Napoleonic Wars and Year 1812: when did they happen?

The Puzzle
To be honest, with every day that passes, I realize that I understand the mechanism used to fake our history less and less. I am well past the point when I thought that a simple manipulation could be the answer to historical shenanigans. I still don't know if some sort of a matrix could explain things we see. God's ways are definitely mysterious. Ultimately, I keep on lying to myself that I will be able to crack the puzzle. We have a narrative superimposed over the existing historical evidence of physical nature, and these two do not jive. This article requires some serious perceptional stretching, because without it, certain occurrences are not possible. Please watch the below video by Michelle Gibson. She is way to smart for me, but her hypothesis of the time loop could be something to explore further. If the 1942 Philadelphia Experiment did create some sort of a time loop, jacking everything up in the process, we would have to upgrade our investigative tactics.

With that in mind, a critical analysis of anachronistic issues pertaining to the so-called Napoleonic Wars, could be pretty important for establishing an uncorrupted sequence of looped historical events.
  • Anachronistic - belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.
Identifying anachronistic patterns could assist us with placing various events on the timeline. Some of the events grouped via such an approach are traditionally separated by hundreds and thousands of years. Could some of the events (and empires) be one and the same? You be the judge. For additional information I suggest the following articles:
One of the barely mentioned details about any item of antiquity is the date of its discovery. Meanwhile, the vast majority of everything "antique" was unearthed after approximately 1750s. In all fairness, it was the 19th century when things started getting discovered.
  • Just think about it... stuff was buried all over the place for (in some cases) millennia, and people did not care.
  • How could it be that people did not care?
When were major discoveries made? For a few of these (like Egypt and Pompeii) we'd have to filter through some creatively convoluted BS narrative lines.
Where are all them ancient cities discovered between 500 and 1600 AD? The narrative prefers to stay silent on this particular issue, because it has no answer. Historians sure like to speculate to make end meet. Apparently, due to the quality of life, and people being too busy with survival, they were not really interested in archaeology. Meanwhile, ever since "discoveries" made by Poggio Bracciolini, "discovering" antique items became highly profitable? Fun fact:
  • The Sleeping Cupid was a sculpture created by Michelangelo, which he artificially aged to make it look like an antique.
  • It was a significant work in establishing the reputation of the young Michelangelo, who was 21 at the time.
  • Michelangelo (1475-1564 AD)
We do have a pattern, where things did not get discovered shortly after they were "lost". Instead, a very long time had to pass for the mentioned things to get discovered. Occam's razor is an interestingly defined problem-solving principle.
  • It is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity.".
  • It is sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one."
  • Source
Well, I like them both. Entities (kings, empires, wars, earthquakes etc.) should not be multiplied without necessity, and the simplest explanation (entities were multiplied due to a necessity) is probably the best one.
  • The timeline was adjusted to accommodate hundreds of multiplied entities...
  • Don't we have way too many different (plausibly explained) Ferdinands, Charleses, Louises, Carls, Ivans, Alexanders, Philips, etc?
  • These seven names account for hundreds of different monarchs.
KD: Could this be our simplest explanation?
200 years
Who knows, may be there were only 200-250 years separating 500 AD and 1900 AD. I understand that for an unprepared reader this idea sounds pretty ridiculous, but... certain things do point in that direction. For additional information please consider:
The above means that dates of i492, 1492, 1644 and 1700 are covering same events. On paper, these events account for 1400 years of history, while in reality they only cover a 200 year span.
  • 1400 years is being very modest. In my opinion we know nothing material about the events predating ~475 AD.
  • Naturally, 200 years of events and characters were doubled, tripled, quadrupled and so on.

What's in a name?
I've mentioned it before, and have to say it again. Everything pertaining to our history is more or less a lie. Any book I quote from is merely a reflection of the historical narrative they had at the time of publication. That said, we have two war names to address:
  • Napoleonic Wars - The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions.
  • Northern War - The Great Northern War (1700–1721) was a conflict in which a coalition led by the Tsardom of Russia successfully contested the supremacy of the Swedish Empire in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe.
I doubt that we have any plans of renaming World War II to something else. As a matter of fact, were we to rename WW2, and assign it a different name, that would've been straight up weird.

And while this book is nothing but an 1815 narrative (teaching people what they were supposed to know/understand about this war), its intro is worth paying attention to.


The participants
Without looking into it, even the narrative can surprise a few people out there. At first glance, things appear to be pretty simple. Napoleon invaded a few places and tried to conquer Russia. That's where it just about ended. Yet... a 12 year long military conflict is a pretty serious event.


So... what do we have? Russia, Prussia, Spain, Austria, Iran on the left, and Russia, Prussia, Spain, Austria, Iran on the right. I'm pretty sure that our narrative writers have it all figured it out (coalition dates break down and things like that), but...
  • I do not think we are being shown the real enemy. I'm inclined to entertain an idea, where the participants we see above, represent only one side of the "Napoleonic/Northern" wars. Well, may be the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran could be an exception...

Who was the real enemy?
In Russia, there is a monument titled "Grateful Russia to the Heroes of 1812". It's located in Smolensk and was dedicated in 1913. The monument is the center piece of Heroes Remembrance Square and was put in place on the 100th anniversary of the 1812 war. It features a large boulder on top of which there are two eagles, representing the armies of Barclay-de-Tolly and Bagration, defending their nest, representing Russia, against an armored Gaul who symbolizes Napoleon's Grand Armée. This monument has since become one of the most famous symbols of Smolensk.

The pattern of anachronistic representations of seemingly recent (1812) events keeps on popping up, doesn't it. In this case we have at least two anachronisms.
  • 1. Armored Gaul who symbolizes Napoleon's Grand Armée
    • This "Gaul" sure does look like your average ancient Roman soldier
  • 2. The map of Russia

Let's start with the map. Per the narrative, we know that in 1812, Russia was extending all the way to the Pacific ocean.



Why would the map of Russia, depicted on the above monument dedicated to the French invasion of 1812 be so much smaller? There are only two possible answers.
  • 1. The artist only wanted to show the European part of the vast Russian Empire.
    • That, I would imagine, would have been pretty disrespectful to all the soldiers recruited from the eastern part of the empire.
  • 2. This is the true size of Russia during the war of 1812.
I will go with the second option, because this is more consistent with my opinion based on the contents of this blog.

What's on the map of 1812?
If the historical narrative is lying, and in 1812 Russia was much smaller... would there be any "between the lines" evidence to substantiate such a claim? Let's see what historical maps have a similar outline.
  • Hessel Gerritsz's map of Russia, first issued 1613, was published by Blaeu after he acquired the plate following Gerritsz's death in 1632.
1812 vs 1613

The following territories were not yet annexed on the above 1613 map. Yet, those territories were already present on the 1812 map installed on the monument dedicated in 1913.
Our 1613 map is missing the above regions. Let's continue with the progression, and see when those become a part of Russia. Though we should probably use the following terminology:
1812 vs 1698

The above 1698 map does not have the Circassian region annexed yet. If I'm reading the narrative correctly, its annexation did not happen until 1864. This "1864" appears to be a rather entertaining issue. Why do we have it on the 1812 map? Even if we are seeing the European part of a much bigger Russia (which I seriously doubt), the Circassian portion should have never been included on the 1812 map.

The Enemy...
Don't ask me which maps are real, and which ones were doctored, for I really do not know. For myself, the totality of circumstances suggests that these two could be more realistic than some other ones.









1754 I-e Carte de l’Asie-1.jpg


1688 Publication
A geographical dictionary representing the present and ancient names of all the counties, provinces, remarkable cities, universities, ports, towns, mountains, seas, streights, fountains, and rivers of the whole world : their distances, longitudes, and latitudes : with a short historical account of the same, and their present state : to which is added an index of the ancient and Latin names.

In 1688, Russia was "bounded" on the East by the Ob and Ural (Jaickz) Rivers. Trying to figure out the width of Russia in German miles does not really correspond with the geographical boundaries provided in the above text.
  • Jump to: Tartary
  • In 1688, Tartary was "bounded" on the West by Russia.

So, what's going on on the above maps and in the text? Who's lying? I believe the issue we are facing could be directly related to several intertwined chronological systems. Year 1688 was not really year 1688. I have several dating versions to offer.
  • 1688 - 1152 = i536
    • Yermak, the conqueror of Siberia was born in i532.
    • Yermak "conquered" Siberia in i581.
    • i581 + 1152 = 1733
    • In 1688, they had to wait for additional 45 years to conquer Siberia.
  • i688 + 1152 = 1840
  • 1688 = i480 = 1789
    • 1700 - (҂3)208 = i492
      • 1700 - 1688 = 12
    • i492 - 12 = i480
    • Yermak "conquered" Siberia in i581.
    • i581 - i480 = 101
      • In 1688, they had to wait for additional 101 years to conquer Siberia.
    • 1688 +101 = 1789
In other words, maps and texts do make sense if... 1688 was chronologically equal to 1536 and 1480. The date of 1840 brings us into the 19th century, which is pretty exciting, but that's a beast of its own, and requires a totally separate article. Anyways, I think this is about the only way for the below 1812 map to be possible.


Note: Use this link to better understand my calculations. I know that this stuff is super confusing.

France. What is it?
I plan on speculating that the following three (+1) empires were grossly misrepresented, and were indeed one and the same.


Carolingian Empire

Napoleonic France

Chronological Pancake Stack
We are used to the time being a linear thing. But with "God working in mysterious ways" and ouroboros taken into consideration, may be it's not as linear as we think. This is pretty nuts, but who knows?
  • What if timelines collapse onto themselves?
  • I don't really believe that, but it could really explain a few things we are dealing with.

These are dudes, who are not supposed to be dressed like this. It's been over a thousand years since this fashion was in style. The narrative will give us a bunch of BS, to justify the attire.
  • Considering that most, if not all, ancient roman busts were discovered after 1800, this pattern is highly suspicious.

While I did try to address certain issues pertaining to the below two monuments in a different article, I do have to mention these same two monuments in this article as well.
Per the narrative, the Minin and Pozharsky monument was installed in 1818 due to there being a delay caused by the French invasion of 1812. The Alexander column (installed in 1834) ended up being the very first monument dedicated to the war of 1812.

The Alexander Column
The monument was raised after the Russian victory in the war with Napoleon's France. The column is named for Emperor Alexander I of Russia, who reigned from 1801–25.
  • The Alexander Column was designed by Auguste de Montferrand, built between 1830 and 1834 with Swiss-born architect Antonio Adamini, and unveiled on 30 August 1834.
  • The pedestal of the Alexander Column is decorated with symbols of military glory, sculpted by Giovanni Battista Scotti.
    • Scotti died in 1830.
  • The first image is a bas-relief depicting winged figures holding up a plaque bearing the words "To Alexander I from a grateful Russia". Flanking these figures are depictions of old Russian armour:

The other three sides are decorated with bas-reliefs featuring allegorical figures of Wisdom and Abundance, Justice and Mercy, Peace and Victory, the last holding a shield bearing the dates 1812, 1813 and 1814. These compositions are enhanced by depictions of Ancient Roman military symbols and Russian armour.



Who knows, may be we should do some mathematics with 1812, 1813 and 1814. The sum equals 5439. Anno Mundi of BC/AD is 5508. Keeping Fomenko's 1152 AD in mind, certain calculations could definitely be made.


Questions: Which part of the above monument suggests that it was dedicated to the French invasion of Russia in 1812?
  • Where is a single person, or piece of equipment pertaining to 1812?
  • If this monument does pertain to the war of 1812, then what do we not know about our history?
  • Which war was this monument really dedicated to?
Minin and Pozharsky
This particular monument dedicated to the 1612 Battle of Moscow is no less ridiculous than the previous one. The narrative is clearly lying about everything pertaining to it. Let's start with the rear bas-relief.
  • The bas-relief is dedicated to the victory of the people's militias led by Prince Pozharsky.
  • The plot is also divided into two parts.
  • On the left, the Poles fleeing from Moscow, looking with horror at the victors, on the right Pozharsky, leading the brave warriors, tramples on horseback and drives the enemy away with a sword.
Right after the Fire of Moscow of 1812, Russians dedicated this monument to the Battle of Moscow of 1612.
  • We have to enjoy the irony here.

What did the artist smoke when he depicted the events of 1612 in this manner? Where are the stirrups, and why does it look like Dacians are duking it out with some warriors of Joshua at Jericho?
  • Events depicted on the above bas-relief simply had to happen before 750 AD, if we follow the dogmatic chronology.
Then we have the main theme of this "dedicated to 1612" monument".

Interestingly enough, but the Russian version of the page dedicated to this monument has the following words:
  • In the first draft, Minin stood in a belted chiton, in a raincoat, and pointed to Moscow with his outstretched left hand.
  • Prince Pozharsky, also dressed in a tunic, in a strongly fluttering cloak and a Roman helmet, rushed forward.
    • A chiton is a form of tunic that fastens at the shoulder, worn by men and women of Ancient Greece and Rome.
Well, what do we have here in 1896? Too bad that we do not have any detailed 19th century photographs of this wonderful monument.


Now let's take a look at the shield held by Pozharsky.


On the shield we have the Holy face of Jesus. Why would Pozharsky in 1612 have Jesus on his shield? Per the narrative:
  • In 1552 the Russian army undertook a campaign against Kazan. The chronicles tell that Tsar Ivan the Terrible, having arrived at the walls of the besieged city, commanded "to unfold the Christian banners, that is to say, the banner, on it the image of the Savior." Further in the chronicle it was specified that "the banner was written on a worm-like stone", that is, it was crimson. After the capture of Kazan, a solemn prayer service was served at the banner of the "Most Merciful Savior", and the tsar ordered to build a church on the site where the banner stood during the siege of the city. This historical banner has survived to this day in the Kremlin Armory. It has a length of 4 arshins 2 vershoks (about 3 meters), a height of 2 arshins 2 vershoks (1.5 meters). The image of Christ is embroidered in gold, silver and silk on scarlet taffeta; there are two crosses and five stars on the slope; the edge is trimmed with gold and crimson silk.
Look at some of these images to get a better idea on how various artists of the past perceived Ivan the Terrible.


As far as Pozharsky goes, his alleged flag had "The Appearance of the Archangel Michael to Joshua Son of Nun."


It is my understanding that in Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia they call Joshua Iisús Navín.
  • "Jesus" is the English derivative of the Greek transliteration of "Yehoshua" via Latin.
  • In the Septuagint, all instances of the word "Yehoshua" are rendered as "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsoūs), the closest Greek pronunciation of the Aramaic: ישוע‎ Yeshua.
  • Thus, in modern Greek, Joshua is called "Jesus son of Naue" (τοῦ Ναυή) to differentiate him from Jesus.
  • This is also true in some Slavic languages following the Eastern Orthodox tradition (e.g. "Иисус Навин", Iisús Navín, in Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian, but not Czech).


It's hard not to mention that Yermak had a flag similar to the one Pozharsky had. What a coincidence...
  • The Armory Chamber has 3 blue banners of Yermak, under which he conquered the Siberian Khanate of Kuchum in 1582.
  • Banner webs are more than 3 yards long (2 meters); one embroidered with the images of Christ and St. Michael, on the other two - a lion and a unicorn, ready for battle.

The Jericho Cap Helmet aka Çiçak
- Lobster-tailed Pot Helmet -
Next in order is the helmet. This helmet is the only item of equipment shared by both, the rear bas-relief and the main theme of the Minin and Pozharsky monument.
  • The helmet was allegedly made for Michael of Russia (1596-1645).
  • This helmet is also present on the first bas-relief image belonging to the Alexander Column.
  • It's depicted twice there.. at the bottom, and over the breastplate of Alexis of Russia (1629-1676).
Go figure which one of the three it really belonged to. With the way things are going, it could be all three, or neither one...



Simon says: The lobster-tailed pot helmet had an oriental origin, being derived from the Ottoman Turkish çiçak (pronounced 'chichak', Turkish – çiçek Çiçek means flower in Turkish which is attributed to the shape of the helmets top side) helmet, which developed in the 16th century.
  • It was adopted by the Christian states of Europe in the early 17th century.
  • The chichak was almost identical to the later European helmets – it had a forward projecting peak, sliding bar nasal, cheekpieces and neck guard; only its tendency to have a conical rather than rounded skull was distinctive.
  • The European derivative of this helmet saw widespread use during the Thirty Years War when it became known as the zischägge, a Germanisation of the original Turkish name.
  • Lobster-tailed pot helmet - Wikipedia
The Thirty Years' War: It was a conflict fought largely within the Holy Roman Empire from 1618 to 1648. Considered one of the most destructive wars in European history.

- I've seen this outline before -
  • Estimates of military and civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, while up to 60% of the population may have died in some areas of Germany.
  • Related conflicts: the Eighty Years' War, the War of the Mantuan Succession, the Franco-Spanish War, and the Portuguese Restoration War.
Visited this Eighty Years' War wikipage, and couldn't help myself...
  • War picture from the struggle of the Dutch against Spain, probably the siege of Ostend

Wars: I'm not buying into wars lasting 30, 90, 100 years. I understand that on paper we can tolerate a 500 year long war, but that's just ridiculous.

Back to the Jericho Helmet
Now, this "Jericho Hat" name is straight up weird. If this helmet has never been to, or came from Jericho, or if its real owner had nothing todo with Jericho... why would they call it the "Jericho Hat"? If it was not for the Battle of Jericho, would we even care about some Jericho city?
  • Meanwhile: The lack of archaeological evidence have led archaeologists like William G. Dever to characterise the story of the fall of Jericho as "invented out of whole cloth".
  • Scholars agree almost unanimously that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.
Who knows, maybe the wrong location is the true reason they are unable to find any archaeological evidence of the Battle of Jericho.

Joshua and Moses, or Minin and Pozharsky?
Lithograph by J.G. Schreiner, c. 1840.


The Three Crowns
On the Jericho Hat, also known as the helmet worn by Pozharsky, made for Michael of Russia, but named after Alexander Nevsky (Neufsky, Newsky), we have three crowns. To get a better idea of what crowns we are talking about, visit this link.
  • There are some differences between the museum version and the helmet you see below. What that means I'm not sure, because there is only one (that I know of) helmet with three crowns in existence. If you figure it out, please share.

What do these there crowns symbolize? Here is version #1.
By the way, being a "Tyrant" was not necessarily a bad thing...
  • The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler", and this in turn from the Greek τύραννος tyrannos "monarch, ruler of a polis"; tyrannos in its turn has a Pre-Greek origin, perhaps from Lydian.
3 crowns.jpg

Then we have our #2 version. That "Famous Tyrant" John Basilovitz (above) has to be our Ivan the Terrible.
  • aka Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1530-1584)
But we have another dude with the same name, who was not a "Famous Tyrant" - Ivan the Great.
  • aka Ivan III Vasilyevich (1440-1505)
    • #III was the grand father of #IV
In 1472, Ivan III got married to Sophia Palaiologos. She was a Byzantine princess, member of the Imperial Palaiologos family. Starting with 1472, Russian acquired a double-header of their own... because of this marriage, obviously


I am not sure where Russians lost the third crown present on the Emblem of the Palaiologos Dynasty, but here is what the emblem looks like.


Version #3. Per the available narrative we get the following:
  • In 1693, Franz Timmerman received the order to build merchant ships in Arkhangelsk and trade with Europe.
  • He was told to display the two-headed eagle spread with wings, with three crowns over it.
I am not sure where to get the mentioned 1693 depiction. Here is 1696.


Version #4 is my hypothesis. Three crowns on the helmet symbolize three kingdoms:


St. Alexander vs St. Joshua
Alexander Nevsky vs. Iisús Navín

Source - Source
As far as I understand, we do not have any serious archaeological evidence of the events presented in the Bible.
Alexander Nevsky
I think there is a probability where our Alexander Nevsky and Joshua aka Jesus son of Naue were one and the same. Alexander Nevsky (same goes for Joshua, I guess) is a pretty questionable historical figure, but I believe there is a real individual hiding behind the PTB lies. As it stands, the reason he is "Nevsky" is because of the 1240 AD Battle of the Neva.
  • The existence of the battle is only known from Russian sources.
  • There is no reference to a battle of the Neva in Swedish sources.
  • The first source to mention the battle is the Novgorod First Chronicle from the 14th century.
    • The earliest extant copy of the chronicle is dated to the second half of the 13th century.
      • When did they find this "dated to..." copy?
    • First printed in 1841.
From Tales of the Life and Courage of the Pious and Great Prince Alexander found in the Second Pskovian Chronicle, circa 1260–1280, comes one of the first known references to the Great Prince (Alexander Nevsky):
  • The Second Pskov Chronicle is represented only by the Synodal copy, which is a copy of a codex made in 1486 that condenses the texts of other chronicles and includes material not found elsewhere.
Ngram in English


Ngram in Russian

And while I'm "ngraming", check out the Russian chart for Minin and Pozharsky. I did one in English as well. I can't figure out when first books pertaining to the actual people start popping up. Latin word "minin" is throwing the chart off. It looks like it was in the 19th century, but I'm not sure.



KD: So much for them history defining heroes... Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky.

Geographical Names
Here we have one additional reason why figuring out the truth is so hard. Sometimes, in order to alter the history, they simply needed to get rid of a geographical name, and follow up with a few extra steps. Here is an example pertaining to our Alexander Nevsky.

At the same time if our Livonia (we actually have two: northern and southern) was located at a different location, the entire meaning of the war changes. So does the historical narrative.
  • As you can see, our city of Kazan was most likely located in Southern Livonia.
  • That would mean that a person represented by Alexander Nevsky was not fighting dudes from the west.
  • That would make it a war with the Khanate of Kazan

Geographical Names and Titles
Let's use General Suvorov as an example. This particular dude is something else. Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov (1729 - 1800) was a Russian general in service of the Russian Empire. He was Count of Rymnik, Count of the Holy Roman Empire, Prince of Italy, and the last Generalissimo of the Russian Empire.


  • He had Italian rank of Generalissimo, was a Count of the Holy Roman Empire while being a Russian general in service of the Russian Empire.
    • What kind of baloney is that? None of it makes sense.
  • And then we have this Count of Rymnik. One would expect something Rome-related by now, but nope, not this time.
  • Rymnik - is a city in Buzău County, Romania, in the historical region of Muntenia. It was first attested in a document of 1439, and raised to the rank of municipiu in 1994.
    • In 1859 its population was 5707 people.
    • In 1854 the city was almost destroyed by fire and was rebuilt.
  • At least Joseph II gave him a decent title. Catherine the Great threw him under the bus with this Count Rymnik.
    • It's like me being made a Count of Enumclaw.
    • Well, may be not so bad, for Enumclaw has a bigger wikipage than this Râmnicu Sărat.
When in doubt, look east of Muscovy, and play with spelling.





1720 Map

Question: what did Mr. Suvorov get his Rymnik title for?
  • Version #1: For fighting at some village named Râmnicu Sărat.
  • Version #2: For fighting at Rhymnic Mountains (vs. Tartary?), after which the mountains were renamed to Ural Mountains.
Names and Titles
I am not sure how we can be positive on anything historical, including names and titles. We have these Russian Czars named John Basileus, along with a whole bunch of other "Basileuses" out there. For Russian Czars like Ivan the Great and Ivan the Terrible, Basileus (per the narrative) means that their father's name was Basili (or Vasili, or something like that). Well, I'm not that sure any more.



Then we have the "Title issue".
  • Basileus is a Greek term and title that has signified various types of monarchs in history.
  • Basileus - Wikipedia


How about this "Roman-Basilides" stuff and the rest of the mumbo-jumbo?


Note: I almost forgot that Ivan the Great was also Ioannes Severus. Now take a look at this:
Back to 1812, etc.
The 1812 Fire of Moscow persisted from 14 to 18 September 1812 and all but destroyed the city. The Russian troops and most of the remaining residents had abandoned the city of Moscow on 14 September 1812 just ahead of French Emperor Napoleon's troops entering the city after the Battle of Borodino. Before leaving Moscow, Count Rostopchin is supposed to have given orders to the head of police (and released convicts) to have the Kremlin and major public buildings (including churches and monasteries) set on fire. During the following days the fires spread.
Check out this description of the same event published around 1837.



Could it be that our narrative compilers came up with multiple different scenarios for single devastating events? I think it could.

KD summary: Ok, that should have been like three separate articles. I will try to summarize the above with this.
  • I have hard time comprehending how some things are possible in a physical world with a linear time line.
  • Thousands of physical "ancient" artifacts (especially Roman ones) were discovered after 1800. Barely any were discovered prior to 1800.
    • The appearance of most does not support the notion of them spending thousands of years in the dirt.
  • Our circa 1800 elite is dressed like if they were ancient Romans.
  • Our 19th century monuments are predominantly "ancient" in nature.
  • Our 19th century "Christian" architecture is nothing but some ancient Greek and Roman "Revival" BS.
  • I think that this "ancient" style was present prior to 1770ish.
  • Wars, Empires and World Historical Individuals were not nearly as numerous as they want us to believe.
  • Between 475 AD and 2021 AD we only have 300-350 years of real time.
  • The tech introduced after ~1850 AD was the tech present prior to 475 AD.
    • According to my calculations, 475 AD was approximately 150-200 years before 1850 AD.
  • "Napoleonic" wars happened many different times on paper, but only once in reality.
  • This war was global, we just need to connect all simultaneous (and sometimes not) conflicts into one.
  • Who were the enemies in this war? I think these bigger dudes fought each other.
    • The smaller ones are us. We were probably used, but it was not our conflict.

  • We need to figure out who Pugachev really was, and what the PTB are hiding behind the so-called Pugachev's Rebellion (1773-1775).
    • There could be multiple other (spread out in time) historical names attached to the same character represented by Pugachev.
    • The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was, imho, a part of the same event.
  • The magnitude of such historical lies is hard to fathom. But... we need to remember them worlds "dreamed up" by the below individuals in a relatively short period of time:
All of the above is just a hypothesis. I'm still trying to figure stuff out.


New member
Jan 19, 2021
Reaction score
By the way, on the monument to Minin and Pozharsky it is written - “CITIZEN (!) MININ AND PRINCE POZHARSKY, GRATEFUL RUSSIA. LETA 1818 ".
In the history of Russia, no emphasis was ever placed on citizenship. But in Rome, it was important whether a citizen or not a citizen.
  • A Avatar

  • Sonofabor

    Jan 11, 2021
    Reaction score
    Who were the enemies in this war? I think these bigger dudes fought each other.
    • The smaller ones are us. We were probably used, but it was not our conflict.
    Wow. I usually feel deeply humbled by your research; now I know the probable existential reason for that sensation.
    Last edited:


    Feb 26, 2021
    Reaction score
    I like that you contemplate KD. my offering here is minimal but I think the "in plain site" holds true in various publications ... like an idiom such as this:

    "roamin' hands have rushin' fingers"
    Oct 29, 2020
    Reaction score
    Googled for some additional 1812 Russian memorials. There is no surprise there. Those either loved their role playing, or were genuine ancients.

    Triumphal Arch of Moscow
    The third and the oldest surviving Triumphal Arch in Moscow was built in 1829–34 on to Joseph Bové's designs in order to commemorate Russia's victory over Napoleon.
    Moscow_05-2017_img17_Triumphal_Gate s.jpg
    • It replaced an earlier wooden structure built by the veterans of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814.
    • The arch was built in brick and lined with ashlar.
    • The columns and statues were of cast iron.
    • A seiuga (six-horse chariot) was designed by Giovanni Vitali.
      • The seiuga is the six-horse chariot. It was used in ancient Rome for sport, transportation, and ceremonies.
      • The six-horse chariot was raced more rarely and requiring a high degree of skill from the driver.

    The bilingual inscription in Russian and Latin ran as follows:

    • To the blessed memory of Alexander I who raised from ashes and adorned with many memorials of paternal care this former capital that had been committed to the mercy of fire during the invasion of the Gauls and twelve other nations.
    • KD: ...invasion of the Gauls. Right...

    The arch was dismantled in 1936 as part of Joseph Stalin's reconstruction of downtown Moscow. The current arch was built to Bove's original designs in 1966–68.


    Arches of Triumph in Novocherkassk
    Arches of Triumph in Novocherkassk are monuments of Russian Classicist architecture. The monumental complex consists of two triumphal arches western and northern, situated respectively in the south-west and north of Novocherkassk. Built in 1817 to commemorate the victory in the Patriotic War of 1812, they symbolize the military contribution of the Don Cossacks in the struggle against Napoleon.

    Two identical arches were built in the style of late classicism and were designed by Luigi Rusca.
    • A massive pylon of each of the two is cut by an arched opening and decorated with a strict paneled belt.
    • The entourage of a powerful Doric order is supported by twelve columns.
    • The ensemble of the northern arch is crowned by bronze military armor from the trophies: mails, flags, sabers, shields and guns.
    • In combination with the figures of Gloria flying above the arches, armor strengthens the special memorial sound of the monument.

    Below is Alexander the Great from the Battle of Issus. Just saying...


    Narva Triumphal Arch
    The Narva Triumphal Arch was erected in Saint Petersburg in 1814 to commemorate the Russian victory over Napoleon. The wooden structure was constructed on the Narva highway with the purpose of greeting the soldiers who were returning from abroad after their victory over Napoleon.

    A sculptor Vasily Demut-Malinovsky was responsible for the arch's sculptural decor.
    • As has been conventional since Imperial Roman times, sculptures of Pheme offering laurel wreaths fill the spandrels of the central arch.
    • Nike, the Goddess of Victory, surmounts the arch, in a triumphal car drawn by six horses, sculpted by Peter Clodt von Jürgensburg.
    • he main entablature breaks boldly forward over paired Composite columns that flank the opening and support colossal sculptures.
      • From Rus WikiPage: The sculptures of Roman soldiers were replaced with copper knights of Old Rus.

    KD: Once again, what does any of this have to do with the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815)?


    New member
    Jun 19, 2021
    Reaction score
    Great article. PS Thanks for mentioning Michelle Gibson she is truly awesome. So good to see her doing well on YouTube as she gave up her Bitchute posts last year and her website is chaotic to browse through.


    Jun 19, 2021
    Reaction score
    Armored Gaul who symbolizes Napoleon's Grand Armée
    I don't understand.
    There are more Gaul things portrayed as "the" French under Napoleon.

    The French revolution allegdedly "adopted" or re-evented after centuries their Gaul ancestors during the revolution aigainst the kings and nobles.

    But Napoleon replaced the Gaul rooster back with the Eagle.
    But in the meantime Napoleon sort of killed the Pope too.

    As far as I know the double head eagle symbolize the roman Emperor, while the Roman "soon to be but not yet" Emperor (say apprentice or King) gets the single head Eagle.
    To me it seems in this statue is like Napoleon disguised as Roman soldier (but he is not) attacks the Roman Empire.

    In the light of the Nicolas / Napoleon connection:
    There is a statue of Napoleon as a Roman Empetot at the ... St Nicolas square in Corsica.
    * re-evented means re-INvented
    This is by the way an even more stupid story to fit the narrative:
    In Amsterdam, a Tale of Wars, Friendship and Loves Lost (Published 2015)
    Last edited:
  • A Avatar

  • Llend

    New member
    Jun 29, 2021
    Reaction score
    Double headed Eagle.

    This image has been cargo culted more than most. It’s origins is ancient, and its association with rulers is just about the only thing that remains in the memory of most who claim aspects of this image as their own.
    The old ‘Akkadian’ statues of the four winged kings or persons (two wings up and two down) are related to the double headed eagle in meaning. The original idea of this double-bird is to signify to a transformation, the will to rule.
    Like the Ruler, the bird lives above (in the sky), but it doesn’t gain sustenance from the air—it darts down to the ground, into the ocean, or to other birds at incredible speeds and gains its sustenance in quick manner, with no hesitation or struggle (just premeditation and aim). The spirit of force.

    Unlike mammals, the bird egg contains all the necessary ingredients to nourish the growing baby bird, it just needs the heat from roosting. When it uses all the nutrients, the bird will crack from the egg. This is a metaphors for youth reaching a point of emergence, a fundamental shift of vulnerability to capability. The education of kings or rulers was often a major focus or practice that was held close to the lineage. So the single bird, is an image of this worldly ruler, someone who like a bird fashions him self above and knows how to find sustenance from the world below them.

    The second bird, bird head, or second set of wings is a profound transformation. Like the Phoenix emerging from its own ashes, bursting forth in flame, so to does the spiritual or loftier transformation from the worldly ruler to the inspired ‘philosopher king’, rightful king, balanced ruler, level headed leader. Here the transformation is one where knowledge reaches an epiphany—understanding bursts from the incubated egg (incubated by the spiritual fire of wisdom and knowledge). It’s the culmination of the continued ethical/spiritual/virtuous education after the ruler has already mastered the mundane or physical sensibilities. The force of spirit.
    Basically the double headed bird is a symbol for wisdom/knowledge and rule. A sign of a nobility that not only upholds law, but also virtue and righteousness. It looks both directions, as if it’s aware of both the way of severity and the way of kindness (left and right in the occidental are traditionally signified thus). The triple crown is related to this imagery, but explaining it would take a bit more time, in short the three crowns are mastery of self control, of law/morality, and of divinity.
    The single bird could in truth signify either ruler of mundane or ruler of wisdom, but the double head implies the same as the triple crown- the two heads basically signify mastery of three because the flexibility to grasp both ways is itself ‘one sort of crown’ and the traditions that offered one insight into this flexible way were typically reserved for rulers or leaders—its result is direct insight of consciousness into mind/heart, analogous to the darting motion of the bird as it swoops up its target. It would take a profound amount of resource and time to accomplish, consider how the only difference between the queen bee and the worker bees is the food that is used to nourish the larvae.

    The eternal truth this stems from is this (simplified):
    • Those who are strong now and rely on the spirit of force that is mundane—here and now—will pass. They will stumble. Those who rely on the force of spirit, instead will find their strength restored. Material might has no guarantee. Mighty empires all crumble. It can’t be reversed. However, the flame and burning of the Phoenix can symbolize the idea that material loss and suffering is never wasted for those living in spirit. The old feather burn away, so new wings can grow. The two heads are the conjoined force of spirit & the spirit of force.

    Similar articles