Alternative history(AI) - a genre of fiction dedicated to depicting reality, which could have been if history, at one of its turning points (bifurcation points, or fork points) had taken a different path. This literary genre should not be confused with alternative historical theories, which propose that the picture of the past depicted by historical science is partially or entirely erroneous.
Features of the genre
In works created in the genre of alternative history, an indispensable element of the plot is a change in the course of history in the past (relative to the time of creation of the work). According to the plot of the work, at some point in the past for some reason, either by accident or as a result of intervention external forces, for example, aliens from the future, something different happens from what happened in real story. What happened may be associated with well-known historical events or historical figures, or it may seem, at first glance, insignificant. As a result of this change, history “branchs” - events begin to develop differently. The action takes place in a world with a changed history. It can take place at any time: in the past, in the present, and in the future, but the events taking place are significantly influenced by the fact that history has changed. In some cases, events related to the “branching” itself are described, in others the presentation focuses on situations that are unusual due to changes in reality, in others, the main theme is the heroes’ attempts to return history to its original course using time travel, and change it again in another way. direction or, conversely, “fix” the changed reality. A classic literary example is Robert Sheckley's story "The Three Deaths of Ben Baxter", where the action takes place in three different worlds in the 20th century.
In some works, instead of or together with the idea of time travel, the idea of parallel worlds is used - an “alternative” version of history is realized not in our world, but in a parallel one, where history goes a different way. This interpretation allows us to eliminate the known logical paradox time travel, sometimes called the "murdered grandfather paradox". Another option for eliminating this paradox is that disturbances in history are calmed down through endless search random events, therefore, it is impossible to kill a person significant for history (R. Asprin, Time Scouts), or another world will arise with its own time loop.
History of the genre
The founder of the alternative history genre is considered to be the Roman historian Titus Livius, who described the possible history of the confrontation between the Roman Empire and the empire of Alexander the Great, suggesting that Alexander did not die in 323 BC. e., and continued to live and rule his empire.
Subgenres and related genres
- Cryptohistory is a type of alternative history. Cryptohistory depicts reality as outwardly no different from ordinary history, but showing the participation of certain other forces (aliens, magicians, etc.) in historical processes, or describes as supposedly occurring events that remained unknown.
- Counterfactual history (English) based on the assumption of historical events that are directly opposite to real ones.
- Alternative biochemistry - in in this case an assumption is made that the Earth has different natural conditions (in particular, a different atmosphere, a different average planetary temperature, a different liquid instead of water as a universal solvent) and, as a consequence, a different biosphere and a person, biologically very different from the person from our reality, and the resulting other (including cultural and civilizational) differences.
- Alternative geography involves a different development of history as a consequence of a different geography of the Earth.
- Post-apocalyptic is a genre dedicated to the description of civilizations that have survived a severe global cataclysm (nuclear war, environmental disaster, epidemic, external aggression). Close to the dystopian genre.
- Steampunk (English steam - steam (meaning steam technology) and English punk - hooligan, nonsense) is a genre dedicated to the description of societies that are either at the level of technology of the 19th-early 20th centuries, or outwardly similar to them.
- Dieselpunk is a genre dedicated to the description of societies at the level of technology of the mid-20th century.
It is customary to separate novels about hitchhikers from pure alternative history, where the hero, who accidentally or intentionally moved in time, deliberately changes historical reality, using his knowledge of future technologies and the ways of history. [ ] Something similar - more precisely, the second version of “getting caught” - is also described by chronoopers, in which time travel is a pre-planned process.
Famous authors and works of the genre
The list of examples in this section is not based on those directly devoted to the subject of the article or its section. Cinema
|
Briefly about the article:“History has no subjunctive mood.” This maxim has long turned into a commonly used banality, which both historians and people who have nothing to do with this field of science flaunt it with a thoughtful air, with or without reason. However, some features human life from time to time push out-of-the-box individuals to the seditious assumption - “What if?” This is how “alternative history” (AI) is born.
What if?
Alternative history as science
What kind of outrages could shameless scoundrels commit? Let me give you a few examples.
Such as going back in time and destroying Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, all our greatest spiritual teachers when they were children.
Such as warning the greatest villains about the dangers that threaten them in the future, in order to allow them to deceive fate and provide the opportunity to further harm humanity.
Such as the theft of art treasures from the past, depriving millions of people over many centuries of the opportunity to enjoy them.
Such as the ability to give deliberately false advice to the great rulers of the past, thereby luring them into terrible traps.
I gave all these examples, my friends, because these types of crimes actually happened.
Robert Silverberg "Up the Line"
“History has no subjunctive mood.” This maxim has long turned into a commonly used banality, which both historians and people who have nothing to do with this field of science flaunt it with a thoughtful air, with or without reason. However, some features of human life from time to time push out-of-the-box individuals to the seditious assumption - “What if?” This is how “alternative history” (AI) is born.
The roads we choose
In principle, alternativeness is an integral part of the life of any of us. Every morning, leaving the house, we cannot say with one hundred percent confidence that the coming day will not bring anything unexpected. Almost every minute we find ourselves faced with microscopic choices. Our life is a kind of crossroads, and any step can theoretically lead to events that radically change our destiny.
You go to the left and find a wallet with a large amount of money, which guarantees “dreams come true” and pushes you to do things that are impossible with an established routine. You go to the right - and you meet the person you have been looking for all your life and with whom you want to be together forever and “die on the same day”: love, children, grandchildren, accompanying family life joys and problems. If you had stopped to tie your shoelaces 5 minutes ago, a “beautiful vision” would have floated past your nose. A man walks straight and collides with a dump truck suddenly flying around the corner, which will certainly have serious consequences for both him and the bungling driver. The same untied lace could save a passerby from a premature grave, and the “driver” from prison gruel...
And so - ad infinitum, human fate resembles a deck of cards, fanned out by the trembling hand of an inexperienced banker: if you are lucky, the joker will appear, if not, you will be left with a lousy “six”... And after all this there are people who believe that history does not know subjunctive mood. And almost everyone believes them. Paradox!
The variability of human existence pushed the inquisitive and open minds of some people directly involved in historical science to thoughts and ideas of “alternativeness” of both individual events and the entire historical process as a whole.
Pioneers of alternative history
The first AI assumption known to us was made by the ancient Roman historian Titus Livius in his epic treatise “The History of Rome from the Foundation of the City.” In Book IX, written around 35 BC, several pages were devoted to the hypothetical campaign of Alexander the Great against Rome in 323 BC, which, according to Livy, would have ended in the complete defeat of the great conqueror. Despite the obvious bias, some of the historian’s assumptions sound quite reasonable. However, this was just an episode, an ornate passage within a completely traditional historical work.
In the 19th century, the term “alternative world” appeared, which was first used by the English critic and writer Isaac Disraeli in his work “The Curiosities of Literature”; a little later he developed the idea in the collection of stories “Of a History of Events Which Have Not Happened” (“About history of events that never happened”, 1849). However, the first author of a full-fledged scientific AI work was the famous British historian George Trevelyan. True, this happened in the scientist’s relatively young years, when he won the same competition with the work “If Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo” (1907), and at that time this article did not attract much attention.
It’s a different matter with another Englishman, Sir Arnold Toynbee, who, already a world figure in historical science, produced articles “If Alexander had not died then...” and “If Philip and Artaxerxes had survived...” (in the first he considered hypothetical consequences of lengthening the life of the hero of antiquity, and in the second - his earlier death). With these sensational works, Toynbee actually laid the foundation for such a direction in history as retroforecasting. However, Toynbee's evidence was based on the use of imagination, and therefore was much closer to fiction than to genuine science. Fellow historians perceived Toynbee’s exercises as “a prank of a genius,” a kind of scientific leisure, salon chatter on the topic “what would have happened if.”
Another Englishman, D. S. Squire, collected various publications on this topic and in 1931 published the first collection of this kind of popular science essays, “If It Had Happened Otherwise,” among the authors which was noted by G. K. Chesterton and W. Churchill. The works of Trevelyan, Toynbee and Squire's collection were the basis for the “scientific-historical alternative,” which for a long time was considered the stepson of historical science.
| Main types of “alternative scenarios” modeling |
Alternative modeling - variants of history that had a real chance of coming true are analyzed. With AM, certain forces (influential individuals, organizations, social groups), advocating an alternative course of events or recognizing its possibility, and there are no objective factors that make an alternative course of events impossible. For example, some scenarios of Napoleon's triumph or the longer/shorter life of Alexander the Great. Counterfactual modeling - analysis of scenarios that could not come true in principle. Under KM, there is no evidence that any of the contemporaries of the “fork” proposed the practical implementation of a version of events different from the one that took place (an attempt at such implementation was impossible for objective reasons). An example of such a study is “19th century America without railroads” according to Vogel. Although there were no objective reasons, which would prevent the Americans from building steamships and stagecoaches instead of railroads, there is no evidence that such an idea occurred to anyone. |
On the thorny path to recognition
Serious, academic historical science has long treated AI as a parascientific freak. They say that AI is not a science, but just pampering, the lot of foolish scientists (who will soon come to their senses and engage in real research) or losers and mediocrities: writers, journalists, and other riffraff trying to cover up catastrophic ignorance with delusional theories and pompous reasoning. By the way, most often this was the case - and, to a certain extent, it still remains. Very many “alternative historical” theories, alas, contradict not only existing real facts and historical patterns, but even elementary common sense...
Among the main disadvantages of variable versions of historical events, one can highlight the initial “preset alternative”. Ordinary scientific-historical research proceeds from the particular to the general, that is, the scientist, having shoveled through a pile of materials and sources, either confirms (refutes) existing assumptions, or comes to new conclusions and builds a theory based on the information obtained. The authors of scientific and historical alternatives repeat this path exactly the opposite. First, they come up with a certain theory, which they begin to fit the evidence into. In principle, there is nothing seditious in this approach (it is often used by traditional historians). After all, the root of any AI version is the postulate “what if?” However, too often the authors of AI openly cheat and distort, adjusting some historical facts to confirm their hypotheses and deliberately ignoring or even distorting others.
However, alternative history gradually gained momentum. Science fiction writers got involved in the development of the new “gold mine,” which also had an impact on the popularization of AI. The heyday of the “scientific-historical alternative” came after the Second World War, when many wondered whether it was really possible to avoid the nightmare that happened? Since traditional science at that time was either not ready or unable to provide suitable answers, variability in the writing of quite serious historical works became increasingly widespread. AI got out of the ghetto of pseudo-scientific curiosity, primarily in the USA and Western Europe(in socialist countries the idea of an “alternative” history was not welcomed).
The most developed AI themes were events related to the American Revolutionary War and Civil War, as well as World War II and the Napoleonic Wars. As we see, the emphasis in scientific and historical alternatives was on events in military history, which is not surprising, because elements of AI have long been used in training in military schools and academies.
Published scientific AI works gradually began to enjoy mass popularity, and some of them were not disdained to be written by quite serious and prominent historians - for example, “If the South had won the Civil War” (1960) by M. Cantor and “If Hitler had won the Second World War” ( 1961) W. Shirer.
However, in the eyes of the bulk of specialists, AI continued to remain an “unknown little animal.” Help came from unexpected places.
The Rise of the “Ugly Duckling”
The breakthrough came thanks to the American economist Robert Fogel, when in 1964 his now infamous book with the nondescript title “Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History” was published.
The fact is that in American historical science it was traditionally believed that the massive construction of railways in the 19th century was one of the main reasons for such energetic economic development countries. Vogel, through mathematical calculations, built the so-called counterfactual model- a hypothetical version of the development of the United States, in which, instead of railways, stagecoaches and steamships would remain the main means of transportation across the American expanses. The result of impartial calculations turned out to be paradoxical - the real contribution of railway construction to the development of the economy turned out to be negligible (it was equal to the US national product for several months), and the demand for railways was artificially provoked by steel magnates. Thus, Vogel’s work completely killed one of the “sacred cows” of American historical scholarship! And in this case, the weapon was not theoretical mental juggling, but the harsh language of numbers.
In 1974, Vogel published the book “Time on the Cross. The Economics of American Slavery,” which convincingly argued that by the mid-19th century, American slavery had not at all become obsolete from an economic point of view, as was commonly believed. If we take only the economic aspect of the problem, when growing cotton in the USA, it would remain profitable until the advent of modern cotton harvesters in the fifties of the 20th century!
Here American liberals howled furiously, mistakenly believing that Vogel was allegedly defending slavery. Only after the release in 1989 of his new book, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in America, did it become clear to everyone: Vogel argued that the abolition of slavery was caused not by economic, but by ideological reasons. American society has taken the path of bloodshed Civil War, since free people could no longer live with the knowledge that someone nearby was deprived of this freedom. In 1993, the scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research.
Although Vogel’s conclusions were not approved by all specialists, the main result of his work was a radical change in the views of the scientific community on the “alternative”. From now on, retroforecasting began to be perceived as component quite a serious direction of historical science, the so-called. “cliometry” (historical and mathematical research). The construction of AI models has also begun to be considered a completely acceptable, albeit somewhat exotic, scientific method for other areas of historical science.
Another cornerstone of retroforecasting is the ideas of the famous Belgian scientist, Nobel laureate in chemical physics by Ilya Prigogine. According to his synergistic approach, the development of society is not strictly predetermined. There is an alternation of periods of evolution when the vector of development of society cannot be changed. While studying the physics of highly nonequilibrium systems, Prigogine discovered new effects, which are reflected in the title of his program book “Order from Chaos.”
The subject of retroforecasting is the study bifurcation points(a more common term is “fork in the road”), certain key moments in history, during which the choice of the path for further development of society occurs from a range of different alternatives. The choice in such situations almost always occurs under conditions of uncertainty and instability of the balance of social forces. Therefore, bifurcation can be influenced by absolutely, at first glance, insignificant and subjective circumstances. “Transition through a bifurcation is the same random process as tossing a coin” (Prigogine).
A unique symbol of such a “coin” may well be the rotten board of a ship’s gangway, which gave way under the feet of Gian Luigi Fieschi, the leader of the conspiracy against the Genoese dictator Andrea Doria. Result - Fieski splashed into the water, and the heavy shell pulled him to the bottom. The beheaded revolt was suppressed, and Doria ruled Genoa for another 13 years. Of course, this is a small event for the world, but it is a significant fact: one single piece of wood could really change history, albeit on a small scale.
Alternative history in Russian
It cannot be said that AI was “terra incognita” for Russian historical science; however, for obvious reasons, Soviet historiography, guided by the principles of Marxism and party affiliation, resolutely rejected the “alternativeness” of the development of society.
Although AI research was rarely found in Soviet popular science literature. For example, in the book “Apostle Sergei. The Tale of Sergei Muravyov-Apostol” (M., 1975) by the famous Soviet historian Nathan Eidelman, the AI-scenario “The Impossible Year 1826” (a hypothetical development of events during the victory of the uprising of the Chernigov regiment) was published.
In the 1980s the situation improved. In the article “Possible and Real and Problems of Alternativeity in Historical Development” (“History of the USSR”, 1986, No. 4), Kovalchenko defined alternative situations in history, noting that ignoring such moments impoverishes our understanding of historical reality. In the article “Stolypin’s Agrarian Reform: Myths and Reality,” he himself constructed several variant models for the development of peasant farms in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
In the “troubled” 1990s, the focus of public attention was focused on something else, such as the craze for mysticism and various pseudo-historical theories (the “works” of Academician Fomenko alone are worth it!). Unfortunately, at the moment, truly scientific AI research in Russia is episodic and local in nature.
In popular science literature, progress is a little more noticeable, although the practice of publishing multi-volume anthologies, so in demand in the West, has not yet reached the point. In fact, the “first sign” was V. Polikarpov’s book “If... Historical Versions,” which contained about 20 AI scenarios, many of which lacked scientific argumentation.
One cannot help but recall “The Russia That Never Was” by the famous science fiction writer A. Bushkov. True, there is not much actual AI here: just a few chapters describing the forks in Russian history. The main drawback of Bushkov's AI scenarios is the lack of historically objective analysis and the obvious bias and emotionality of the writer.
There is a little bit of AI in A. Valentinov’s sensational novel-hypothesis “Spartacus,” dedicated to the largest slave uprising.
And, finally, another terribly popular “alternative”, which is truly unique in nature, since the author passes off the AI script he created... as a real story! It's about about the cycle of pseudo-historical works by V. Suvorov (Rezun) “Icebreaker”, “Day M” and others, more precisely, about the operation “Thunderstorm” fictional by the author (allegedly planned invasion in 1941 Soviet troops to Europe).
In addition to the works of home-grown authors, in last years Several books by foreign authors were translated into Russian. This is a popular collection of scientific and historical alternatives “What if?” edited by Robert Cowley, written by prominent American scholars and covering key moments in history - from antiquity to modern times. Also, the publishing house “AST” in the series “Military History Library” published the collective collection “Napoleonic Wars: What If?”, collections of military-historical AI essays by E. Durschmid “Victories that Might Not Have Happened” and K. Massey “ Hitler's missed opportunities."
True, these publications of foreign authorities are not free from numerous shortcomings. After all, despite the fact that AI has long been recognized abroad, it has not yet been fully formed as a science. There is not even a single generally accepted name: in addition to retroforecasting, the terms “counterfactual history”, “experimental history”, “virtual history”, “retro-alternative studies” are used.
Alternate History Problems
Achilles' heel modern retroforecasting - lack of clear methodology scientific research, in which the creation and analysis of an AI scenario would be carried out according to generally accepted rules, and not depending on the creative imagination and personal preferences of the author. Even R. Vogel used methods that were suitable only for a specific case and did not claim to be universally applicable.
So, let's name some problems of scientific alternative history.
1. The problem of the reality of the initial assumptions of AI scenarios, that is, the need to clearly distinguish between real possible options the course of history from unreal. This may include an exaggeration of the role of individual factors in possible changes in history. For example, numerous models relating to the triumph of Napoleon after he won the Battle of Waterloo (although the lion's share of them still falls on works of art). Napoleon could well (and should) have won this ill-fated battle, however, for a number of objective reasons, this would not have brought him much benefit - unless it would have prolonged the agony of the Empire, and modern historians would have studied the period not of the “Hundred Days”, but Let's say two hundred.
Another typical example is the script by H. Belloc, who considered a more successful version of the “Escape of Varennes”, when Louis XVI tried to escape from revolutionary France (the escape failed due to an absurd accident). Belloc excitedly describes the rescue of the fallen king and the events that allegedly followed - the defeat of the revolution and the prevention of the advent of capitalism. But even if Louis had escaped, what difference would it have made? He did not shine with either intelligence or military talents... What would he have achieved? His younger brothers The Count of Provence and the Count of Artois managed to emigrate, but were unable to stop the revolution.
2. The problem of internal logic of AI scenarios. The retroforecast must contain a chain of events welded together by consistent cause-and-effect relationships. This means that the reconstruction of the possible course of events is not determined by the richness of the historian’s imagination, but follows from the initial conditional assumption. Alas, the objectivity of the assessment of hypothetical events too often depends not only on the imagination, but also on the ideological preferences of the researcher (however, this is one of the traditional problems of all historical science).
In this case, the main method of the researcher may be the use of analogies. Almost all historical events were repeated many times during the development of our civilization. Therefore, the author of a retroforecast, when developing an AI scenario, must first select similar events that occurred in real history. Another method is the use of extrapolation, when the researcher, in his AI model, considers the further development of those trends, the origins of which are visible in the current flow of historical events.
3. The problem of the probability of AI scenarios, when a retroforecast of the likely consequences of a hypothetical event involves the development of a fan of possible scenarios that had different probability of implementation. The very essence of retroforecasting is the assumption that the real course of history has alternative options that could have come to life, but did not. However, a plurality of development paths must be assumed within an alternative flow of events, and the number of such scenarios can be quite numerous. A scientific retroforecast should contain not only their most full list, but also comparative assessment probability of implementation.
The historical process is reminiscent of a mountain collapse: it is impossible to predict one hundred percent which stones will fall down and which ones will remain in place. The authors of scientific and historical alternatives actively use this “landslide” principle in their work, but only up to a certain point. Once they “change” history, they are almost guaranteed to “forget” both the previously declared principle of alternative events and the avalanche-like flow of historical processes.
A typical example is the classic work of A. Toynbee “If Alexander had not died then...”, which is still a standard for many AI authors. Based on the assumption of the miraculous recovery of Alexander the Great, Toynbee builds a brilliantly written diagram of the emergence of a “world” Macedonian empire with the subsequent serious change in history. However, having already achieved the desired result, Toynbee pushes aside, as unnecessary trash, the principle of that very variability that he so successfully used when building his world. His model of the events that took place is reminiscent of the famous plan of the Battle of Austerlitz by the armchair thinker Weyrother, so visibly written out by Leo Tolstoy: “Di erste columne marchirt, di tsvaite columne marchirt...” The question is, what will Napoleon do while the enemy troops are marching, as if in a parade? Stand in stupor before the intellectual power of the German “genius”?
After all, there is no guarantee that the expansionist plans of Alexander the Great, if he had truly recovered from his illness, would have brought him success. Alexander could have died in another battle or as a result of a palace conspiracy (there are suggestions that he did not die from illness, but was poisoned). He could have failed in the next campaign, as happened in reality during the Indian campaign - the human factor came into play when the troops insisted on returning home. He could have simply wised up, deciding to be content with what he had already captured... But Toynbee rejects all options - leaving only the only one, the most incredible: Alexander crushes his enemies, destroys Rome, and the Macedonian, not the Roman, empire becomes the basis of Western civilization.
| Literature |
Historical facts, accepted as an immutable truth, sometimes cause a lot of doubts among those who are accustomed to analyzing the course of events and reading “between the lines.” Frank contradictions, silence and distortion of obvious facts cause healthy indignation, since interest in one’s roots is inherent in man by nature. That is why a new direction of teaching arose - alternative history. Reading various articles about the origin of mankind, the development and formation of states, one can understand how school course stories are far from reality. Facts that are not supported by elementary logic and argumentation are put into young heads as the only true path. historical development. At the same time, many of them do not withstand elementary analysis even by those who are not luminaries in this field, but are only interested in world history and know how to think sensibly.
The essence of alternative history
This direction is considered to be unscientific, since it is not regulated at the official level. However, reading articles, books and treatises on alternative history, it becomes clear that they are more logical, consistent and justified than the “official version” of events. So why are historians silent, why do they distort the facts? There could be many reasons for this:
- It’s much more pleasant to present your origins in a more advantageous light. Moreover, it is enough just to provide the bulk of the population with an attractive theory, even if it does not fit into the context of real history - it will certainly be accepted “as if it were their own,” stroking their subconscious self-esteem.
- The role of the victim is advantageous only in case of a successful ending, because, as we know, all the “laurels” go to the winner. If you failed to defend your people, then, a priori, the enemies must be bad and insidious.
- To act on the attacking side, destroying other nationalities is “not comme il faut,” therefore, flaunting such facts in the chronicle of historical events is at least unreasonable.
The reasons for lies and cover-ups in history can be listed endlessly, but they all originate in one single statement: if it is written exactly like this, then it is profitable. Moreover, in this context, benefit implies not so much economic as moral, political and psychological comfort. And it doesn’t matter at all that any lie looks stupid, it’s enough just to analyze the indisputable facts of that time.
Over time, alternative history becomes more complete and meaningful. Thanks to the works of people who are not indifferent to their origins, there are fewer and fewer “dark spots” in the chronicles of our country, and the world as a whole, and the chronology of events takes on a logical and consistent form. This is why reading about alternative history is not only educational, but also pleasant - clearly verified facts make the narrative logical and reasonable, and accepting one’s roots allows one to better understand the deep essence of historical events.
Alternative history of humanity: a view through the prism of logic
Darwin's theory of human origins is ideally suited to be taught to children as a cautionary tale about the benefits of work, with only one acceptable context - it is just a fairy tale. Every artifact obtained during excavations, every ancient find, causes healthy skepticism regarding the official version of history, since they clearly contradict the voiced version. And if you consider that most of them are simply kept classified as “Secret”, the origin of humanity looks vague and doubtful. A common opinion on this issue has not yet been formed, but one thing is known for certain: man appeared much earlier than history attributes to him.
- traces of humans from the era of dinosaurs discovered in Nevada, which are more than 50 million years old;
- a fossilized finger, which, according to research, has been preserved for about 130 million years;
- a metal vase with a handwritten design that is about half a billion years old.
The proof of the correctness of alternative versions of history is not limited to these facts - the number of traces of a person’s presence in ancient world is growing steadily, however, not all of them are known to a wide circle of people. Moreover, many theories regarding the course of historical events have already been voiced in the context of mythology, but scientists have dismissed them because there was no evidence for this. Now, when the emerging facts convince us otherwise, they simply do not want to “lose face” by rewriting the history of mankind.
If, in the course of evolution and technological progress, people became more and more developed, then how were the famous Egyptian pyramids built? After all, even now, having a huge arsenal of technology and building materials, such a structure causes delight and awe, because it seems almost unreal. But such pyramids were built not only on the African continent, but also in today’s America, China, Russia and Bosnia. How could incompetent and technically illiterate ancestors, according to academic history, build such a thing?
Turning to ancient Indian treatises, you can find references to flying chariots - prototypes of modern aircraft. They are also mentioned in the works of Maharshi Bharadwaja, a sage of the 4th century BC. His book was found back in the 19th century, but never had a resonance thanks to the efforts of those who adhere to the official version of history. These works were recognized as nothing more than entertaining works based on a rich imagination, while the descriptions of the machines themselves, suspiciously reminiscent of modern ones, were considered mere speculation.
Not only ancient Indian works confirm the dubiousness of the academic theory of human development - the Slavic chronicles contain no less evidence. Based on the described technical structures, our distant ancestors could not only move through the air, but also make intergalactic flights. So why is the suggestion of an alternative history of the Earth about the settlement of the planet from space considered practically insane? A completely logical and reasonable version that has a right to exist.
The question of human origin is considered one of the most controversial, since rare facts force one to make only guesses and assumptions. The academic version suggests that humanity came out of Africa, but this version hardly stands up to the basic “strength test” of modern facts and discoveries. New alternative history items seem more convincing, since even recent articles from 2017 consider several options at once as a possible course of events. One of the confirmations of the multiplicity of theories is the works of Anatoly Klyosov.
Alternative history in the context of DNA genealogy
The founder of DNA genealogy, which reveals the essence of the migration processes of ancient populations through the prism of chromosomal similarities, is Anatoly Klyosov. His works provoke a lot of indignant criticism, since the theories presented by the scientist openly contradict the official version of events about the African origin of the entire human race. The critical questions raised by Klyosov in his books and publications reveal the essence of the erroneous statements of popgeneticists that “anatomically modern man"(precisely in the context of the current genetic basis) came from the African people through constant migration to neighboring continents. The main evidence for the academic version is the genetic diversity of Africans, but this fact cannot be considered confirmatory, but only makes it possible to put forward a theory that is not supported by any justification.
The main features of the idea promoted by Klyosov are as follows:
- the genetic genealogy (DNA genealogy) he founded is a symbiosis of history, biochemistry, anthropology and linguistics, and not a subsection of academic genetics, as is commonly believed in scientific circles, accusing the author of quackery;
- This approach allows us to formulate new calendar ancient migrations of mankind, which is more accurate and scientific basis, rather than the official one.
According to the data obtained through a long and scrupulous analysis of historical, anthropological and chromosomal studies, the development “from an African source” is not complete, since the alternative history of the Slavs at that time followed a parallel course. The Proto-Slavic origin of the Aryan race is confirmed by the fact that the chromosomal halogroup R1a1 left the Dnieper territory and the Ural River and went to India, and not vice versa, as the official version of events claims.
His ideas are actively promoted not only in Russia, but throughout the world: founded by him " Russian Academy DNA Genealogy" is an international online organization. In addition to online publications, Klyosov published many books and periodicals. His collection of articles on alternative history, based on a DNA genealogical base, is constantly updated with new works, which each time lift the veil of secrecy over the ancient civilization.
Tatar-Mongol yoke: alternative history
In academic history Tatar-Mongol yoke There are still many “dark spots” that allow us to make assumptions and conjectures not only for scientists and historians of our time, but also for ordinary people interested in their origins. Many details indicate that the Tatar-Mongol people did not exist at all. This is why alternative history looks very reliable: the details are so logical and reasonable that, willy-nilly, doubts arise: are the textbooks lying?
Indeed, there is no mention of the Tatar-Mongols in any Russian chronicle, and the term itself evokes healthy skepticism: where could such a people come from? From Mongolia? But, according to historical documents, the ancient Mongols were called “Oirats”. There is no such nationality and there never was until it was introduced artificially in 1823!
The alternative history of Russia in those days is clearly reflected in the work of Alexei Kungurov. His book " Kievan Rus did not exist or what historians are hiding" has caused thousands of contradictions in scientific circles, but the arguments seem quite convincing even to those familiar with history, not to mention ordinary readers: "If we demand to present at least some material evidence of the long existence of the Mongol Empire , then the archaeologists, scratching their heads and grunting, will show a pair of half-rotten sabers and several women's earrings. But don’t try to figure out why the remains of sabers are “Mongol-Tatar” and not Cossack, for example. Nobody can explain this to you for sure. At best, you will hear a story that the saber was dug up at the site where, according to an ancient and very reliable chronicle, there was a battle with the Mongols. Where is that chronicle? God knows, it hasn’t reached our days” (c).
Although the topic is thoroughly revealed in the works of Gumilyov, Kalyuzhny and Fomenko, who are undoubtedly experts in their field, alternative history reveals the Tatar-Mongol yoke in such a cogent, detailed and thorough manner precisely at the suggestion of Kungurov. Undoubtedly, the author is thoroughly familiar with the timing of Kievan Rus and studied many sources before putting forward his theory regarding that time. That is why there is no doubt that his version of what is happening is the only possible chronology of events. Indeed, it is difficult to argue with a logically sound rationale:
- There is not a single “material evidence” left of the Mongol-Tatar invasion. Even from the dinosaurs there were at least some traces left, but from the whole yoke - zero. No written sources (of course, you should not take into account the subsequently fabricated papers), no architectural structures, no coin trace.
- Analyzing modern linguistics, it will not be possible to find a single borrowing from the Mongol-Tatar heritage: the Mongolian and Russian languages do not intersect, and there are no cultural borrowings left from the Transbaikal nomads.
- Even if Kievan Rus wanted to eradicate from memory the difficult times of the dominance of the Mongol-Tatars, at least some trace would remain in the folklore of the nomads. But even there – nothing!
- What was the point of the capture? They reached the territory of Rus', captured... and that’s all? Was the conquest of the world limited to this? And the economic consequences for present-day Mongolia were never discovered: no Russian gold, no icons, no coins, in a word, nothing again.
- For more than 3 centuries of imaginary dominance, not a single mixing of blood has occurred. One way or another, domestic population genetics has not found a single thread leading to Mongol-Tatar roots.
These facts support an alternative history ancient Rus', in which there is not the slightest mention of the Tatar-Mongols as such. But why, over the course of several centuries, were people instilled with the idea of Batu’s brutal attack? After all, something happened during these years that historians are trying to disguise with external interventions. In addition, by the time of the pseudo-liberation from the Mongol-Tatars, the territory of Rus' was really in great decline, and the number of the local population had decreased tenfold. So what happened during these years?
The alternative history of Russia offers many versions, but forced baptism seems the most convincing. According to ancient maps, the main part of the Northern Hemisphere was a Great State - Tartaria. Its inhabitants were educated and literate, they lived in harmony with themselves and with natural forces. Adhering to the Vedic worldview, they understood what was good, saw the consequences of instilling a religious principle and tried to maintain their inner harmony. However, Kievan Rus - one of the provinces of Great Tartary - decided to take a different path.
Prince Vladimir, who became the ideological inspirer and executor of forced Christianization, understood that people’s deep convictions could not be easily broken, so he ordered to kill most of the adult population and put a religious principle into innocent children’s heads. And when the troops of Tartaria came to their senses and decided to stop the brutal bloodshed in Kievan Rus, it was already too late - the province at that time was a pitiful sight. Of course, there was still a battle on the Kalka River, but the opponents were not the fictional Mongol corps, but their own army.
Looking at the alternative history of the war, it becomes clear why it was so “sluggish”: Russian troops, who forcibly converted to Christianity, perceived the Vedic army of Tartaria not as an attack, but rather as liberation from an imposed religion. Many of them even went over to the side of the “enemy,” while the rest did not see the point in the battle. But will such facts be published in textbooks? After all, this discredits the modern idea of the “great and wisest” power. There are many dark spots in the history of Russia, as, indeed, in any state, but hiding them will not help rewrite it.
Alternative history of Rus' from ancient times: where did Tartary go?
By the end of the 18th century, Great Tartary was erased not only from the face of the Earth, but also from the political map of the world. This was done so carefully that no mention of it can be found in any history textbook, or in any chronicle or official document. Why is it necessary to hide such an obvious fact of our history, which was revealed relatively recently, only thanks to the works of Academician Fomenko, who worked on the New Chronology? But William Guthrie, back in the 18th century, described in detail Tartaria, its provinces and history, but this work remained unnoticed by official science. Everything is banal and simple: the alternative history of Russia does not look as sacrificial and impressive as the academic one.
The conquest of Great Tartary began in the 15th century, when Muscovy was the first to attack the surrounding territories. The army of Tartary, which did not expect an attack, which at that time concentrated all its forces on protecting the external borders, did not have time to get its bearings, and therefore yielded to the enemy. This served as an example for others, and gradually everyone sought to “bite off” at least a small piece of economically and politically advantageous lands from Tartary. So, over 2 and a half centuries, only a weak shadow remained of the Great State, the final blow to which was World War, called in the history course “Pugachev’s Rebellion” in 1773-1775. After this, the name of the once great power began to gradually change to the Russian Empire, but some regions - Independent and Chinese Tartary - still managed to preserve their history for some more time.
Thus, the long war, which eventually exterminated all the indigenous Tartarians, began precisely at the instigation of the Muscovites, who subsequently took an active part in it. This means that the territory modern Russia was brutally conquered at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, and our ancestors are precisely the attacking party. Will textbooks write such things? After all, if history is based on cruelty and bloodshed, then it is not as “wonderful” as they try to portray.
As a result, historians adhering to the academic version simply took certain facts out of context, swapped the characters in places and presented everything “with the sauce” of a sad saga about the devastation after the Tatar-Mongol yoke. From this perspective, there could be no talk of any attack on Tartary. And what an alternative history of Tartaria, there was nothing. The maps have been corrected, the facts have been distorted, which means that you can forget about the rivers of blood. This approach made it possible to instill in many ordinary people, not accustomed to thinking and analyzing, the exceptional integrity, sacrifice and, most importantly, the antiquity of their people. But in fact, all this was created by the hands of the Tartarians, who were subsequently destroyed.
Alternative history of St. Petersburg, or What does the chronicle of the Northern capital hide?
St. Petersburg is almost the main site of historical events in the country, and the architecture of the city makes you hold your breath with delight and awe. But is everything as transparent and consistent as official history shows?
An alternative history of St. Petersburg is based on the theory that the city at the mouth of the Neva was built back in the 9th century BC, only it was called Nevograd. When Radabor built a port here, the settlement was renamed Vodin. A difficult fate fell on the local residents: the city was often flooded, and enemies tried to seize the port area, causing destruction and bloodshed. In 862, after the death of Prince Vadim, the Novgorod prince who came to power destroyed the city almost to the ground, destroying the entire indigenous population. Having recovered from this blow, almost three centuries later the Vodino residents faced another attack - a Swedish one. True, after 30 years the Russian army was able to regain its native lands, but this time was enough to weaken Vodin.
After the suppression of the uprising in 1258, the city was renamed again - in order to pacify the rebellious Vodino residents, Alexander Nevsky decided to eradicate his native name and began to call the city on the Neva Gorodnyaya. And after another 2 years, the Swedes again attacked the territory and named it in their own manner - Landskron. Swedish dominance did not last long - in 1301 the city returned to Russia and gradually began to flourish and recover.
This idyll lasted a little more than two and a half centuries - in 1570, Gorodnya was captured by the Moskhs, calling it Kongrad. However, the Swedes did not give up their desire to acquire the port territory of the Neva, so in 1611 they were able to recapture the city, which now became Kantz. After that, it was renamed one more time, calling Nyenschanz, until Peter I recaptured it from the Swedes during the Northern War. And only after this the official version of history begins the chronicle of St. Petersburg.
According to academic history, it was Peter the Great who built the city from scratch, creating St. Petersburg as it is today. However, the alternative history of Peter I does not look so impressive, because, in fact, he received a ready-made city with a long history under his control. It is enough to look at the numerous monuments erected supposedly in honor of the ruler to doubt their origins, because on each of them Peter I is depicted completely differently, and not always appropriately.
For example, the statue in the Mikhailovsky Castle depicts Peter the Great, dressed for some reason in a Roman tunic and sandals. Quite a strange outfit for the St. Petersburg realities of that time... And the marshal's baton in the awkwardly twisted hand suspiciously resembles a spear, which for some reason (obviously, why) was cut off, giving it the appropriate shape. And looking closely at the “Bronze Horseman”, it becomes clear that the face is made completely differently. Age-related changes? Hardly. Simply a falsification of the historical heritage of St. Petersburg, which was adjusted to academic history.
Review of alternative history - answers to pressing questions
While thoughtfully reading a school history textbook, it is impossible not to “stumble” over contradictions and imposed clichés. In addition, emerging facts force us to either constantly adjust the approved chronology to them, or to hide historical events from people. But A. Sklyarov was right when he argued: “If the facts contradict the theory, you need to throw out the theory, not the facts.” So why do historians act differently?
What to believe, which version to adhere to, everyone decides for themselves. Of course, it is much easier and more pleasant to close your eyes to the obvious, proudly calling yourself a luminary in the field of historical sciences. Moreover, new alternative history products are met with great distrust, calling them quackery and creative fiction. But each of these supposed fictions is based on much more logic and facts than academic science. But admitting this means abandoning an extremely convenient and advantageous position that has been promoted for decades. But if the official version continues to pass off fiction as reality, maybe it’s time to stop being deceived ourselves? All you need to do is think for yourself.
Today, the so-called alternative history is very popular. More and more often, from television screens, newspapers, and the Internet, we learn about new sensational discoveries that completely contradict the traditional view of history. This is not surprising, because history has been rewritten more than once for ideological and political purposes. There is a famous aphorism: “Who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." Science has always been subordinated to politics. And this a big problem for science in general and for historical science in particular.
The great achievement of democracy is the liberation of historical science from the shackles of politics. Politicians themselves are more interested in financial issues. Many people go into politics not for high goals, but solely for the sake of a career. Some scientists do the same thing. Science is turning into a way to make money, moving from one extreme to the other: from under strict control by politicians to complete chaos by amateurs.
In conditions market economy The law applies: demand creates supply. If a product is in demand, then there will definitely be supply. Alternative history is precisely such a product. Moreover, this product is quite diverse, which is not surprising, because for each product there is a buyer.
Why is alternative, and not traditional history, so popular? Probably because there are very attractive elements of science fiction and detective fiction here, successfully hidden behind the external form of scientific presentation. The fantastic nature of alternative history is manifested in its incredible plot (there is no other way to describe it). Thus, the Egyptian pyramids are declared to be the structures of some ancient highly developed civilization, surpassing even ours in terms of development (this theory was popularized by Erich von Däniken, Graham Hancock, Ernst Muldashev, Andrei Sklyarov). Almost always, alternative history is accompanied by a conspiracy theory. This theory boils down to the fact that the whole history is deliberately hushed up by the behind-the-scenes world government. The conspiracy theory gives alternativeists the advantage that they can declare any scientific fact a fake. Thus, all museums in the world, according to conspiracy theorists, are completely groundlessly declared to be either part of some commercial project, or some kind of ideological mechanism serving the goals of a behind-the-scenes world government. It is impossible to refute such a theory. As British explorer and journalist Ollie Steeds aptly noted in one of his films: “I can’t prove that the March Hare doesn’t exist, and neither can Santa Claus.”
One of the most popular conspiracy theories today is the “New Chronology”, developed by two famous mathematicians Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky. According to this theory The World History was much shorter than is commonly believed. All ancient history, as well as the history of the early Middle Ages is declared fictitious, created artificially by analogy with later events. Why was this necessary? The point is this. According to the authors of the New Chronology, in the Middle Ages there was a certain world empire, after the collapse of which a global falsification of history began in order to justify the rights to the throne of the rulers of the newly formed states.
Despite the fact that this theory has long been refuted by scientists, today the “New Chronology” still has its followers (we will return to this topic).
Basically, supporters of alternative history are people with a technical education and a rather modest knowledge of history. In general, the confrontation between “techies” and “humanists,” which has a purely psychological basis, often manifests itself in its entirety precisely in alternative history. “Technical people” like to reproach “humanists” for ignoring some technical issues. There is some truth in this. For example, not every certified historian will be able to clearly talk about the construction technologies of ancient civilizations. Meanwhile, this is a very important question. After all, if it suddenly turns out that ancient structures, such as the Egyptian pyramids, it was simply impossible to build at that time with pure technical point point of view, this will cast doubt on the entire story as a whole. However, this is exactly what supporters of alternative history claim. How, for example, were the ancient Egyptians able to lay 2.5 million stone blocks in the Cheops pyramid in 20 years? After all, if you do the math, it turns out that they had to lay 1 block in 4 minutes without a break. Meanwhile, the average mass of the blocks of the Cheops pyramid is 2.5 tons. How did people manage to do this, who at that time had not even invented the wheel? This would seem to contradict the very laws of physics. However, if we take into account the number of workers involved in the construction of the pyramid (from 10,000 to 20,000 according to archaeological data), then everything will fall into place. For example, it was enough to have only 350 workers in a quarry to mine 2.5 million blocks over 20 years (for this, one worker needed to mine 1 block in 1 day). Thus, the seemingly unrealistic task of manufacturing 1 block in 4 minutes of continuous work (without taking into account the number of workers) turns into a completely real figure, if we take into account the number of workers.
In general, the phrase: “it could not have been done” has become the hallmark of alternative history. So, in one of his films, Andrei Sklyarov, trying to refute the traditional version of history, gives the following argument. The most modern lifting crane can lift no more than 100 tons. For example, when installing a monument to Marshal Zhukov, which weighs 100 tons, an entire tank division had to be involved. Meanwhile, in Egypt you can find monolithic stone blocks weighing 200 tons or more. How did the ancient Egyptians move such blocks, not having at their disposal not only mechanical means of transportation, but even an ordinary cart on wheels? And again the illusion of a contradiction between official history and common sense arises. However, Sklyarov’s adventurism becomes obvious if we take into account several interesting facts from history: the movement of 48 columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral (each weighing 115 tons), as well as the installation of the Alexander Column, which weighs 600 tons; An event such as the transportation of the famous “Thunder Stone,” which weighed about 1,600 tons, is also surprising (at least a tank army was needed here, if you follow Sklyarov’s logic). Meanwhile, all these events took place in the 18th-19th centuries even before the onset of the industrial revolution. Of course, the level of development at this time was much higher than that of the ancient Egyptians, but it was still used exclusively manual labor and therefore comparison of the methods of ancient engineers and engineers of the 18th-19th centuries is more correct.
However, all the arguments given above, while refuting one alternative theory, give rise to another. In this sense, alternative history behaves like a mythical hydra, in which a new one grows in place of one severed head. And now, we already have a newly minted alternativeist, Alexei Kungurov, declaring that St. Petersburg could not have been built in the 18th-19th centuries by ordinary Russian peasants, and, therefore, it was built by some highly developed civilization. Even Andrei Sklyarov’s team is confused by this turn of events, declaring on their website that this theory “looks more like a bad joke.” No, gentlemen of the alternatives, this is not a joke at all, this is the same crazy theory generated by you and brought to the point of absurdity by your followers.
The fundamental mistake of alternativeists is to contrast history with the natural and exact sciences. Historical science not only does not conflict with them, but, on the contrary, widely uses the methods of astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, biology and a number of other sciences, for example, in establishing the dating of historical events. On the contrary, alternative history, opposing traditional history, inevitably comes into conflict with all sciences that are in one way or another connected with historical science.
However, many people, especially those with a technical mindset, have a certain stereotype. In their view, historians are people exclusively humanitarian warehouse minds, whose knowledge is just the result of memorizing information from a textbook without any critical reflection. Here again we are faced with a misunderstanding of how historical science works. First of all, you need to understand that there are professional historians, and there are simply certified specialists (history department graduates, school history teachers). The latter play a very important role in the education system - they teach children the basics of history. Naturally, with the amount of information that a school teacher must learn (history from ancient times to the present day), it is impossible to demand from him a thorough knowledge of material on any specific special topic. The schoolteacher acts only as a spokesman on behalf of science. If a school textbook contains some fact that the historian has no opportunity to verify, then he is forced to rely on it. But this does not mean that he blindly believes in what is written in the book. What is taking place here is not faith, but rather trust and respect for centuries-old scientific achievements, since every historian knows how seriously any scientific fact undergoes testing. Thus, the reliability of written sources is verified by archaeological finds, which, in turn, are subjected to natural scientific research (for example, radiocarbon dating). The natural scientific methods themselves complement each other (for example, accuracy radiocarbon dating significantly increased using the dendrochronology method). Finally, there is such an auxiliary discipline as experimental archaeology. The essence of this discipline is that ancient (forgotten) technologies are recreated on the basis of written sources and archaeological artifacts. Experimental archeology plays a very important role in debunking pseudoscientific theories. Suffice it to recall how many categorical statements there were from alternativeists regarding the use of brass instruments for cutting granite. However, experimental archeology has refuted this myth. The famous British Egyptologist Denis Stokes, based on the study of ancient drawings and artifacts, recreated copies of copper saws and tubular drills, and proved that they are suitable for cutting granite if sand is used as an abrasive.
Thus, history is the result of a complex of scientific works by an entire army of scientists of completely different profiles. If it is a military story, then it is examined by military experts, if it is political history, then it is studied by political scientists, if it is the history of state and law, then it is studied by lawyers, if it is the history of art, then art historians study it, if it is the history of languages, then linguists study it, if it is the history of science and technology, then physicists study it, chemists, biologists, astronomers, engineers. As a result, millions of monographs appear on various topics, the main conclusions of which appear on the pages of textbooks.
Non-professional historians can only rely on accuracy and reliability scientific achievements. Of course, even scientists can make mistakes. But, as a rule, these errors are corrected by the scientists themselves. Therefore, the statements of supporters of alternative history that it was an alternative view of science that has always been its main engine are just a gross substitution of concepts - alternative history (pseudoscience) should be distinguished from alternative historical scientific theories that do not reject the scientific concept as a whole, but say only about partial errors (however, not always justified).
While criticizing historical science for its conservatism, alternativeists, on the contrary, show an excessive readiness to jump to hasty conclusions. Thus, having discovered on some European maps of the 18th century, instead of the Russian Empire, an unknown country called Tartaria, supporters of the “New Chronology” loudly declared: there was no Russian Empire before the Pugachev uprising of 1773-1775. didn't exist. Next are links to European maps, as well as to the Britannica encyclopedia of 1771-1773. It actually depicts a country (not a state!) called Tartaria. And it also talks about the Russian Empire, formed in 1721 and including the lands of this very Tartaria (Fomenko and Nosovsky don’t say a single word about this). Apparently, we are not talking about the political map of Asia, but about the ethno-historical one. This is confirmed by other sources (for example, Starchevsky’s dictionary), which specifically states that Tartary is “a general and vague name, which once meant most of the northern and central Asia" But even without knowing all these details, it’s enough just to think about the logic of the supporters of the “New Chronology” to be convinced of its absence. Let's say Tartary existed. Let’s say after its fall a global falsification began, which supposedly continues today. Even entire cities, such as Novgorod, were moved to another place, which puzzles archaeologists, especially considering that cultural layers were preserved during the movement. All archives around the world were rewritten. They created millions of artifacts by burying them in the ground in the hope that they would later be dug up. In general, we tried our best. But they forgot to remove maps of this very Tartaria from museums and libraries. And they not only forgot to remove it, but also continued to republish it, which is completely unforgivable for such skillful falsifiers.
A special category of alternativeists are lovers of puns (play on words), who are ready at any moment to enter into an argument with professional linguists. As a matter of fact, " scientific discoveries“Pun lovers are not scientific for the very reason that they are based on no method. In order to get the right word, pseudo-linguists resort to arbitrary machinations: they read words backwards, pull out vowels for no reason, swap syllables, identify words that sound similar, etc. No matter how strange it may sound, however, in an open discussion with linguists, pun makers often come out on top. Thus, on the air of one television program, a professional philologist entered into a discussion with Mikhail Zadornov. Zadornov stated that the word “mind” comes from the word “Ra” (the ancient Egyptian god of the Sun) and the word “mind”, therefore “mind” is a bright mind. This etymology was not to the liking of the philologist, who called it “nonsense” and explained that the word “mind” comes from the words “time” and the word “mind.” But Zadornov was not at a loss, and asked the philologist to explain the origin of the word “time.” The philologist was speechless. He didn't know what to answer. The audience applauded Zadornov, who allegedly taught the scientist a lesson. In fact, this episode is a colorful example of the superiority of self-confidence over objectivity. It was objectivity, the reluctance to deviate a single step from scientific methods, the habit of remaining silent when you don’t know and speaking when you know - this was precisely the reason that the scientist gave in to the amateur. Here scientific methods are powerless, because a real scientist follows certain scientific rules, and the amateur is free in his fantasies. To understand the absurdity of the amateurish approach to deciphering words, you just need to apply their own logic to them. Let's assume that the word "reason" is "bright mind." Therefore, “slut” is “light daub?”, “wrecked” is “light Valyukha?”, “acceleration” is “light rush?”, “confusion” is “light ford?”, “difference” is "Bright Nice?" So you can mock words ad infinitum. To do this you don't need to know anything foreign languages, nor the historical forms of these languages, much less the patterns of their development (after all, a language is not just a set of words, but a whole system that has its own rules).
Alternative history is a protest against reality, an unwillingness to accept facts as they are. The debate between historians and pseudo-historians is very reminiscent of an ancient joke.
Two acquaintances meet. One asks the other in surprise:
How are you alive? And they told me that you died.
As you can see, I'm standing in front of you.
Yes, but I believe the one who told me about this more than you.
It is very difficult to convince such people. You show them a document, they declare it a fake, you show them an artifact, they declare it a fake. However, this does not at all prevent them from searching from thousands of documents and millions of artifacts for those single specimens on which their pseudoscientific theory is based.
Artem Pukhov especially for
