- •It turns out every second European has Turkic roots!..
- •In the faraway Constantinople emperor Marcian had a vision that tragic night: he saw a broken Attila's bow in his dreams.
- •In order to prevent marauding everybody who knew the burial place was killed as soon as they came back and thus they departed together with their master.
- •Identity of the language, similarity of writing were unconditionally detected. It seemed a scientific discovery leaving no space for disputes was evident.
- •It is a contradictory writing. The facts are not in accordance with each other as if on purpose. And the sense of proportion has been lost while glorifying the winners; it is read compromising him.
- •It turns out every second European has Turkic roots!..
- •In the faraway Constantinople emperor Marcian had a vision that tragic night: he saw a broken Attila's bow in his dreams.
- •In order to prevent marauding everybody who knew the burial place was killed as soon as they came back and thus they departed together with their master.
- •Identity of the language, similarity of writing were unconditionally detected. It seemed a scientific discovery leaving no space for disputes was evident.
- •In fact Christ didn't bear a cross to Calvary but a t-beam - they used to execute on them. St. Apostle Barnabas, as well as all ancient Christian authors, taught: "You have a cross in the letter "t".
- •In 430 Nestor, the bishop, doubted another dogma of Christianity, so called "unity of divine Trinity".
- •It is copied from it!..
- •It means the famous holiday of the Christmas tree is an "alien" holiday in Christianity.
- •It should be mentioned that Easter traditions in their modern form also came to Europe and, the same as firs, were the lot only of the Kipchaks at first…
- •In Turkic amin means "I am safe", "I am guarded".
- •Icon - from the Greek word "image", the image of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints.
- •In the book "The Polovtsians" professor s.A. Pletneva writes about "the first betrayal" of the Kipchaks. A serous accusation for the nation suffered from the Mongols!
- •It is strange, isn't it? "Craven", "cowardice", "running away from the battlefield" Kipchaks defeated the invincible Mongols… And poor Russians didn't know about that?
- •In fact, was there the "Tatar-Mongol yoke" in Russia? And what was it?
- •Information collected by baron Tisenghausen convince of the fact that attempts to turn the Kipchaks to the new belief were successful in part: in the Crimea and in some places on Itil (Volga).
- •In the sixth year of the eighth thousand,
- •I'll remind you that IV century is the century of the Great Nations Migration; it determined the political advantages on the continent.
In the book "The Polovtsians" professor s.A. Pletneva writes about "the first betrayal" of the Kipchaks. A serous accusation for the nation suffered from the Mongols!
But as it comes clear, there wasn't either the first or the second betrayal; they were invented by Russian historians in order to slander Desht-I-Kipchak and the whole Turkic nation once again. Nobody has ever checked the authenticity of the stories about "the betrayals"( It should be mentioned that expressions like "betrayal", "cowardice", "treachery" etc., which are almost obligatory for the Russian historical works about the nation of the Great Steppe do not belong to the scientific lexicon. These are the political definitions! They were suggested to the German Hammer so that he becomes the winner of the competition of the Russian Academy of Sciences… As we can see, although the scientific scandal of 1835 has been forgotten, it didn't teach anything: deception lasts until now.).
In the chronicle by Ibn al-Asir, to which Pletneva also refers, there is no even a hint at the betrayal of the Kipchaks who, maybe, showed themselves too credulous, too artless but they were not the betrayals… It seems this is the time to restore the unbiased truth about the Great Steppe. It is enough to swear them - there's no reason!
On May 30th, 1223 the Kipchaks led the next battle against the Mongols together with the Russians. Ibn al-Asir told about the favorite method of the Mongols who, as though they were hastily stepping back, stretched the enemy's troops and promptly defeated it (Here it is, the wisdom of Chingis-Khan, his military talent! New fighting tactics which was never seen in Russia.). Thus that happened again. The troop which was "stepping back" lead the pursuers to Kalka where main forces of the Mongols were waiting for them. There the fighting commenced… "Those who saved themselves returned to their native land having a sorry sight due to the long way and defeat", - wrote the wise Arab.
The Russians represent everything in a different way once again: they blamed the Turki for the result of the battle of Kalka. And only them! And they were called the betrayals again… A surprising permanency. Even Karamzin expressed his opinion: "Craven Polovtsians couldn't resist the Mongols: they were mixed up, they opened their rear…" But any reasonable man, having read it, is entitled to ask: what rear could have a pursuing army stretching for dozens of kilometers? It was the pursuit!
And is this the "cowardice" of the Kipchaks being the reason of the defeat? Considering the fact that even Karamzin writes that two Russian princes - Kiev and Chernigov - didn't even take part in the fight. They were afraid. They were waiting in the shelter with their retinues, and Mstislav Galicius, heading the battle, turned out to be a good-for-nothing commander: that commander-in-chief was defeated for the reason of his own lack of talent.
Aforementioned Pletneva surpassed Karamzin and his "betrayal" having invented "the second betrayal" and "the flight from the battlefield" for the Kipchaks. But that is enough! There must be a place for justice in the deceptions. Firstly, there was no battlefield. And secondly, were the steppe inhabitants put to flight?
John Fletcher, the Englishman already cited by us (of course, not the battle of Kalka is in question), wrote about the Kipchak warriors as follows: "They despise death and they would rather dye than be defeated by the enemy and, having been defeated, they gnaw their weapons in case they cannot fight any longer or help themselves". And he continues: "A Russian soldier, having started to step back, finds his life-saving only in flight".
So who was put to flight at Kalka? Who opened its rear?
It turns out that was Mstislav Galicius! That was him. The eyewitnesses saw that commander running away having left his army; he wished to use the "glory of the victory". Having declared himself the Russian leader, having 80 thousand warriors, he was defeated by the Mongols who had only 20 thousand. He didn't manage to make the most of the fourfold superiority!
Mstislav Galicius is also guilty in death of thousands of Russians after the lost battle. He was running away from Kalka and having crossed Dnepr he "ordered to destroy all the boats so that the Mongols were not able to follow him". That was written by Karamzin who couldn't conceal the truth. And nothing can be added to his words… Only the tenth part of the Russian levies escaped; 6 princes and 70 boyars were killed in the battlefield among others.
But the "Tatar-Mongol" yoke and disappearance of the Kipchaks as the nation started not with that defeat. As it is fixed by Ibn al-Asir, Allah reward him for his noble truth, the battle of Kalka had a grave continuation: having been left by the Russians, the Turki didn't disappear, they didn't waver but, having waited for a while, they gathered together and shattered the Mongols near Itil. Only a handful of the Mongol army remained safe; khan Sudebei, the conqueror of the Middle Asia and Transcaucasia led it away.