|
| 5.1. |
Roman consul
Brutus - the first who conquered Britain (and
the first king of britts) |
| 5.2. |
Consul Brutus
of English chronicles - was he a contemporary of
Julius Caesar? |
| 5.3. |
Biblical
events in English chronicles |
| 5.4. |
Do we
interpret ancient texts in a proper way? Problem
of vowels restoration |
| 5.5. |
Geography and
chronology of biblical events |
|
| 5.5.1. |
Problems with
traditional geographical localizations |
| 5.5.2 |
Where ancient
Troy was located? |
| 5.5.3. |
Where Moses
traveled in
reality? | |
| 5.6. |
Why English
chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands? |
| 5.7. |
Where was the
land Britain which was conquered by Brutus
located? In what direction his fleet
cruised? |
| 5.8. |
With whom
Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania? |
| 5.9. |
With whom
Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain
= Albania? |
| 5.10. |
Where was
London located in 10-11th cc.A.D.? |
| 5.11. |
Who were
scots in 10-12th cc.A.D. and were did they live?
Where was Scotland located in 10-12th
cc.A.D.? |
| 5.12. |
Five original
languages of ancient Britain. Which nations used
these languages and where did they live in
10-12th cc.A.D.? |
| 5.13. |
Where were
located six original English kingdoms Britain,
Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
10-12th cc.A.D.? |
| 5.14. |
A shift of
originally Byzantine map to the land of modern
Great Britain resulted in duplicating of many
geographical terms |
| 5.15. |
William I the
Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066 A.D. The
fourth crusade in 1204 A.D. |
|
| 5.15.1. |
Two
well-known wars in England and Byzantine empire
have the same origin |
| 5.15.2 |
English
version of William the Conqueror story |
| 5.15.3. |
Byzantine
version of the Constantinople's
conqueror |
| 5.15.4. |
A list of
correspondences between events from Byzantine
and English
chronicles | |
| 5.16. |
Medieval
Russia from the point of view of English
chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his
message to galats and who they were? |
|
|
REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
This
work belongs to the scope of investigations
carried out by authors in order to give a critical
analysis of ancient and medieval chronology, and
also - to try a reconstruction of real ancient
chronology. The whole history of the problem one
can find in A.T.Fomenko's books [1],[24]. In these
books some new statistical methods of obtaining
true dates for ancient events recorded in old
chronicles were suggested. As a result, a new
chronology of Europe, Asia, Egypt and Northern
Africa based on a statistical investigation of
ancient texts, was suggested in [1],[24]. One also
can find there a list of all publications by
A.T.Fomenko and his colleagues devoted to
chronological problems.
This new
concept of global history and chronology confirms
some ideas which were expressed by different
scientists in 16-20th cc. The most important were
ideas of famous Russian scientist N.A.Morozov
(1854-1946) who had an extremely wide range of
scientific interests in many different branches of
natural science and history. Very interesting
works devoted to the problems of traditional
chronology were written by Isaac Newton,
J.Gardouin, R.Baldauf, E.Johnson and others.
As a result
of application of statistical methods to
historical science, A.T.Fomenko discovered a
"fiber structure" of our modern "textbook in
ancient and medieval history". In such a way we
will call a modern chronological tradition in
history which is expressed in all our textbooks.
It was proved that this "textbook" consist of four
more short "textbooks" which speak about the same
events, the same historical epochs. These short
"textbooks" were then shifted one with respect to
other on the time axis and then glued together
preserving these shifts. The result is our modern
"textbook" which shows the history much longer
than it was in reality. To be more precise, we
speak here only about a "written" history, i.e.,
such history which left it's traces in written
documents which finally, after their certain
evolution, we possess today. Of course before it,
there was a long "pre-written" history, but
information about it is lost.
Resume is as
follows. History which we in principle could learn
about today, starts only in 9-10th cc. "A.D."
(i.e., 1100-1200 years ago). And the very name
"A.D." attached to the era which we use now, is
not correct. New results concerning the problem of
reconstruction of real ancient chronology one can
find in two last Fomenko's books [4,5] devoted to
history and chronology.
An important
step to the reconstruction of real ancient
chronology was made by publication of a book [3]
written by A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and
G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the true date of
compilation of a famous ancient scientific
manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was
(approximately) determined as a result of
statistical analysis of numerical astronomical
data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is
assumed that the "Almagest" was compiled not later
than in 2nd c. A.D. In [3] it is proved that the
real date of it's compilation belongs to the time
interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
Later, in
1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In
Russian history there also were discovered
chronological shifts and duplicates. It proves to
be very much different from well-known version of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of
Romanov dynasty reign in Russia. The book
"Chronology and General Concept of Russian
History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is
being printed (in Russian).
In 1992-1993
authors recognized that the history of development
of English chronology and English history itself
is a very interesting and important point in the
whole scope of global chronology reconstruction.
In our analysis of Russian old documents it was
necessary to use also some English documents. And
immediately we came upon several such amazing
facts that, it become quite clear to us that
English history (which is rather "spoiled" in
modern "textbook") gives new and important
information to the reconstruction of real
chronology of Europe and Asia.
We tried our
best to make this work independent from our
previous works. Nevertheless, such dependence
exists. That is why we recommend to anyone who
really wants to understand the whole problem of
reconstruction the English history as it as in
reality, to look through mentioned above books and
scientific publications by authors. We believe
that this work is good for the beginning and it
could serve as a starting point to the reader. We
tried to avoid citation from other our works here
(as far as it was possible).
It is
pleasure for us to thank Mrs. Laura Alexander
(USA) for her excellent assistance in arranging
materials concerning English history. Her energy
very much inspired our work on English
history.
We thank
T.N.Fomenko for several good ideas which improved
some of our results concerning parallels between
English and Byzantine history and also for
valuable remarks which made this text better.
2. BRIEF REVIEW OF
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF ENGLISH
HISTORY
2.1. The most old English
chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle.
To
understand a material we are going to present
here, it would be better if a reader knows main
things from English, Roman and Byzantine history.
As to Roman and Byzantine history, we assume that
it is more or less the case. But old English
history is not so generally well-known. That is
why we are going to present here a brief review of
"English history textbook".
Surely, we
could simply suggest that a reader looks through
one of modern books concerned with English history
before he reads this paper. But all such books are
necessarily the secondary texts which, in fact,
copy an information from more old texts and
documents devoted to English history. The problem
is that this coping proves to be not so good (part
of information is lost). That is why we prefer to
analyse medieval historical texts themselves
rather then modern textbooks, which are based on
them. An important advantage of these medieval
texts is that they were written more close to the
time of creation of now traditional global
chronological version (it was I.Scaliger's one).
Our experience says that an information about old
history was been lost while publishing new and new
textbooks from that time up to now. Medieval texts
are more valuable for reconstruction of real
history.
Our analysis
was based mostly on three famous medieval English
chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius'
"Historia Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus
Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" [9]. In fact,
these texts form a basis for modern concept of old
and medieval English history.
Also we used
well-known "Chronological Tables" which were
compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of
19th c. These fundamental tables cover all
historical epochs which seemed important to
experts in the end of 19th century.
Now it is
assumed that so-called "legendary" English history
started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in
12-13th cc. B.C. Nevertheless a 1000-year period
from Trojan war to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st
c. B.C.) is considered usually as a "dark
time".
From the
time of creation and establishment of modern
chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and
D.Petavius in 16-17th cc.) it was assumed that
"written" English history starts from 60 B.C. when
Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But
it is known today that documents speak about
English history only from approximately 1 A.D.,
i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It was
the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its
records ([2], p.4).
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
consists of several separate manuscripts:
Manuscript
A: The Parker Chronicle (60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),
Manuscript B: The Abigdon
Chronicle I (A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),
Manuscript C: The Abigdon
Chronicle II (60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),
Manuscript D: The Worcester
Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079), (with
twelfth-century addition 1080 - 1130 A.D.),
Manuscript E: The Laud
(Petersburg) Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),
Manuscript F: The Bilingual
Canterbury Epitome (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).
It is
well-known that all these manuscripts duplicate
each other in the sense that they all speak about
the same events, but in more or less details. That
is why all they are placed in the publication [2]
parallel to each other in a very convenient
manner, which makes it easy to compare different
records concerning the same year. Maybe, all these
manuscripts have the same written original and in
fact represent different scripts of one old
chronicle.
Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle covers an epoch from 1 A.D. to 11th
century (except manuscript E which stops in
1153).
It is
traditionally assumed that all these manuscripts
were written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in
the form which we have today. But it is only a
hypothesis which is strongly based on the
Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very
natural. For example, manuscript A exists now only
in two "copies" and both of them were made only in
16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The original version
(from which these two copies were made) was
practically burned out in a fire. As to other
manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, their
history is not clear from [2]. For example, it is
not pointed out what were the methods of
determining of dates when existing copies were
made. One could have an idea that the dating was
as follows: if last records of these manuscripts
refer to 11-12th cc., then the copies we now
posses are necessarily written just in that form
in 11-12th cc. Leaving aside other objections, we
must say that this speculation in fully based on
Scaliger's chronology. If real dates of last
mentioned events change, then such dating of a
manuscript would also change.
Difficulties
with reconstruction of a true story for origin of
these manuscripts are well-known among experts.
For example David Knowles had to claim that: "The
question of provenance and interdependence of the
various versions [of the Chronicle] are so
complicated that any discussion soon assumes the
appearance of an essay in higher mathematics"
([2],p.xxxi).
Moreover,
G.N.Garmonsway says that any modern analysis of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles
Plummer's revision (1892-1899) of it's original
edition published by John Earle in 1865. It should
be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again
"associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with
certain persons from 16th century - Archbishop
Parker (1504-1575) and Archbishop Laud
(1573-1645). Here is his text: "Any account of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary based on
Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John
Earle (1865) which was published in two volumes by
the Oxford University Press in 1892-9... Plummer's
edition... gives prominence on opposite pages to
manuscripts A and E, associated respectively with
the names of Archbishop Parker (1504-75) and
Archbishop Laud (1573-1645);...The other
manuscripts were once in the possession of Sir
Robert Cotton (1571-1631), and are to be found in
the Cottonian collection of manuscripts in the
British Museum"([2],p.xxxi).
It seems
that all the manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
which are available today were actually written
(or revised) not earlier than in 15-16th
centuries. However, they are considered to be
written in this form in 11-12th cc. Probably the
only reason for such point of view is that
traditional dates of the last events from
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle belong to this epoch:
11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It is
possible that events from 11-12th cc. were
described by somebody in 15-16th cc. and we
actually possess his secondary text which could be
very far from an original version. And also, the
dates of events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
strongly depend on a used chronological concept.
If it changes then the dating of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle would change automatically.
There is a
strong argument which suggests that manuscripts of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a rather
late origin. The problem is that all these
manuscripts use modern "A.D." era which came into
regular practical use only in 15th century. It is
a known fact in traditional history. Later we will
also present some facts which suggest that the
authors of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were already
familiar with J.Scaliger's chronological concept
(16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological
concept of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means
that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written much later
then it is usually accepted.
The reason
for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be paid such great
attention in our reconstruction of English history
is very simple. It turns out that "Thanks to the
example of Bede, the Chronicle is the first
history written in English to use his mastery
innovation of reckoning years as from the
Incarnation of Our Lord - "Years of Grace" as they
were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).
Concerning
the way of presenting dates in Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we should make a remark. It is accepted
that in medieval England they used for "A.D." era
the following formula: "Years from the Incarnation
of Our Lord". It is accepted today that this
formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of
Grace". But this equivalence in not so evident and
requires a special investigation. (We will return
to this subject later and discuss it in more
details). Note that there is a strange similarity
between two well-known names-terms Grace -
Greece.
Maybe the
original (and forgotten today) meaning of a
formula "Years of Grace" differs from one which is
accepted today. Maybe it was "years in Greece",
"Greek years" or something like this. It is
possible also that there is a relation between
terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of
Christ associated in some sense with a name of
country "Greece"? For example Christ religion =
"Greece religion"? It might be because in medieval
epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine empire, and
another it's name was Romea, Rome. So Christian,
"Roman" religion could be called also as "Greek
religion"; but if so then there might be a
confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old
"Greek", Byzantine era which was used sometimes,
as well as "A.D.", with it's thousands omitted. It
could be not obvious which era was actually used
in an old documents which indicate "Years of
Grace". Of course, such kind of similarity between
different terms could not be considered as very
strong arguments supporting any point of view. It
play a role of preliminary speculations and should
be considered as a serious argument only in the
case when it appears (repeats) constantly in a
long historical parallelism, when similar names
arise simultaneously for hundreds of years in two
different epochs after one of them is shifted in
time as a whole and then compared with another
one.
Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle was written in a very laconic manner, it
was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them
devoted to a certain year. Many years are not
described at all (there are some lacunas in the
text). It is considered today that Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle speaks about events from the beginning
of A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1. The text
of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle seem to be really very
old. Absence of long and "beautifully designed"
periods in the text (typical for historical
literature of 15-16th cc.) suggests that
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is an important historical
document which was based on some really ancient
records. Surely, it was edited in 16-17th cc. and
a main question is: what credit should we give to
chronologists of 15-17 centuries who actually
dated events in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as we have
it now?
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia
Brittonum".
Nennius'
"Historia Brittonum" is a rather short text, only
about 24 pages in [8].
There exist
more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius' book which
are known today (see [8]).
"The
earliest manuscripts are dated today by 9th or
10th centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even
14th centuries. In some of the manuscripts are
indications that the author was Gildas. Nennius is
called as the author sufficiently rare. Thus, this
manuscript is possibly - compilation... The
original text was lost, we do not have it today.
But there exists its Irish translation of 11th
century" ([8],p.269).
Translation
was made from the publication: "Nennius et
l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934.
Some
manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals
Cambriae", which is considered to be compiled
approximately in 954 A.D.
Nennius'
"Historia Brittonum" does not have nor
chronological subdivision neither any
chronological notes except the following two ones:
1) A table
titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at
the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time
distances in years between some biblical events -
and already according to Scaliger's calculations,
which were carried out only in 16th c.
2) Chapter
XVI of the "Historia" has a section titled "The
ground of the dating" , which speaks about the
relative distances (in years) between a few events
from English history. In both cases chronological
notes are very brief.
Resume is
that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote
the "Historia". It's original text does not exist
today, a translation which is considered to be
carried out in 11th c. The text does not have it's
own chronological scale. Surely, all questions
which arise with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, refer to
"Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is
written in a free artistic manner with many
stylistic accessories. It suggests that this
manuscript is of rather late origin. Such text
could be written only in an atmosphere of a deep
and well developed literary tradition when many
people use writing and reading books and paper is
not a treasure.
It is
accepted today that Nennius describes certain
events in a time interval from the epoch of Trojan
war to 10-11th cc. A.D. In fact it is a result of
only a traditional chronological concept (which
suggests that short Nennius' text covers an
extremely large 2000-year historical period) that
one could find today giant lacunas in chronology
of "Historia". Fig. 1 shows by a dotted line the
epoch which is considered to be covered by
"Historia". According to traditional chronological
concept Nennius easily omits whole centuries in
his story, makes giant chronological jumps without
any explanations. He seems not to notice it at all
and continues his story after such jumps as if
nothing was missed.
2.1.3. Galfridus
Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum". "Histories of
the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of
Monmouth".
It is generally accepted
today that this chronicle was written in 30th or
40th of 12th century ([8], p.196) by Galfridus
Monemutensis who based it on Nennius' text,
sometimes even copying Nennius "errors" ([8],
p.231, comments to chap. 17; see also [8], p.244).
Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather big one -
about 130 pages in [8]. In opposition to
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle his text has no
chronological subdivision (no indication about
years). His writing style was rather complicated,
with many accessories, moralities, philosophical
excursions et cetera. Galfridus is even considered
to be not a historian only but also a poet.
Surely, the traditional point of view that
Galfridus wrote his book after Nennius, is
correct. It is known also that Galfridus made an
extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History of the
English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9],
p.244). It is assumed that Bede's "History" covers
597-731 A.D.
It is
remarkable that modern commentators point out "the
extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation
of the antique tradition" ([9], p.207). For
example, Galfridus not only used ancient plots,
but also copied a stylistic manner of ancient
authors ([9], p.207). It seems that Galfridus
writes his book being fully influenced by the
atmosphere of antiquity. It was pointed out that
Galfridus copies some of his topics directly from
ancient authors (for example, from Stacius), but
does not give any references ([9], p.236).
Galfridus
Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" was extremely
popular in medieval times. "Today we have about
two hundreds (! - Auth.) copies of his
"History",... which were written in different
places starting from 12th century and until 15th
century, i.e., up to appearance of the first
printed edition" ([9],p.228). At first time
"Historia" was printed in Paris in 1508.
Fig. 1 shows
a historical epoch which is assumed to be covered
by Galfridus' text (according to traditional
chronology). Notice that it is approximately the
same time interval as for Nennius' case: namely,
from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D. Of course,
Galfridus' book is much bigger then Nennius' one,
but being referred again to the giant 2000-year
time interval, it could not cover it all without
huge lacunas. And really, traditional chronology
states that Galfridus "omit" large historical
epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself
does not mind it at all. He calmly continues his
story without notifying a reader that he sometimes
actually misses whole historical epochs in his
chronology.
2.1.4. Some other old English
chronicles
In our work
we use also some other English chronicles of
9-13th centuries, particularly those represented
in a book by V.I.Matuzova "English medieval
documents" [10]. Here we would like to present a
very interesting list which was compiled by
V.I.Matuzova as a result of her investigation of
these chronicles rather then to characterize them
in details. We will discuss this subject in the
next section.
2.2. What were the medieval
names for modern cities, nations and countries
according to ancient English
chronicles?
Many people
use to think that medieval chronicles refer to
such well-known areas (regions) as England,
London, Russia, Kiev etc. with just the same names
as today, and so in general there is no problem to
recognize what place old documents are speaking
about. Sometimes, in more new documents, it is
actually the case. But in more old, original
documents such situation seems to be rather an
exception then a rule. Old chronicles very often
use absolutely different geographical names and it
is a nontrivial task to understand what regions
(areas, towns et cetera) they are really speaking
about.
It is also a
problem that old documents in general use many
different names for each country, land, nation
etc. Very often these names have nothing to do
with those we use today. The names of ancient
nations, countries and cities which are known
today, were fixed only in 18-20th centuries. But
before that time there were various opinions
concerning what names to use. These opinions were
often quite different from each other. It is a
very interesting question to analyse the names
which were used in medieval English documents for
cities, nations and countries which are so
well-known today with their modern names. It turns
out after such analysis, that medieval authors
seem to have quite different views on old and
ancient history. That is why modern specialists in
history usually claim that almost all medieval
people were "extremely wrong" in history, that
they had "fantastic concepts" about it, "confused
and mixed historical epochs", "did not distinguish
antiquity and medieval epoch" and so on.
In a
following list some medieval "synonyms" of modern
accepted names and terms are presented. Each entry
of the list shows a modern term and is followed by
it's medieval synonyms.
| AZOV SEA |
= |
Meotedisc lakes, Meotedisc
fen, Maeotidi lacus, Maeotidi paludes, palus
Maeotis, paludes Maeotis, paludes Maeotidae,
Paluz Meotidienes. |
| ALANIA |
= |
Valana, Alania, Valana,
Valvy, Polovtzy ?! - see below. |
| ALBANIANS |
= |
Liubene, Albani. |
| AMAZONS
LAND |
= |
Maegda land, Maegda londe,
Amazonia. |
| ALBANIANS |
= |
Maegda land, Maegda londe,
Amazonia. |
| BULGARIANS |
= |
Wlgari, Bulgari,
Bougreis. |
| BUG
RIVER |
= |
Armilla. |
| VANDALS |
= |
Wandali, Sea-cost
Slavs. |
| HUNGARY |
= |
Hungaria, Hunia, Ungaria,
Minor Ungaria. |
| BYZANTINE
EMPIRE |
= |
Graecia,
Constantinopolis, |
| VALACHIANS |
= |
Coralli, Blachi, Ilac,
Blac, Turks ! (see below). |
| VALACHIA |
= |
Balchia. |
| VOLGA RIVER |
= |
Ethilia. |
| GALITZK-VOLYNSK
RUSSIA |
= |
Galacia,
Gallacia. |
| GERMANY |
= |
Gothia, Mesia, Theutonia,
Germania, Allemania, Jermaine. |
| HIBERNIC
OCEAN |
= |
The English Channel,
Hibernicum occeanum. |
| HIBERNIA |
= |
Ireland (!) |
| GOTHIA |
= |
Germany, Island Gotland,
Scandinavia, Tavrida (=old name of
Crimea). |
| GUNNS |
= |
Hunni, Huni, Hun. |
| DACKS |
= |
Dani, Daneis. |
| DENMARK |
= |
Denemearc, Dacia, Dania,
Desemone. |
| DUTCH |
= |
Daci, Dani, Norddene,
Denen. |
| DARDANELLES (the
strait) |
= |
St. Georg strait =
branchium Sancti Georgii. |
| DERBENT
(passage) |
= |
Alexander gates =
Alexandres herga, Porta ferrea Alexandri,
claustra Alexandri. |
| DNEPR RIVER |
= |
Aper. |
| DOGI |
= |
Russians (see
below). |
| DON
RIVER |
= |
Danai, Thanais,
Tanais. |
| MEDIEVAL
RUSSIA |
= |
Susie,Russie,Russie,Rusia,Russia,Ruthenia,Rutenia,Ruthia,Ruthena,Ruscia,Russcia,
Russya,Rosie. |
| DANUBE
RIVER |
= |
Danubius,Hister,Danuvius,Damaius,Deinphirus,Danube. |
| IRON GATES |
= |
see "Derbent". |
| IRELAND |
= |
Hybernia. |
| ICELAND |
= |
Ysolandia. |
| CAUCASUS |
= |
beorg
Taurus,Caucasus. |
| CASPIAN
SEA |
= |
Caspia garsecge,mare
Caspium. |
| CASSARIA |
= |
Chasaria (! (see
below) |
| KIEV |
= |
Chyo (!), Cleva (!), Riona
(!), |
| CHINESE |
= |
Cathaii. |
| CORALLS |
= |
Wlaches (see above), Turks
(see above), |
| RED
SEA |
= |
mare Rubrum. |
| ENGLISH
CHANNEL |
= |
Hibernic ocean , Hibernicum
occeanum. |
| MARBURG |
= |
Merseburg. |
| MESIA |
= |
Moesia, Germany (see
above), |
| MONGOLIANS |
= |
Moal, Tatars (see
above), |
| NARVA |
= |
Armilla. |
| GERMANS |
= |
Germanici,Germani,
Teutonici,Theutonici,Allemanni. |
| NETHERLANDS |
= |
Frisia, Arise. |
| NORMANS |
= |
Nordmenn. |
| OCEAN |
= |
Garsecg, Oceano, Oceanus,
Occeanus,Ocean. |
| PECHENEGS (medieval
neighbours of Russians) |
= |
Getae. |
| POLOVTZY (medieval
neighbours of Russians) |
= |
Planeti, Captac, Cumani,
Comanii,Alani, Values, Valani.(See Comment
1.) |
| PRUSSIA |
= |
Prutenia (!).(P-Rutenia =
P-Russia). |
| PRUSSES |
= |
Prateni, Pruteni, Pructeni,
Prusceni, Praceni, Pruceni. |
| RIONA |
| |
