couple of hints:

1. Tartary was often referred to as Tatary, and the latter seems to be the original name
2. We don't know if the Tatars ever called themselves Tatars, just like we don't know the original name of the "Indian Natives"

3. And most interestingly, when Tartary was divided during the time between 1770 and 1820 the last remeaning part of Tartary was called Free Tartary or Independent Tartary on the maps, and it is located just east of the Caspian Sea, in the area of todays Uzbekistan with cities like Samarkand and Buchara. No mentioning of Tartary in the history of Uzbekistan though.

First Tartary was just a big single "Tartary", then for some reason it was split up into areas like "Petite Tartary", "Eastern Tartary", "Russian Tarary/Muscovite Tartary", "Chinese Tartary", "Mongol Tartary",

The division of the whole of Tartary seems to be nothing more than what Columbus did in America, i.e. making a future territorial claim. It was simply the perspective from the western "Colonialists" naming the areas that were already defeated militarily but still culturally claimed by the Tartars.

The area in the Caspian Sea was the last Stronghold of Tartary, and it is even engrained in it's name.

The following map shows the last remaning part of Tartary in 1820 after everything else had been conquered. It was less then 5% of the original area.


Even by 1850 Independent Tartary was still a thing, and dividied into the following sections according to Wikipedia:



1851 map of Independent Tartary:














HOW IT WAS IN REALITY. THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY

Tartary was only finally and completely defeated in around 1860, but was already extremely weakened in around 1780 with no geopolitical role anymore. During that time the Western Conspirators could finally send their military to the countries that were still living the old culture but did never bother to invest into defense like the Tartars did, and erase all traces of the once global culture. This was later called Colonialism.

Communism was needed by the PTB in Central Asia to eliminate the still existing memory of this older culture. While the old faith was already outlawed in most states due to the power of the Russian Orthodox Church, they were still not accepted by the majority of people, especially in the Central Asian States that did not belong to Russia a couple of centuries ago.

How dou you manage to change the history of something like the "American War of Independence"? Simple, just like the war between the Western Forces and Russian Tartary became the war between Western forces (Napoleon vs Moscow) you simply omit the enemy from the list and draw some arbitrary lines between the western Forces. Note that the true enemy of the Westerners had to be included somehow, similar as the Tartars became "Mercenaries" the American Tartars became "American Indians", conveniently on both sides so Historians would not become suspicious when coming across historical evidence for an obvious conflict between Natives and Westerners during the war.

We are told the American Indians willingly traded in their independence for Alcohol and weapons, but what if they only succumbed to Alcohol after their entire civilization was destroyed and the only thing that was left were a couple of tents?









LOL. When the non-involved Indians are more attracted to the revolution than you, even though you started it..

Revolutionary Limits: Native Americans [ushistory.org]



The American Revolution

The supposed alliance between the old British monarchy and Indians is the smoking gun.

In reality we have the same strange situation as with Napoleon in Russia: Three supposed enemies but one big party completely ommitted from modern history.
This really breaks my heart. My family originated from Bukhara, so the last stronghold of the Tatars. My father even told me we descended from the Tatars, although I didn't get the whole history from him. This is why I became so interested in the subject of Tartary; it is not only stolen history, it is my personal history. My great great grandfather used to own one of the largest homes in Bukhara. He was a wealthy fur merchant. But then the Soviets basically kicked my family out of their home and confiscated their land, including my great great grandfather's mansion. My family was then forced to move to Afghanistan and start life over from scratch. Then the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan forced them to immigrate eventually to the States. Now we have basically become Americanized, and have mostly lost our old culture and language, along with our history.

Unfortunately, my family doesn't talk much about their past, nor was I ever told folk tales or anything of the sort.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,462
@noblewish: Wow, thanks for sharing.

It is mind blowing to realize that up to the invasion of the communists into Bukhara in 1920 the memory of the past was still alive.

As an important trading centre, Bukhara was home to a community of medieval Indian merchants from the city of Multan (modern-day Pakistan) who were noted to own land in the city.[12]
Bukhara was the last capital of the Emirate of Bukhara and was besieged by the Red Army during the Russian Civil War.
The Red Army launched an unsuccessful assault in March 1920, and then a successful one in September of the same year.[9] The Emirate of Bukhara was conquered by the Bolsheviks and replaced with the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic.
How were they able to withstand the first assault in March against a "modern" army?

Fitzroy Maclean, then a young diplomat in the British Embassy in Moscow, made a surreptitious visit to Bokhara in 1938, sight-seeing and sleeping in parks. In his memoir Eastern Approaches, he judged it an "enchanted city" with buildings that rivalled "the finest architecture of the Italian Renaissance".
No mention of Tatary anywhere. It's hard to come to terms with this enourmous falsification of history.

Here are some remaining information of the times when Tatary was still a free nation:

Abd al-Aziz Khan (1540–1550) established a library "having no equal" the world over. The prominent scholar Sultan Mirak Munshi worked there from 1540. The gifted calligrapher Mir Abid Khusaini produced masterpieces of Nastaliq and Reihani script. He was a brilliant miniature-painter, master of encrustation, and was the librarian (kitabdar) of Bukhara's library.[6]
The Shaybanids instituted a number of measures to improve the khanate's system of public education. Each neighborhood mahalla — unit of local self-government — of Bukhara had a hedge school, while prosperous families provided home education to their children. Children started elementary education at the age of six. After two years they could be taken to madrasah. The course of education in madrasah consisted of three steps of seven years each. Hence, the whole course of education in madrasah lasted twenty-one years. The pupils studied theology, arithmetic, jurisprudence, logic, music, and poetry. This educational system had a positive influence upon the development and wide circulation of the Persian and Uzbek languages, and on the development of literature, science, art, and skills.
Khanate of Bukhara - Wikipedia

The hints are everywhere, this culture was peaceful in nature, and in contrast to the centralized power system of the west, they had perfected a system of local governance, even down to the souvereign rule of a small neighborhood - truly remarkable.

A mahalla is an urban division in Uzbek communities which today exist in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. Historically, mahallas were autonomous social institutions built around familial ties and Islamic rituals. Before the establishment of the Soviet rule in Uzbekistan, Mahallas fulfilled local self-government functions connecting private sphere with public sphere. Religious rituals, life-cycle crisis ceremonies, resource management, conflict resolution, and many other community activities were performed at mahalla, or (neighbourhood) level. An informal council of elders (oqsoqol, or aksakal) provided leadership.
Mahalla (Uzbeks) - Wikipedia

People in Uzbekistan are only 100 years away from such times...

And this is how the powers of evil abused the mahalla style local governance and turned it into central power:

After the establishment of the Soviet Union, informal mahalla organizations were placed under the state control and served as local extensions of the Soviet government. Mahallas were thought to be "eyes" and "ears" of the Soviet government; mahalla became a control mechanism of the state and the mahalla leaders were appointed by the government.
Since 1993, Uzbek government reorganized mahalla councils as bearers of "Uzbek nationhood" and "morality," effectively reproducing Soviet style state domination over the society. Thus, they are formal structures run by committees (headed by chairs called "oqsoqols") and regulated by the government. Human rights groups have accused Islam Karimov's government of using mahallas to control the population, repress dissent, force resettlement, and persecute religious minorities.
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,238
Reactions
3,788
The later Tartars (hun-like steppe tribes, not the ancient builders) were mainly Muslim but they're not the only group that has not valued women except as commodities. Why in the world and HOW did that ridiculous notion that half the population of the world is inferior and subject to ownership by the other half ever get started? I don't think it was always so but what could've happened to forever change the gender dynamics?

Can you imagine being sold by your parents and them gleefully walking away with a few pounds of butter while you go to spend the rest of your life being some brute's slave?
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,517
@anotherlayer, thesedays they say that chemical weapons were used by Syrian government on their own people. This gives USA some sort of justification to go in there and instill western style democracy. Iraq was dismantled due to non existend WMDs.

These tactics appear to be hundreds of years old.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,462
The later Tartars (hun-like steppe tribes, not the ancient builders) were mainly Muslim but they're not the only group that has not valued women except as commodities. Why in the world and HOW did that ridiculous notion that half the population of the world is inferior and subject to ownership by the other half ever get started? I don't think it was always so but what could've happened to forever change the gender dynamics?

Can you imagine being sold by your parents and them gleefully walking away with a few pounds of butter while you go to spend the rest of your life being some brute's slave?
That's not how it was, probably. The text goes on to say "This is testimony to the little value a savage sets on his wife", so I doubt the author wanted to truthfully report about the reality. But one thing that many modern people do not understand about the past is that people were very practical in nature. The idea of romanticism and having the freedom of chosing a partner out of hundreds is a modern concept, and it often makes people miserable. People back then were often living together out of pure necessity and did not try to find all the happiness of the world in a relationship, which is also a modern concept created by our hedonistic culture, which also makes people often very miserable, coincidentally.

In the past everything was seen as a market economy. Money could buy you anything. It was a very functional concept, as it gave people a way to think in terms of value and ownership, which is the basis of freedom.

Only the church stopped this concept and replaced it with artificial morality. Before that people were thinking in terms of ethics: When nothing stops you from behaving unethically (because you have money and can do everything with it) then the only thing that defines your actions is your ethics, which is an intrinsic value, compared to morality, which is forced onto people.

But then thanks to the church people started to think in terms of "good" and "bad" (artificial constructs based on collectivism) You could still buy yourself out of sin, but the concept of morality was born. At the same time central banking was invented and started to change the power dynamics of money by pulling money up to the top, and out of the market.

So in essence fewer and fewer people were able to leverage money to gain freedom. The reason the monetary system is centrally controlled is that money is one of the most important ways to be free in this world.

Slaves existed as both females and males.

There were different kinds of social strata, and the richer were simply buying servants/slaves. Those servants/slaves enjoyed a high degree of freedom too. It is not comparable with our concept of slavery today. The last knowledge about this system is conserved in the knowledge we have about the "Roman Civilization". Being a slave meant to be physically owned in every way, but also meant to have enourmous opportunities and often material wealth, depending on the family.

When it comes to "buying a woman", what this means can be seen in muslim religion to this day, it probably originally started as a way to show respect for the womans family and not leave them in debt as they lose a doughter to a man.

In general the feminine was always the more passive energy, and the male the more dominant, which creates a certain form of power dynamic/interaction, which is not bad, and only turns bad when society takes the wrong turn. The passiveness quality in women is an equal part in this development as the dominance in men, i.e. it is two sides of the same coin, which is human nature.

When women are encouraged to "become independent" they lose their feminine nature, as can be seen with the dehumanizing movement called "feminism" today.

To get back on topic, here is how a healthy society plays out this natural dynamic between male/female.

tartary.png

"The Bride Chase - A marriage custom of the Tartars"

The bride symbolizes the passive nature of feminine sexuality, conceiving and receiving in nature. She receives and welcomes the male, who in turn is symbolized by healthy aggression. If the male is able to catch her (showing his physical health), she accepts him, attracted by his male attributes (dominance, etc.).

quote.png


Wedding in the History and Culture of the Tatars

Caring for his bride who would not be able to get by without the support of a man, the groom takes on enourmous responsibility and risk, partly by paying her in case of divorce.
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,238
Reactions
3,788
I understand that women and other slaves had some autonomy and rights in their master/slave relations but abuses with no recourse for the slaves have been going on since time immemorial.

I have a fun little book entitled Uppity Women of Ancient Times that gives a peak into some of that culture. A barmaid who rose to the position of queen, a queen who was killed by the second wife to ensure a position of power and so on. I also have another book entitled Witches, Midwives, and Herbalists (iirc) in which is described the advent of the male-dominated medical profession. Since herbalists (witch women/crones) and midwives were paid in real property (chickens, goats), men of "science" sometimes wiped out entire towns of all but one women who would be left to tell the tale and give warning to any other woman daring to entire the field of "medicine".

Another book (too lazy to look up title) about the flooding seasons in China as well as during the Communist take over where women (and men) abandoned their girl children to the flood waters or laid the unwanted female child on the communist party doorstep. Sometimes, people fleeing the rising waters would see an infant in the stream and pluck it out only to discover it was only a worthless girl child and throw it back in. My friend who was in Vietnam said he witnessed rice farmers sending girl children out to walk the fields for land mines because if they got blown up....oh well.

I attended a Christian meeting once in which the preacher was giving a sermon on the biblical verses of "wives obey your husbands". It was an hour long diatribe about how Eve messed up so women are to blame for everything and now they just need to keep their biscuits in the oven, their buns in bed and their mouths shut. It was all I could do to not go smack him upside his misogynist head during the sermon. I did catch him after the sermon and gave him a one hour lecture on how wrong he was. Funny thing was, he had no idea how offensive and disrespectful his sermon was. He apologized and the next week gave a sermon on "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave His life for her".

I reject any system, however well-intentioned, in which one class of people are treated as less than by virtue of their differences from the ruling party.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,489
Reactions
12,517
I do think the Old World (not meaning Europe) had a system of castes. Which would presume inequality from the get go.

I’m also looking into the reasons for it, which could be based on a seniority of being created of sorts. Hard to say for right now, but depending on levels of educational development of the Ancients, we might have races created by other races. It is too early for me to post anything like this, but that’s what I’m looking into.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,462
I reject any system, however well-intentioned, in which one class of people are treated as less than by virtue of their differences from the ruling party.
"Women and other slaves"? Women were not predominantly slaves. It was always basically about people with money and power ruling over people with less money and power ruling over people with no money and power.

Not possible to understand the past when judging it. The entire more or less known human history is based on one class of people being treated less than others. Of course abuse is part of that system.

I don't see much evidence for women to be targeted more over men. The entire history could be read in light of countless men being slaughtered in wars, if I would want to make an argument for gender inequality, which I don't because it is a modern concept that doesn't do anything justice.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,238
Reactions
3,788
I think, my subjective opinion, the division into rulers and slaves, began from that moment on the story:
1. when people legalized USURY!
Usury - Wikipedia
2. when people legalized for the world rulers (kings, etc.) the hereditary power.
I have a whole article about that very subject but I don't know that it would fit in with this site so I've kept it to myself.
 

Similar threads


Top