Who really built Russian Saint Petersburg? Did they dig it out?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,380
Likes
2,242
#1
This is like a variation of the same story, no matter where you look. Now it is the Russian City of Saint Petersburg. It actually has a pretty cool legend about how it was founded, and how it was built.

"On 16 May 1703, while looking over sparse marshlands near the mouth of the Baltic Sea that he had taken from the Swedes, Tsar Peter the Great cut two strips of turf from Hare’s Island on the Neva river, laid them in a cross and declared: “Let there be a city here.” As he spoke, an eagle appeared overhead in an auspicious omen.

Peter_the_Great_Saint_Petersberg_founder.jpg

Or at least that’s the myth of St Petersburg’s founding. In reality, Peter the Great wasn’t even there, and most likely neither was the eagle. It was a group of soldiers under the command of his friend, General Alexander Menshikov, who began building what would become the Peter and Paul Fortress on Hare’s Island in May 1703. The tsar only arrived the following month.

But although untrue, this myth perfectly encapsulates the origins of St Petersburg. Built on an inhospitable swamp at the cost of thousands of lives, it was brought into being through the iron will of Peter, who needed a warm-water port and a fortress against the Swedes. Moreover, it was to be his “window to Europe”: a new capital where Peter’s western-inspired reforms of the military, bureaucracy and national culture would take hold." - St Petersburg

* * *
In May of 1703, there supposedly was nothing but swamp where the great City of Saint Petersburg was to stand. The official version states, "The city was built by conscripted peasants from all over Russia; a number of Swedish prisoners of war were also involved in some years under the supervision of Alexander Menshikov. Tens of thousands of serfs died building the city."

Here are the alleged 1698 maps of the Saint Petersburg area.
(swamp with nothing there)
Sait-Petersburg-area-Russia-1698.jpg 1698_map_saint_petersburg.jpg

Saint Petersburg map: 1716, 1717 and 1720
In 1703 Peter the Great said, "Let there be a city here."
13 years later....

Sait-Petersburg-Russia-1716.png 1717_map_saint_petersburg.jpg 1720spb-homann_2.jpg

Peter and Paul Fortress

To put this 13 year achievement into perspective, I will show you this one complex called Peter and "Paul Fortress". On the map it looks like an insignificant star shaped thingy.
Peter and Paul Fortress_1.jpg
Actually, I think walls only will suffice.

Peter and Paul Fortress_2.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_3.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_4.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_5.jpg
Well, and some tunnels are not gona hurt the cause here.

Peter and Paul Fortress_6.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_7.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_8.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_9.jpg Peter and Paul Fortress_10.jpg

Of course we have a bunch of buildings, and a cathedral left. Those you can see here: Peter and Paul Fortress.

Peter and Paul Fortress_plan.jpg

KD Opinion: Given the 13 year time frame, I do not believe it was possible to construct a map full of brick and mortar buildings (yes, those were exactly that). Below I will try to present my opinion as to why.

Note: First of all, there is no bashing on the 18th century Russia below. I could draw the exact same parallel to just about any other country. It's just this time we are talking about Russian Saint Petersburg.

I think that art, equipment, and coins are good indicators of the human abilities within a specific time frame. The life gets reflected through the eyes of the artist. Tools and equipment give an idea of what they are capable off. And the quality of the coins, being that there was no television, internet, etc, are also meant to reflect on the governmental identity.

Now let us see what Russian art has to offer as an insight into what everything was like in the 18th century: people, equipment, road condition, etc. The images will pertain to the 18th, and occasionally early 19th centuries. I understand that 1703 is closer to the 17th century in spirit but some benefit of a doubt would not hurt here.

To make it perfectly clear, I have no idea how those people could have built some of the structures you can see in the below paintings.

Russia_18_century_1.jpg 1778_russia_1.jpg 1789_russia_1.jpg Russia_18_century_3.jpg
1795_russia_1.jpg 1797_russia_1.jpg 1799_russia_1.jpg Moscow_19_century.jpg
1783_russia_1.jpg 1718_russia_1.jpg Russia_18_century_2.jpg 17_century_second_half_Russia.jpg

I think the art above says it all. Modes of transportation are normal for the time frame. Clothing looks normal. The only advanced thing in the paintings is the architecture. Science says they built all that, but did they really?

What could the construction process look like? Would we see any advanced techniques in there allowing the building process to be conducted at at great speed? I was not able to find too many images, but here is what we have.

building_saint_petersburg_russia_2.jpg building_saint_petersburg_russia_1.jpg building_saint_petersburg_russia_3.jpg building_saint_petersburg_russia_4.jpg
Nothing really special we have, just something you would expect from the early 18th century. All attempts to find any paintings of the building construction for the 18th century Russia were unsuccessful.

But we can look into some of the claimed construction techniques used 100 years later, in 1820s. I've heard that Russian alternate history gurus took this construction process apart, and called BS on just about everything. If any Russian readers would like to fill us in, on what's going on there, please do so.

Saint Isaacs Cathedral 1820_plus_1.jpg Saint Isaacs Cathedral 1820_plus_2.jpg Saint Isaacs Cathedral 1820_plus_3.jpg Saint Isaacs Cathedral 1820_plus_4.jpg Saint Isaacs Cathedral 1820_plus_5.jpg Saint Isaacs Cathedral 1820_plus_6.jpg
With the above 19th century technique it would probably take 200 years to build what was achieved between 1703 and 1716 in Saint Petersburg. I also do not think the technique matches the structures. Appears we did not make it too far from the claimed Ancient Egyptian technique.

BuildingPyramids.jpg

Tools: Well, the woodworking tools do not really pertain to what they built. Yet, woodworking were the only tools I was able to find in google.

Tools_18_century_russia.png

Coins: Here is where we run into two distinctive quality levels. This could possibly be attributed to the Tartarian heritage, but there is enough speculation for one thread. I will just say, that this is not time damage related issue. According to my Russian acquaintance, this is an ongoing topic of discussion in Russia. Apparently some of the coins (same time frame) do not match to the Kings (Tsars), have unexplanable units of currency, and greatly differ in quality.

Level 1.

Russian_coin_1_1700_1.jpg Russian_coin_1_1722_2.png Russian_coin_1_1722_1.png Russian_coin_1_1725_1.jpg Russian_coin_1_1729_1.JPG

Level 2.

Russian_coin_2_1700.jpg Russian_coin_2_1700_1.png Russian_coin_2_1704.jpg Russian_coin_2_1741.jpg
Russian_coin_2_1744.jpg Russian_coin_2_1746.png Russian_coin_2_1755.jpg Russian_coin_2_1758.jpg

* * * * *

Engravings
I was unable to find any paintings, but here are some of the engravings covering 1714 - 1716.

Sait-Petersburg-Russia-1716_X_4.jpg Sait-Petersburg-Russia-1714_1.jpg Sait-Petersburg-Russia-1716_X_1.jpg Sait-Petersburg-Russia-1716_X_3.jpg Sait-Petersburg-Russia-1716_X_2.jpg

To even get to the point where some sort of construction would be possible, they would have to get rid of the swamps, and marshlands. Then it would be the turn of building up infrastructure (roads, bridges, docks, brick factories, etc). In 1703...

A little summary: Was it possible for Russian people of the early 18th century to build all those structures we can see on the 1716 map. Sure was, but than there would have to be something in our history we are not being told about.

I personally think the City was already there. Older maps reveal the truth.

Ptolemy_edition_1535.png Anthony Jenkinson_1562.png Ortelius_1570_map.png Mercator_1595_map.png
But that leaves us with two questions:

1. What is the price of our history? ... and the meaning for that matter.

2. Who and why was faking our documents similar to the below Saint Petersburg maps, created in the19th century by the same author?

1700_saint_petersburg.jpg 1705_saint_petersburg.jpg 1725_saint_petersburg.jpg 1738_saint_petersburg.jpg
1756_saint_petersburg.jpg 1777_saint_petersburg.jpg 1799_saint_petersburg.jpg 1840_saint_petersburg.jpg 1849_saint_petersburg.jpg

Bizarre things were happening in 1703
(look at this map)
1703_map_saint_petersburg.jpg
 

The Kraken

Active member
Messages
66
Likes
171
#2
Ok. Been stewing on this all evening.

Building a city of this size and grandeur in 13 years and losing thousands of guys is not likely .

I do like the idea of them digging it out.

They knew it was there and just unearthed it.

Hard labour like digging could easily kill that many men.

I dont see long hours brick laying being fatal for even slaves
Looking at a this. Directly to the right of the city could be a dump ?

. Screenshot_20180506-231016.png

Not being a map guy I might just be trying to find my guess in the evidence instead of the evidence showing me the truth .
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,380
Likes
2,242
#3
I think you got it my friend. I never even thought to look at the elevation levels from the stand point of dirt removal.

Saint Petersburg is known as "the city built on bones". Everyone assumes those are the bones of the builders, because historians believe the remains of some 100,000 18th-century serfs are buried beneath its streets.

Could those be the bones of the original inhabitants?
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
591
Likes
298
#4
very bizzare those pictures look very post-apocalyptic
also makes sense that they just digged it out from the ground
 

eazygreen

New member
Messages
1
Likes
2
#5
Pictures you find from 1820 are the part of 2 graphic albums painted by Auguste de Montferrand; Oficial history calls him an architector of The Alexander Column and Saint Isaac's Cathedral or Isaakievskiy Sobor, but there are lot of things that prove hi is not. Good research you can find here Противоречия и абсурд официальной версии строительства Петербурга. It's in russian but i still believe you have an access to google translate. See ya
 

The Kraken

Active member
Messages
66
Likes
171
#6
I think you got it my friend. I never even thought to look at the elevation levels from the stand point of dirt removal.

Saint Petersburg is known as "the city built on bones". Everyone assumes those are the bones of the builders, because historians believe the remains of some 100,000 18th-century serfs are buried beneath its streets.

Could those be the bones of the original inhabitants?
I tried looking into farmland around the city based on Bones being ground and used for fertilizer in New Zealand

"Eden Mill in the Auckland suburb of Onehunga, after it was abandoned. It was first built by William Mason in 1843 for grinding grain. When a more efficient water powered mill was created, this windmill passed into the ownership of others including Mr. Robert Robertson in the 1860's. For over a decade, under his ownership, it was used to grind up the skeletal remains of countless generations of Patu-paiarehe into fertiliser. Many tens of thousands of skeletons were removed from the Auckland burial caves for this purpose and sold to the mill. Maori of the time had no concerns about the fate of these "Tangata Whenua" bones and openly stated to the authorities, 'Do as you wish [with these bones], for these are not our people'. Caches of these skeletons still remain around the city or on the outlying islands. In a world where proper scientific investigation was remotely possible, the skeletons of the ancient New Zealanders would be studied to determine their physical anthropology and ethnic origins." - Link

But not speaking russian all i get is tourist vistas and Farm for sale listings.
Asking a local about farm gossip would be helpful.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,380
Likes
2,242
#7
I tried looking into farmland around the city based on Bones being ground and used for fertilizer in New Zealand

"Eden Mill in the Auckland suburb of Onehunga, after it was abandoned. It was first built by William Mason in 1843 for grinding grain. When a more efficient water powered mill was created, this windmill passed into the ownership of others including Mr. Robert Robertson in the 1860's. For over a decade, under his ownership, it was used to grind up the skeletal remains of countless generations of Patu-paiarehe into fertiliser. Many tens of thousands of skeletons were removed from the Auckland burial caves for this purpose and sold to the mill. Maori of the time had no concerns about the fate of these "Tangata Whenua" bones and openly stated to the authorities, 'Do as you wish [with these bones], for these are not our people'. Caches of these skeletons still remain around the city or on the outlying islands. In a world where proper scientific investigation was remotely possible, the skeletons of the ancient New Zealanders would be studied to determine their physical anthropology and ethnic origins." - Link

But not speaking russian all i get is tourist vistas and Farm for sale listings. Asking a local about farm gossip would be helpful.
Something tells me those skeletal remains could have belonged to some other ethnic group.
 

The Kraken

Active member
Messages
66
Likes
171
#8
Something tells me those skeletal remains could have belonged to some other ethnic group.
This could go on for days.
In school here i was taught about the maoriori a pre maori civilization (since shown to be Celtic. This guy goes into huge depth. http://www.celticnz.co.nz/) who where murdered eaten and replaced by the current accepted Maori .
This changed in the late 90s ( News article.) Now renamed to moriori a Maori sub tribe in the Chatham islands. Wiki.
Also many many contempary giant storys 1875 newspaper.

Our small nation has had a lot covered up
 

in cahoots

Active member
Messages
77
Likes
191
#14
It is amazing what 6 Dudes Pulling Rocks and thousands of cubic feet of unattended scaffolding can accomplish!

Unburial theories work in the instances of say Gobekli Tepe or Derinkuyu. These sites were intentionally hidden in sand and rock to preserve them for later discovery. I am open to the idea that Saint Petersburg was just an incorporation of some preexisting settlement, but I have my doubts that St Petersburg would have been unburied, as wet earth is so incredibly heavy to move. Perhaps if you could superheat it to dry it out?
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,380
Likes
2,242
#15
It is amazing what 6 Dudes Pulling Rocks and thousands of cubic feet of unattended scaffolding can accomplish!

Unburial theories work in the instances of say Gobekli Tepe or Derinkuyu. These sites were intentionally hidden in sand and rock to preserve them for later discovery. I am open to the idea that Saint Petersburg was just an incorporation of some preexisting settlement, but I have my doubts that St Petersburg would have been unburied, as wet earth is so incredibly heavy to move. Perhaps if you could superheat it to dry it out?
Agree. The main idea here is the impossibility of the claimed achievement. Where the city was kept, and why it was not widely known is highly debatable.

Additionally why is there such a strongly pronounced Roman theme?

Peter the Great is supposed to be a Russian Tsar, yet his monument depicts some Roman guy wearing toga, and sporting a gladius sword. Did they just replace the head?

bronze-horseman.jpg
 

The Kraken

Active member
Messages
66
Likes
171
#16
It is amazing what 6 Dudes Pulling Rocks and thousands of cubic feet of unattended scaffolding can accomplish!

Unburial theories work in the instances of say Gobekli Tepe or Derinkuyu. These sites were intentionally hidden in sand and rock to preserve them for later discovery. I am open to the idea that Saint Petersburg was just an incorporation of some preexisting settlement, but I have my doubts that St Petersburg would have been unburied, as wet earth is so incredibly heavy to move. Perhaps if you could superheat it to dry it out?
But thats the point. The hard labour killed thousands of people. Using unskilled slave labour to dig dirt makes more sense than using the same slaves to build a full city in the same time period.
 
OP
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
1,380
Likes
2,242
#17
But thats the point. The hard labour killed thousands of people. Using unskilled slave labour to dig dirt makes more sense than using the same slaves to build a full city in the same time period.
We would need to observe the damage, which had to be considerable if the city was in the dirt for a long time.

Unless of course, there was a recent catastrophe and they knew exactly what was there, and why it was worth excavation. I really liked your elevation chart. Appears telling.

Saint_Petersburg_Elevation.png
Also Peter the Greats Russian calendar change to year 1700, insteаd of 7207, plays into the weirdness of the situation.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
591
Likes
298
#18
Agree. The main idea here is the impossibility of the claimed achievement. Where the city was kept, and why it was not widely known is highly debatable.

Additionally why is there such a strongly pronounced Roman theme?

Peter the Great is supposed to be a Russian Tsar, yet his monument depicts some Roman guy wearing toga, and sporting a gladius sword. Did they just replace the head?

or maybe there was no russia to start with, just rome and the tartarians
 

CyborgNinja

Well-known member
Messages
119
Likes
320
#20
Peter the Great is supposed to be a Russian Tsar, yet his monument depicts some Roman guy wearing toga, and sporting a gladius sword. Did they just replace the head?
That statue is truly bizarre. It is a "roman" guy on a horse, trampling on a snake/serpent/dragon. It's that St. GEORGE character. Patron saint of England who nobody knows anyrhing about or why he's the patron saint of England.
1200px-The_Bronze_Horseman_(St._Petersburg,_Russia).jpg United-Kingdom-Coins-1902-Edward-VII-St-George-Slaying-The-Dragon-Crown-Brass-Silver-Plated-Copy.jpg 8403c3d294c6e101b334346e6d6191af.jpg
He allegedly grew up in the middle east. What is now turkey before the land was taken over.

I don't know who he is but he is bigly important. Hence the massive statue of him among all the other artifacts you find him on.
 
Top