Question | What date? The Bronze Horseman statue of Peter the Great.

Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
884
Reaction score
1,937
The Bronze Horseman is an equestrian statue of Peter the Great in the Senate Square in Saint Petersburg, Russia. It was opened to the public on 7 (18) August, 1782. Commissioned by Catherine the Great, it was created by the French sculptor Étienne Maurice Falconet. The statue is now one of the symbols of Saint Petersburg.
640px-The_Bronze_Horseman_(St._Petersburg,_Russia).jpg

As you can see, the date on the pedestal is 1782.
  • I do not believe for a second, that whoever produced this composition would have uglified it with these poorly made characters.

The_Bronze_Horseman_(St._Petersburg,_Russia).jpg

I happened to run into this 1835 publication. It had an image of the same statue of Peter the Great.

peter-the-great-1.jpg

I'm struggling to figure out what date we have displayed on the pedestal. I tried to find a better quality image on the internet, but failed.
  • I'm not sure, but top lines appear to have different letters.
peter-the-great-2.jpg

Source


KD: What date do you think we have on the drawing?
 
Solution
Appreciate it @Cemen. That’s a very interesting take on this date, as far as dates in 7k’s go.

I can see what photographs have. At the same time on the drawing, the second digit is not as clear as it is on the old photograph you linked. The digit is either modified 2, semi-erased 8, or a weirdly looking 7. What do you think the second digit on the drawing is?

The top line on the drawing also appears slightly different if you go letter by letter.
It is even impossible to make out the inscription "Peter the Great" in the drawing. I think that the artist who painted the illustration for the book did not see the monument. Just redrawn from some other drawing. What was...
  • A Avatar
    Info

  • Banta

    Member
    Joined
    Feb 4, 2021
    Messages
    114
    Reaction score
    250
    I just want to point out that there are two inscriptions on this:
    The inscription on one side of the granite pedestal reads in Latin (Petro Primo Catarina Secunda 1782) and in Russian on the other side (Петру Перьвому Екатерина Вторая 1782), "To Peter the First from Catherine the Second."
    Falconet Notes
     
    Upvote 0

    Atlantis

    Member
    Joined
    Jan 9, 2021
    Messages
    27
    Reaction score
    44
    May I suggest that the sculpture featured is the real size of the person being immortalized. Much of St. Petersburg is made for very large beings. Just a rough guess the horsed Roman gentleman looks about 20 feet high plus or minus a foot or two. The story about the Thunderstone is unbelievable: 1500 tons rolled on bronze six inch ball bearings. There is a reason why steel of the best class is used in ball bearings. The bronze bearings would instantly start to deform under the pressure of this multitude of tons and halt the forward movement as they flattened. This is an impossible feat to be accomplished this way. Thunderstones come from the sky and are not called such when they are said to be split on the ground by lightning. This Thunderstone IMHO came from the sky and landed exactly where the sculpture is. It may have been sculpted, but it was not moved there! Remember the stone was said to be in a swamp and weighed much more than 1500 tons as the artisans carved it as they moved it! No, you would remove almost all the excess weight before you moved it to facilitate its travel. The story about its origin is a tissue of lies like most narratives.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    Joined
    Oct 29, 2020
    Messages
    884
    Reaction score
    1,937
    I tend to agree with you. This statue is of one of those roman non-roman giants we can see in many other places.

    An idea of the Thunderstone falling from above is uber interesting. I have never even considered it. Thank you.

    Still wondering what the inscription on the drawing says.
     
    Upvote 0

    Cemen

    New member
    Joined
    Jan 19, 2021
    Messages
    13
    Reaction score
    46
    KD: What date do you think we have on the drawing?
    The date is forged.
    It may turn out incorrectly through a translator, but I will try to explain.

    Date on the monument- ЛЕТА (лѣта) 1782. According to the Julian calendar (which was introduced by Peter the Great in 1700) it should be written- ГОД 1782.

    The word LETA was used in the old chronology (from the creation of the world in the star temple).
    That is, the word denoting the year is taken from the old chronology, and the date is from the birth of Christ from the Julian calendar.

    The correct dates and spelling should look like this:
    ГОД 1782
    or
    лѣта 7000-....and further

    Now let's figure it out a bit with the inscription on the photo.

    The digit is removed, there is a hole or remnants of the attachment.

    Без имени-1.jpg

    We put the missing number and remove the unit glued later.

    Без имени-1.jpg

    We get the date correctly written according to the old chronology- Лѣта 7823 (from the creation of the world).

    By the style of the font, the only suitable number is 7. The numbers 1,8,2 were added later.

    So there was a date starting at 7000 from the creation of the world. Лѣта 7000 (1492) -.........

    What was the date and to whom this monument we now do not know.
    I'm struggling to figure out what date we have displayed on the pedestal. I tried to find a better quality image on the internet, but failed.
     
    Upvote 1
    Joined
    Oct 29, 2020
    Messages
    884
    Reaction score
    1,937
    Appreciate it @Cemen. That’s a very interesting take on this date, as far as dates in 7k’s go.

    I can see what photographs have. At the same time on the drawing, the second digit is not as clear as it is on the old photograph you linked. The digit is either modified 2, semi-erased 8, or a weirdly looking 7. What do you think the second digit on the drawing is?

    The top line on the drawing also appears slightly different if you go letter by letter.
     
    Upvote 0
  • A Avatar
    Info

  • Cemen

    New member
    Joined
    Jan 19, 2021
    Messages
    13
    Reaction score
    46
    Appreciate it @Cemen. That’s a very interesting take on this date, as far as dates in 7k’s go.

    I can see what photographs have. At the same time on the drawing, the second digit is not as clear as it is on the old photograph you linked. The digit is either modified 2, semi-erased 8, or a weirdly looking 7. What do you think the second digit on the drawing is?

    The top line on the drawing also appears slightly different if you go letter by letter.
    It is even impossible to make out the inscription "Peter the Great" in the drawing. I think that the artist who painted the illustration for the book did not see the monument. Just redrawn from some other drawing. What was illegible was redrawn approximately.


    I'll give you another example, a monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow.
    Wrong spelling again. And pay attention to the last number. I think the dates were massively forged to match the official version.

    0236.jpg
     
    Upvote 1
    Solution

    calebans

    New member
    Joined
    Feb 26, 2021
    Messages
    11
    Reaction score
    17
    I am thinking that neither WAS a date. both would be justified text with only the "7" character. especially the one with the aligned middle dot to finish the line.

    perhaps the "7" symbol represents a chevron and not a numeral

    nasa.jpg

    edited after more caffeine
     
    Upvote 0
    Joined
    Oct 29, 2020
    Messages
    884
    Reaction score
    1,937
    By the style of the font, the only suitable number is 7. The numbers 1,8,2 were added later.
    @Cemen. In other words this monument was there prior to the calendar reform, that would mean prior to 1700. It would also mean that it might have been there prior to Peter the Great re-discovering Saint-Petersburg.

    Am I understanding this correctly?
     
    Upvote 0
  • A Avatar
    Info

  • Atlantis

    Member
    Joined
    Jan 9, 2021
    Messages
    27
    Reaction score
    44
    Hmm...this is interesting, and it confirms research I am doing about the before times on earth. Good find!
    I found a more readable copy of Speculum Mundi and I found that my initial impression of his confirmation of "Thunderstones" to be not in alignment with which I know of this topic. First the Order of the Garter author says that these stones are terrestrial in nature and are sucked up into the sky and deposited on the ground. So this normal storm picked up a 1500 ton rock and deposited it in or near St. Petersburg! Not believable. My knowledge of Thunderstones encompasses mythology and practice by ancient peoples. These stones are said to be from the Thunder gods in the sky and in mythology are issued from this vast aerial region above the lower sky. So in the recounting of this base rock of 1500 tons calling it a Thunderstone is by definition saying it was issued from the deep sky by the gods and not terrestrial forces of a typical close earth storm. Because these stones were issued by Thunder gods they had great powers and were used as talismans in many cultures including the Norse peoples. There are myths from peoples around the world that the Thunderstones had war like powers since some of them were shaped like hatchet heads and use of one conveyed great powers in battle. In 1723 Antoine Laurent de Jussieu addressed the French Academy on "The Origin and Uses of Thunder-stones". He showed that recent travelers from various parts of the world had brought a number of weapons and other implements of stone to France, and that they were essentially similar to what in Europe had been known as "thunderstones". The definition from wakipedia says they are a result of lightning, but thunder is a sound not a light phenomenon, so I disagree. I think they carved the Thunderstone in St. Petersburg to hide its providence, but the Thunderstone story here shows its true character and origin.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    Similar articles

    Top